Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard.

Mr. TIAHRT. I appreciate the chairman and his accuracy on what he is reserving a point of order on. However, I would like to point out that we have other issues pending that are also subject to a point of order. It seems arbitrary to me that we do not let the House work its will on Mr. Doolittle's efforts, and yet we move forward on other areas which are under the same point of order, and we expect some comity.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I think that this is an arbitrary reservation on a point of order, and because other similar issues are pending, that it should be withdrawn so that we can move on and let the House work its will.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, we have an issue pending which is going to come up, I think, rather quickly, from the gentleman from Oregon who is worried about the very same issue, and he's coming at it from a slightly different angle. And, yes, the gentleman from California was having offsets for his cuts, but I see no ill will in allowing the House to work its will on Mr. Doolittle's amendment, which affects Western States deeply. It's very similar to what the gentleman from Oregon is also trying to do, so why don't we just let both of them go, let the House work its will?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. TIAHRT. I'd like to yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. TIAHRT. Reclaiming my time, I just want to point out to the chairman that we're now picking winners and losers, and it's an arbitrary decision. And if we allowed the House to work its will, I think the gentleman would be successful and his worries would be abated. But right now we've gone into this selection process of who's going to win and who's going to lose. The gentleman from California loses, the other gentleman from Oregon wins. And I don't think that's right. I think we ought to have a consistent manner to move forward.

Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. TIAHRT. Well, reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I believe that we're being inconsistent here. And I would hope for some consistency in the way we administer these areas where we have a point of order that can be reserved or can't be reserved. I think you should let the House work its will. And when we make some winners that are chosen on your side, and then we arbitrarily choose not to allow Republicans to have the same opportunity, I think it's unfair. I would like some consistency in all the appropriations bills and not just this one. And here we have a very critical need that affects both Republicans and Democrats. It's a critical need in these areas. And as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) can tell you, it's going to be a big problem for him as well. So I just want some consistency here and allow the gentleman from California to have the House work its will.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, we have, I think, a real crisis in the rural areas, and I do not blame the Members for using every means available to them to try to solve the problems in their districts. And I know it's not your responsibility to do it, but we've come through for these folks in the past, and I would just ask consideration in the future.

Mr. TIAHRT. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. TIAHRT. I understand the difficulty in it, but it was off-set. And the chairman of the Interior Committee did not like the offsets, and that's why he pushed the point of order. But it's just a different priority. And I have to say that is a pretty high priority. I yield back.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I was just curious as to which line this amount was coming from and where it is going to because the amendment I have just says it decreases $1 million and it increases $1 million.

Mr. TIAHRT. Okay. I have no problem with that.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Under the current law, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permits, under very stringent rules, the importation of bear parts for trophies. But this is only allowed from an approved management area in Canada. Importation from other countries is prohibited because they are covered by the CITES, or Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species. Also allowed under current law, other exemptions are permitted, but limited to Native American purposes, for medicines, for religious reasons and for certain scientific purposes. All of these require a permit from the Fish and Wildlife Service. And as far as the committee knows, the Fish and Wildlife Service is doing a very good job. I also have a letter from the Canadian embassy. The Canadian Government is opposed to banning the polar bear trophy imports. Canada has strong opposition to this amendment, where two-thirds of the world's polar bear population exists. Now they're studying this through their endangered species group. We are studying this, as far as America is concerned, under our Endangered Species Act. And these two reviews are just about to be done. So this amendment is actually premature. And knowing that these two studies are pending, the Canadian Government has decided to oppose this. So I think this is premature. It should probably wait until next year, or they should just wait until the governments of the United States and Canada come to a conclusion. Also, I want to note for the record that there are groups that are opposed to this amendment. These groups, besides the Canadian Government, include the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the National Rifle Association, Boone & Crockett Club, Congressional Sportsmen Foundation, the Conservation Force, the North American Bear Foundation and the Wildlife Management Institute, among others. So I think it is very important that we allow top scientists in both the United States Geological Survey and the Fish and Wildlife Service do their polar bear population studies and see what problems exist before we start to limit what's going on under the current situation. So I think it's premature. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIAHRT. I just want to remind the gentleman from Washington, it's not a loophole, it's the law today. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.