Todd Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I think to strike this because it authorizes on an appropriations bill would be duplicative of what the current language does. It also authorizes on an appropriations bill, so I think the amendment should be made in order.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for taking an issue that is so important to his district and really important to the kids in that area that have been exposed to mercury and would join with the chairman in supporting your amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The administration proposed the rule, and the reason for it is simple, and it is to provide incentives and to encourage industry to lower emissions. It reminds me of the story when the Kansan went over across the river to visit Missouri. The story goes that he took the ferry across, and he was picked up by a gentleman who had a cart with a mule in front of it. The gentleman was dangling a carrot in front of the mule. The mule would move forward, and that incentive got the mule to move. So he went down to the courthouse in Saint Joseph, and he conducted his business. Then he went back out to get a ride back to the ferry, and there was another gentleman with a cart and a mule. So he hopped in the back of the cart and he said, I would like to go back to the ferry. And the mule skinner said, ``Giddyap,'' and the mule did not move. So he got out of the car and he pulled out a 2 by 4, and he whacked the mule in the head. The guy from Kansas said, ``well, why'd you do that.'' He said, ``well, I had to get the mule's attention.'' He got back in the cart, and he said, ``Giddyap.'' The man from Kansas said, ``Wouldn't it have been better if you gave the mule an incentive, like a carrot,'' and he explained the whole story. Well, Mr. Chairman, the companies have no incentives under the old Clinton policy to reduce pollution, because once designated as a major source, they are always designated as a major source. As a result, companies are stuck at certain levels of pollution and not provided with any incentive, no carrot whatsoever to lower their emissions below that level. Over the last decade, pollution prevention methods have changed, and many companies are now embracing the economics of environmental protection. EPA is currently reviewing the public comments on this proposed rule, and we should allow that process to move forward. The bottom line is, if there is even a chance that this proposed rule would encourage more sources to strive for additional reductions of toxic air pollution with these new incentives, then we should encourage that action. I therefore urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TIAHRT. I just wanted to mention to the chairman and to the House that even though this is a sense of Congress, I think that it is opposed enough in the way it is worded that the amendment should be agreed to and the language should be stricken. For example, in the very beginning, where, number one, it says, ``greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere are causing average temperatures to rise at a rate outside the range of natural variability,'' we had a lot of testimony in this Subcommittee of Interior about this very issue. It was very clear that the scientists that study this say that we have large gaps in the scientific data, and it is still inconclusive. One of the great examples of this is the ocean itself. The ocean itself is a carbon bank. It retains carbon sometimes. When it gets warmer, it actually allows carbon to go up into the atmosphere in the form of CO2. That in itself brings the question whether carbon in our atmosphere is a cause of heat or whether heat is a cause of carbon in the air. If you look at the core samples that are found in the Antarctic which have been drilled down to go back and date what our environment was like hundreds of thousands of years ago, we find that there is a high carbon content in our atmosphere when our earth was warmer. And we do know that our earth is getting warmer. In fact, 10,000 years ago, Kansas was covered by a sheet of ice. Just a weekend ago or so, I was back there playing golf, and I can tell you for sure, there is no ice covering the State of Kansas today. Why? Because the earth is getting warmer. But for us to say that the cause is human-induced raises the question. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change when they looked at it this year, revised their estimate of the ocean going up because of climate change, from going up to 36 inches. They revised it downward to only going up 17 inches. So that means that they were half off. They said that, as far as climate change, it's human-induced, and they have a 90 percent confidence level. Well, if that's based on their estimate of what the water level is going to be 10 years or 50 years from now, then they are admittedly 50 percent off, so that means they've only got a 45 percent confidence level. That means less than half. My point is that there is no growing scientific consensus on the cause of climate change. In fact, it may be a normal cycle that we're going through. And, in fact, it may be a cycle that is moving us into a cooler climate rather than a warmer climate. So this language, I think, makes assumptions that are based on data that is inconclusive. The scientists tell us there are gaps in the data. It certainly isn't a consensus of Congress from my view. So I would think that we should adopt the gentleman's amendment. I would yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, there are really two ways to proliferate wolves, one is in the wild, where they respect their distance from humans, and the other is in captivity, where they have no respect for humans. The Mexican wolves have been propagated and proliferated in captivity, and as a result, they encroach into areas that put humans at risk. I think the gentleman from New Mexico has brought up a valid concern because these isolated problems are now coming home to people who live in this area and having to carry firearms with them everywhere they go. I would like to yield to the gentleman from New Mexico to let him complete his point.

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

Mr. TIAHRT. I wanted to congratulate the gentlewoman on a fine amendment. We have no problems with it.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I do not have any objection to this amendment, and I would commend the chairman on his leadership in this area.

Mr. TIAHRT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I also want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois for his persistence in pursuing environmental issues in the Illinois area as well as across the United States. It is very important that we have clean air and clean water for our children and grandchildren. The gentleman's leadership has been excellent. Also I want to acknowledge his special recognition of the Great Lakes and taking care of them. He has been worried about the fish life as well as the quality of the water. I congratulate the gentleman in these efforts there.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut for working with the committee on this very important issue. Truly they have a backlog. Without your looking into this issue, we never would have made the kind of progress that is going to be made because of your efforts. So I want to congratulate the gentleman, and I have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT. I would like to say I have no objection to this, and I appreciate the gentlemen from New York and New Jersey for attempting to open up the steps of Liberty once again.

Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida and commend him on his leadership on this issue and also the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). I think this is a very important time in American history that we need to capture and preserve for future generations. So congratulations. We have no objection to this amendment.

Mr. TIAHRT

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

Mr. TIAHRT. I want to thank the gentleman from New York. This is a very important monitoring program. The gentleman from New York has made a very reasonable request. I want to thank him. I know he's been very concerned about environmental issues all across the Nation as well as in New York. I thank him for his leadership. We have no objection to this amendment and thank the gentleman for offering it.

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

Mr. TIAHRT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the concept is to not increase the amount of the bill but to rebalance it so that it is a more balanced bill that would take into consideration some of the needs of the people in the Western States, which I think is a fair debate for us to have on the floor. Some of these local communities have had very difficult times. But in order to move the bill along, I will yield back the balance of my time so that we can get on with the other issues.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, there are some people on their way down here that wanted to talk about a very important issue related to the Department of Agriculture related to Payment in Lieu of Taxes, which is an issue that has been very important to many members of the committee, especially the Western Caucus. And in that problem we have seen several charts that have been brought forward. One of them showed all of the Federal lands that are in the Western States and because of those Federal lands, they are unable to assess taxes for their local communities and including their schools. So at this point in time, it seems like it is a very pertinent time for us to deal with the PILT issue. And I know, Mr. Chairman, when we heard testimony about Payment in Lieu of Taxes, it was a great hardship on the local communities, especially the schools. We should give our Members an opportunity to talk about their particular communities and the needs that they have. I think it is important for us to think about how we are going to make an equitable situation for these Western States where they have problems in those areas.

Mr. TIAHRT

Mr. TIAHRT. I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from California and the gentleman from Michigan for bringing this amendment here. The Energy Star Program has been a very successful program, and it has saved the American taxpayers many, many dollars already. I think this program, again, will get into the billions. It's something that we need to have as part of an overall comprehensive energy plan. So I commend them on their amendment and encourage the passage of it by voice.

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

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. I am also a fiscal conservative, but I think this amendment is misdirected. We should not limit the funds to do proper forest management on the Tongass. Some limited road building is needed to take care of the land. The Tongass National Forest is, indeed, a wonderful place. But under the existing forest management, approximately 90 percent of the 16.8 million acre forest, over 15 million acres is roadless and undeveloped. Only 4 percent of the forest is suitable for commercial timber harvest, and only half of that area is within the inventoried roadless areas. The amendment would prevent the Forest Service from doing road maintenance on a large area of southeast Alaska. Most of these communities have no road access to the outside world, but they need the Forest Service roads to get around during their daily activities. This amendment would also harm a variety of forestry, recreation and wildlife conservation activities by preventing the proper road maintenance. The existing forest plan allows timber harvest on only 300,000 acres, only about 2 percent of the more than 15 million total acres of roadless area on the forest. I have a letter here from the United States Department of Agriculture, and it's from a person called the forest supervisor up in Tongass. He said we have heard the figure today that there was $40 million lost each year. He says from fiscal year 2005 to 2006, the Tongass spent $2.4 million less on roads, reducing the level from $10 million to $7.8 million; from 2006 to 2007, the program reduced further to $6.1 million. All told, over the past 3 years, the forest has cut spending by $4.1 million to less than 50 percent. So I don't know where the $40 million per year figure came from when they are only spending $6.1 million this year on the roads. In addition, when you add up all the jobs, according to the Forest Service, it's about 1,000 jobs that are at risk with this legislation. This, by also prohibiting roads, also makes the forest more vulnerable to forest fires. So if you love the forest, if you love the bounty, if you love the beauty, then oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I also would request my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.