Right-to-Ride Livestock on Federal Lands Act of 2005

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 586) to preserve the use and access of pack and saddle stock animals on public lands, including wilderness areas, national monuments, and other specifically designated areas, administered by the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Forest Service where there is a historical tradition of such use, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am the author of H.R. 586, which is identical to the legislation that passed the House of Representatives in the 108th Congress. This bill would preserve the use and access of pack and saddle stock animals on our public lands where there is a historic traditional use.

Perhaps no other activity is more synonymous with the exploration of our vast open lands than that of the use of pack and saddle stock. Who could forget those images of President Teddy Roosevelt and John Muir on horseback at what was to become the Grand Canyon and Yosemite National Parks?

While some may claim that this bill singles out pack and saddle use and affords it greater consideration than other forms of recreation or commercial use, I would argue that the pack and saddle use has played a fair and greater historic role on our public lands, particularly in our western States than simply recreation. What may be perceived by some today as recreation was once a vital part of everyday living throughout our Nation's history.

In addition, this bill in no way diminishes the Secretary of the Interior's ability to implement emergency closures or permanent reductions in the use and access of these pack and stock animals after complying with the full public review process required under the National Environmental Policy Act.

H.R. 586 codifies our commitment to access and to preserving one of the most fundamental and truly historic ways to experience our public lands. I urge its adoption.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to introduce into the Record a letter from Chairman Goodlatte of Virginia. The Committee on Agriculture also received jurisdiction on this bill.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, May 15, 2006.

Hon. Richard Pombo,

Chairman, Committee on Resources,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for notifying the Committee on

Agriculture with regards to your intention to move H.R. 586,

a bill entitled as the ``Right-to Ride Livestock on Federal

Lands Act of 2005'', under suspension of the rules.

As you are aware, the Committee on Agriculture received an

additional referral of this legislation on those provisions

of H.R. 586 that fall within this Committee's jurisdiction.

However, after conferring with Chairman Gutknecht of the

Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition,

and Forestry, I will be glad to waive further consideration

of this measure so as to allow its timely consideration by

the entire House of Representatives.

This action is not intended to waive this Committee's

jurisdiction over this matter for all purposes, and in the

event a conference with the Senate is requested in this

matter, I would ask you to support the Committee on

Agriculture's request to be represented.

Thank you very much for your courtesy in this matter and I

look forward to continued cooperation between our Committees

as we deal with these issues in the future.

Sincerely,

Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as the Ranking Democratic Member of the Resources Committee I would first observe that we on this side of the aisle also cherish the proud American tradition of horsemanship.

Whether it be thoroughbreds--and a potential Triple Crown winner this year possibly in the making judging from Barbaro's smashing performance in the Kentucky Derby--Appaloosas, Arabians, Clydesdales, our wild Mustangs on the Western Plains, Palominos, and even the Chincoteague Pony made famous by the book ``Misty,'' our country's history and indeed, still in the present, is deeply intertwined with the horse.

With that noted, while we will not object to the consideration of H.R. 586 today, there are certain problems with the legislation. In effect, the bill hampers the ability of local federal land managers to administer trails under their jurisdiction in a flexible fashion taking into account changed local circumstances. In effect, the pending bill says that trails historically open to pack and saddle stock horses shall always remain open to them within units of our National Park System, National Forest System, Wildlife Refuges and BLM lands. This not only ties the hands of the local land managers to make adjustments if warranted, but appears to be a nationwide rubber stamp approach to what has not been a national problem with respect to public trail usage.

I would observe there is one out, one means to make a change in the horse first rule this legislation advances, and that would be to go through a full-scale review under the National Environmental Policy Act. Here, I applaud those of my colleagues who are promoting this legislation because many of these have consistently voted in the Resources Committee to overturn, override, and exempt the application of NEPA to other matters.

I am also concerned about the precedent we are setting here. It is my understanding that the American Horse Council fully backs the pending bill. A noble organization, which does good service for the equine community. Yet, what if the American Motorcyclist Association catches wind of this bill. Can we expect a counter proposal from them, to make trails open to off-road motorcycles also deemed to be the highest and best use of public trails. I would expect their members would not want to be viewed as second class citizens when it comes to trail use. And the hikers, the bikers, the ATV groups. The list goes on.

With that Madam Speaker, I have some trepidation over the course this legislation sets, and this comes from a gentleman who is a strong defender of our horse tradition in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a strong cosponsor of H.R. 586, the Right-to-Ride Livestock on Federal Lands Act of 2005.

Pack and saddle stock animals were a critical element in many early Americans' livelihood. This bill will preserve their traditional, cultural and historic use of these lands and facilitate the continued access of pack and saddle stock animals on parts of National Park System, Bureau of Land Management lands, National Wildlife Refuge lands and the U.S. Forest System. This legislation will also ensure that any proposed reduction of these uses will undergo the full review process required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Defining managed recreation of this historical practice within our national forests is critical in recognizing the cultural contributions and precedent of pack and saddle stock in our public lands above simple recreational use.

In my congressional district in Tennessee, I have spoken with many of my constituents whose families have spent generations riding horseback through our National Forest trails. Especially in this age of the internet, television and video games, it is vital that we enhance opportunities for people of all ages to come and engage in outdoor activities in America's backyard.

I believe that horse and saddle stock hold a unique place in our heritage. We must pass this bill to ensure its historical preservation and continued enjoyment as a national pastime.

I want to thank the sponsor of this legislation for his support of this important issue and hope that all members can support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I an exchange of letters between Don Young and Richard Pombo for the Record.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Resources,

Washington, DC, September 28, 2006.

Hon. Don Young,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I have reviewed the text of H.R. 5681,

the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2006, and believe that

the Committee on Resources has a jurisdictional interest in

provisions in this important legislation dealing with

fisheries. Specifically, we have identified a provision

dealing with the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab fishery

in the Northern Region of the management plan.

Recognizing that the House of Representatives has a

dwindling number of legislative days left before the 109th

Congress adjourns, I will forego seeking a sequential

referral of H.R. 5681. Waiving the Committee on Resources'

right to a referral in this case does not waive the

Committee's jurisdiction over any provision in H.R. 5861 or

similar provisions in other bills. In addition, I ask that

you support my request to have the Committee on Resources

represented on the conference on this bill, if a conference

is necessary. Finally, I ask that you include this letter in

the Congressional Record during debate on H.R. 5861 when it

is considered by the House of Representatives.

I appreciate your leadership on this bill and I look

forward to working with you on H.R. 586.

Sincerely,

Richard W. Pombo,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, H.R. 586 has a checkered history. While there has been no action by the Resources Committee on the legislation in this Congress, questions and concerns were raised about identical legislation in the last session of Congress. In fact, the Bush administration has gone on record saying the legislation was both unnecessary and unwise.

Numerous recreational uses occur on our public lands, including hunting, fishing, hiking, camping. Singling out the recreational use of pack and saddle animals for special treatment creates the potential for conflict with these other recreational uses and complicates resource management of the public lands. At the very least, I think the Resources Committee should take time out of our schedule this session to explore the ramifications of what is being requested here. This will be the only recreational use codified in law.

With this noted, however, I will not object to the further consideration of this measure at this time. I appreciate my good friend and gentleman from California's interest in the subject. In fact, our office has received some e-mails and letters on this very subject ourselves.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.