Restore the Partnership Act of 2009

Mr. President, I was pleased to attend today's Presidential signing ceremony for the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009, H.R. 146. In signing the act into law, President Obama underscored the Nation's commitment to serve as a responsible steward of our public lands and cultural and natural resources.

As a bipartisan package of more than 160 individual bills, the enactment of this act culminates many hours of congressional hearings, deliberation, and debate. As the former chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, I was proud to have chaired hearings on individual measures in the act and to have worked with my colleagues in the House and Senate to put together a public lands package that confirms our Nation's desire to ensure that future generations will enjoy and benefit from the preservation of natural resources and historic sites.

I join those who have praised this momentous act for setting aside more than 2 million acres of land as protected wilderness and more than 1,000 miles of wild and scenic rivers. It is important to note that this act also is invaluable in protecting, preserving, and memorializing our country's cultural heritage and natural resources. This act contains four provisions that I sponsored during the 110th Congress which acknowledge the historical contributions made by Native Hawaiians as well as the need to preserve Hawaii's unique heritage and biodiversity for future generations: H.R. 3332, the Kalaupapa Memorial Act; S. 1728, the Na Hoa Pili O Kaloko-Honokohau Advisory Commission Reauthorization Act; S. 2220, the Outdoor Recreation Act of 1963 Amendments Act; and S. 320, the Paleontological Resource Preservation Act, which preserves fossils across the Nation. In addition, it includes a bill that I cosponsored, S. 1680, the Izembek and Alaska Peninsula Refuge Enhancement Act of 2008, which addresses the needs of a rural and indigenous Alaska Native community.

Section 7108 authorizes a memorial to be established at Kalaupapa National Historical Park, which is located on a remote peninsula on the island of Molokai. This long overdue memorial will honor and perpetuate the memory of those Hansen's disease patients who were forcibly relocated to the Kalaupapa community, many of whom were buried with no marked grave. This measure authorizes a nonprofit organization, Ka `Ohana O Kalaupapa, consisting of the remaining Kalaupapa residents and the family and friends of current and past residents, to establish a memorial at a suitable location in the Park for the 8,000 residents who lived at the Kalaupapa and Kalawao communities. This monument empowers the people of Kalaupapa to share their story and the lessons learned as the community came together to overcome their hardships. Previously only recognized as a place of isolation, this monument will transform Kalaupapa into a place of healing, education, and contemplation connecting families to their ancestors.

The Na Hoa Pili O Kaloko-Honokohau Advisory Commission Reauthorization Act, section 7401, extends the authorization for the National Park's advisory commission through 2018. Located on the western coast of the island of Hawaii, Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park was established in 1978 to provide for the preservation, interpretation, and perpetuation of the Park's cultural and natural features. The Advisory Commission has played an integral role in advising the National Park Service to provide for the education, enjoyment, and appreciation of traditional Native Hawaiian activities and culture within the Park.

The Kaloko-Honokohau Park is a unique part of the Hawaii National Park System as it is home to two types of fish ponds, as well as the `Ai `opio fish trap, a 1.7-acre pond comprised of a manmade stone and coral wall along the naturally curving shoreline. These are treasured sites not only from a cultural stand point demonstrating the ingenuity of Native Hawaiians in engineering these fishponds but also from a resource management perspective on how in the 21st century we can utilize such traditional knowledge to enhance our understanding and shape our management practices today.

Recognizing the importance of the `Ai `opio fish trap, in 2008 the National Park Service Save America's Treasure program awarded a $350,000 grant to Project Ola `Ai `opio, a Park Service initiative to restore the fish trap. Ocean waves and erosion have endangered the structural integrity of the trap and the grant will be used to methodically stabilize the kuapa--fish trap walls--over a 12-month period. This award not only aids in preservation of the fish trap but also ensures that visitors will be able to appreciate Hawaii's unique historical and cultural heritage into the future.

Section 13006 of the act contains my bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2008 through 2017 in the amount of $5 million for the operation and maintenance of the National Tropical Botanical Garden. A congressional charter established the National Tropical Botanical Garden in 1964 to foster horticultural research, education, and plant preservation. This authorization enables the National Tropical Botanical Garden to meet its Federal mandate and preserve unique species found only in Hawaii for the benefit of future generations. The National Tropical Botanical Garden has proven itself to be a significant national and international resource. The tranquil beauty offered by its gardens, collection of rare and endangered plant life, focused library and herbarium collections, scientific research, conservation initiatives, and education programs have all benefited the United States.

The National Tropical Botanical Garden is expressly mandated to foster and encourage research of tropical flora in agriculture, forestry, horticulture, medicine, and other sciences for the benefit of all the people in the United States. It is a national resource for biological science. Most recently, in 2008, it discovered Bilirubin, an animal pigment, in plants. This important discovery documented for the first time that an animal pigment is naturally occurring in the seed of the white bird of paradise tree.

The National Tropical Botanical Garden is a national resource for education and career development. Over four decades, it has developed a full spectrum of educational offerings that provide opportunities for the next generation of scientists. Over 5,000 school-aged children are educated each year in conservation principles and practices. The Horticultural Internship Program trains undergraduates in horticulture, botany, and conservation.

In addition, the National Tropical Botanical Garden is a national resource for medical research. Its researchers have developed and hold patents on a potential anti-HIV drug called Prostratin that is currently going through clinical trials and are also working to find the cause for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. Once a year, it holds a course accredited by the American Medical Association that provides 16 credits to medical professionals in herbal remedies derived from plants. By enacting this provision into law, I am hopeful that the National Tropical Botanical Garden will be able to continue with its important work for years to come.

The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act, title VI, subtitle D, helps protect and preserve the Nation's important fossil resources that are found on Federal lands for the benefit of our citizens. As a matter of clarification, this bill covers only paleontological remains on Federal lands and in no way affects archaeological or cultural resources under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 or the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

The provision to preserve paleontological resources, in its original and amended form, never intended to undermine the current practice of casual collecting that is being enjoyed on Federal lands. Notwithstanding the educational benefits and the major fossil discoveries made by amateur collectors and curio hunters, this title addresses the increasing problem of intentional fossil theft on Federal lands. Vertebrate fossils are rare and important natural resources that have become increasingly endangered due to an increase in the illegal collection of fossil specimens for commercial sale. Recognizing that there was no unified policy regarding the treatment of fossils by Federal land management agencies, I worked to include this provision in the act to help protect and conserve fossil specimen, a valuable scientific resource. This act will provide uniformity to the patchwork of statutes and regulations that previously existed. Further, it will create a comprehensive national policy for preserving and managing fossils and other artifacts found on Federal land, and will prevent future illegal trade.

Title VI, subtitle E, the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge Land Exchange, addresses the needs of a rural and indigenous Alaska Native community. This subtitle allows developing a road that would provide dependable and safe year-round access for the residents of King Cove in Alaska to the nearby Cold Bay Airport. I believe that the 800 residents of King Cove, most of which are native Aleut, have an absolute right to a reliable means of transport that is accessible under all weather conditions. This provision will help address many of the community's safety, health, and medical concerns. The United States has a responsibility to its indigenous people, and I am proud this provision will enable this community and appropriate State and Federal stakeholders to move forward on this initiative.

Passage of this act was an extensive, challenging, but ultimately fulfilling journey, and I am pleased with today's enactment of the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009 into law. I am confident this act will promote and strengthen opportunities to preserve Hawaii's and the Nation's environmental and cultural heritage. This landmark Act will serve as a stable foundation for us to continue to build upon.

Madam President, today the Senate will pass a comprehensive public lands bill that will protect our Nation's public lands and conserve our planet's oceans. I thank the majority leader and Senator Bingaman for including important bills from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in this package. I commend Senators Inouye, Stevens, Cantwell, Snowe, Lautenberg, and Gregg for their leadership in drafting these bills. Senator Inouye, in particular, has aggressively advocated for improved stewardship of our oceans and this package reflects his careful work as chairman of the Commerce Committee which has jurisdiction over our Nation's oceans. As the incoming chair of the Commerce Committee, I will continue to work closely with my dear friend and mentor Senator Inouye on these issues. And I look forward to collaborating closely with him on oceans policy and other areas in the committee's jurisdiction that are particularly critical to the Hawaiian Islands. Our colleagues should know that the ocean and coastal bills included in the Consolidated Natural Resources Act enjoy broad bipartisan and national support because they are sorely needed and important to our Nation's environmental and economic future.

The Federal Government owns nearly 653 million acres of land in the United States. As the owner of these lands, the Federal Government has a responsibility to protect this land for current and future generations. Likewise, and as importantly, the Federal Government has an equal responsibility to protect and manage our Nation's marine and coastal resources. The oceans cover over two-thirds of our planet, yet we know little about what lies beneath or how the changing climate is affecting marine resources. The United States' Exclusive Economic Zone, covers 3.4 million square miles of the Earth's surface, an area greater than the whole United States. Unfortunately, our efforts to sustainably manage and conserve these submerged lands and living resources are hampered by our limited scientific research and understanding of our Exclusive Economic Zone. That is irresponsible and must change. The five ocean bills included in this legislation will authorize programs necessary to increase our Nation's understanding about ocean and coastal areas, which in turn will enable us to make the best possible decisions about how to manage, preserve, and protect our oceans and their living marine resources for current and future generations

The Ocean and Coastal Exploration and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act is critical to our ability to gather observations and data from areas in the ocean that have never been explored. The legislation would establish a national ocean exploration program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which would conduct interdisciplinary ocean exploration voyages to explore and survey little known areas of the marine environment and inventory, observe, and assess living and nonliving marine resources. In addition, this legislation would establish a coordinated national undersea research program, which would increase scientific knowledge for the management, use, and preservation of oceanic, coastal, and Great Lakes resources through undersea research, exploration, education, and technology development.

These activities are vital given that approximately 95 percent of the ocean floor remains unexplored. Increasing our knowledge of our oceans through exploration and undersea research provides unprecedented opportunities to discover new sources of minerals, drugs, habitats, species, artifacts, and shipwrecks. Expeditions could provide images of ancient human artifacts, rare or previously undiscovered species, and exciting new ecosystems.

The Ocean and Coastal Mapping Act would direct the Federal Government to integrate Federal and coastal mapping activities throughout the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. Approximately 90 percent of our Nation's maritime territory remains unmapped by modern technology. Improving our mapping activities, the promotion of the development and dissemination of new technologies, and the coordination of efforts across the 10 federal agencies currently involved in marine mapping are essential. Better mapping of these waters will help to minimize maritime accidents, support the national security missions of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard, and improve our knowledge of ocean and coastal ecosystems.

The Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act would establish a national integrated ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes observing system that would collect, compile, and make available data to support marine commerce; navigation safety; weather, climate and marine forecasting; energy siting and production; ecosystem-based resource management; and public safety. This legislation represents an acknowledgement of our need as a country to improve our ability to measure, track, explain, and predict events related to weather and climate change. It represents a consensus that our understanding of natural climate variability and interactions between ocean and atmospheric environments needs strengthening and improvement. Information generated by the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System would assist in providing advanced warning of hazardous coastal and ocean conditions to State managers and potentially affected communities and could help coastal communities prepare for and minimize losses for a range of potentially harmful ocean conditions. Additionally, this Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System has the potential to provide economic and ecological benefits for other coastal and ocean activities. For example, fisheries scientists and managers could use the data to predict biological productivity which would facilitate ecosystem-based management. Fishermen and mariners could better predict sea conditions for safe navigation and transport. Ocean scientists and regulators could better understand, predict, and rapidly respond to the distribution and impacts of marine pollution, harmful algal blooms, or other hazardous conditions. Educators and students could learn more about basic functions and processes of the marine environment.

Increasing carbon dioxide absorption in our oceans is acidifying waters and could be threatening the foundation of the ocean's food web. The Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act highlights the need for action to be taken to understand and confront climate change and its impacts on our oceans by authorizing a coordinated Federal research program on ocean acidification. Over the past 200 years, human activities have resulted in dramatic increases in greenhouse gases that are altering the Earth's climate. The oceans mitigate the effects of global warming by absorbing atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is changing ocean carbon chemistry and causing the oceans to become more acidic. There is significant concern among the scientific community, resource managers, and policymakers that ocean acidification could adversely impact our Nation's marine ecosystems, the food webs of many fish and marine mammals, and the economies of many coastal States that rely upon the seafood industry and coastal and ocean tourism. The Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act would establish an interagency committee, chaired by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to develop and provide Congress with a strategic research plan on ocean acidification. Additionally, it vests the authority within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to establish an ocean acidification program

within the agency to conduct research and long-term monitoring, education and outreach, and development of adaptation strategies and techniques for conserving marine ecosystems.

The Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program Act would authorize the Secretary of Commerce, through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to make grants to coastal States for the purposes of protecting important coastal and estuarine areas that have significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, or aesthetic values, or that are threatened by conversion from their natural, undeveloped, or recreational state to other uses, and it provides grants for lands to be managed or restored to effectively conserve, improve, or restore ecological function. Estuaries, wetlands, and the watersheds that flow into them support fisheries and wildlife and substantially contribute to coastal economies. The pressures of urbanization and pollution in coastal areas threaten to impair watersheds, undermine natural protections from coastal storms, impact wildlife habitat, and cause irreparable damage to coastal ecology. As our population grows, more and more people are moving to our coasts to enjoy their beauty and recreational opportunities. Coastal land protection partnership programs can help our Nation meet a number of diverse priorities such as promoting recreation, increasing wildlife, improving or conserving ecological quality and diversity, and preserving historical or cultural resources. The legislation would foster partnership programs among the Federal Government, State agencies, local governments, private landowners, and nonprofits to effectively conserve and manage coastal lands.

Over 50 percent of our population lives along our coasts and our coastal economies generate one-half of our Nation's gross domestic product. The planet's oceans produce an untold amount of wealth, both economic and ecological, for our Nation. What is good for the health of our coastal communities and oceans is good for the Nation. Given the reliance our citizens have on our marine and coastal resources and the large gaps exist in our knowledge regarding U.S. ocean and coastal areas, strengthening and improving our marine, coastal, and scientific programs will enable us to make the best possible decisions about how to manage, preserve and protect our oceans.

Mr. President, as I understand it, we now have 10 minutes equally divided to complete debate on S. 22, and then there will be a vote on passage. Is that correct?

Mr. President, in just a few minutes, the Senate will vote on S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act. The vote will culminate years of work on more than 160 bills that are included in this package and represents a major achievement for the protection of our Nation's natural, cultural, and historic resources. Taken collectively, I believe the package represents the most significant conservation legislation passed by the Senate in many years.

In addition, it will finally resolve three very important, very complex water rights settlements in three different States ending, literally, decades of litigation and controversy.

Amendments Nos. 23 and 24, en bloc

Before concluding, I wish to take care of a few administrative matters. The unanimous consent agreement for the bill today allows for the adoption of managers' amendments if they have been cleared by the managers and leaders on both sides. We have two such amendments which are at the desk. I understand they have been cleared by all my colleagues. These amendments make a number of technical, clerical, and clarifying corrections.

At this time I ask unanimous consent to call up those two amendments and have them considered and adopted en bloc, as provided for in the unanimous consent agreement.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Madam President, the Senate is now considering the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, S. 22, a bill that contains a number of important water resource initiatives. Given the ongoing need to work closely with the states on water resource issues, I believe it important as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for myself, and the new ranking member of the Committee, to acknowledge the hard work of representatives from the Colorado River Basin States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, Nevada, and California, in reaching agreement regarding certain provisions in title X, subtitle B of S. 22, which contains the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act, hereafter referred to as the ``Act''.

On August 27, 2008, the Governors' representatives on Colorado River Operations sent a letter to me and Senator Domenici, then the ranking member of the committee, requesting certain modifications to the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act. These modifications, which were subsequently incorporated, reflect the joint

consideration, input, and understandings of the Governors' representatives from the Basin States concerning the act and how it relates to the interstate compacts for the Colorado River system. I want to congratulate the representatives on reaching agreement regarding what I recognize are complicated legal and operational issues associated with the Colorado River.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the August 27, 2008, letter be printed in the Record.

The Senator from Colorado is correct.

Madam President, I concur in the statements made by the Senator from Colorado and thank him for working carefully with me and my staff to resolve these issues in a way that will ensure protection of park resources and provide for the continued operation of the Grand River Ditch and the Colorado-Big Thompson Projects.

Madam President, earlier today the Senate passed S. 22, the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009. As I said during the debate, S. 22 includes over 160 bills from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and reflects many years of hard work.

This achievement would not have been possible without the hard work of our outstanding staff. Both our ranking member, Senator Murkowski, and I are very fortunate to have a very dedicated and experienced professional staff. They service the committee and the Senate well. They deserve our thanks.

On the Democratic staff of the committee, I would like to thank the committee's staff director, Bob Simon, and chief counsel, Sam Fowler, for all of their work on this legislation, as on all the legislation that comes through our committee. I would also like to thank senior counsel Patty Beneke; counsel Mike Connor, who worked on all of the water issues included in the bill; counsels David Brooks, Kira Finkler, and Scott Miller, who coordinated all of the park and public lands bills; professional staff members Jorge Silva-Banuelos, who worked very hard on many of the New Mexico land bills; and Jonathan Epstein; and two National Park Service fellows, Karl Cordova, who worked on the committee last year, and Mike Gauthier, who is on the staff for the current year.

I would also like to thank the committee's chief clerk, Mia Bennett; executive assistant Amanda Kelly; communications director Bill Wicker; press secretary David Marks; and staff assistants Rachel Pasternack, Gina Weinstock, and Rosemarie Calabro.

On the Republican side, let me acknowledge Senator Murkowski's new staff director, McKie Campbell, and chief counsel Karen Billups. I would also like to note my thanks to former Senator Domenici's staff director during the previous Congress, Frank Macchiarola; and former minority chief counsel, Judy Pensabene. I would also like to recognize counsel Kellie Donnelly; as well as professional staff members Frank Gladics, Josh Johnson, and Tom Lillie, all of whom made significant contributions to this bill.

In addition, I am very grateful to the committee's nondesignated staff: Anna-Kristina Fox, Dawson Foard, Nancy Hall, Amber Passmore, Monica Chestnut, and Wanda Green.

S. 22 contains over 1,200 pages of text, and was the subject of numerous revisions. I am grateful to the help of the Senate legislative counsel office, and Gary Endicott, Heather Burnham, and Colin Campbell in particular.

I would also like to thank Cliff Isenberg from the Senate Budget Committee for his help as well as Deb Reis from the Congressional Budget Office, and Tyler Kruzich, formerly with CBO.

Finally, let me acknowledge the great help in bringing the bill to the floor we received from the majority leader and his staff: Neil Kornze, Chris Miller, Randy DeValk, Gary Myrick, and, as always, the secretary for the majority, Lula Davis, as well as Tim Mitchell, the assistant secretary for the majority. I would also like to thank the cloakroom staff, Joe Lapia, Meredith Mellody, Brandon Durflinger, and Estaban Galvan, for all of their assistance.

All of these fine staff members had a hand in putting S. 22 together and moving it through the legislative process. We would not have been able to pass the bill without their hard work and their professionalism. I wish to thank each and every one of them for their good work.

Madam President, this package would not have been possible without the dedicated work of the majority leader over the past several months. I wish to particularly thank him for his commitment to calling up this bill early in this Congress and proceeding with it. I wish to also acknowledge the excellent work and energy of the Natural Resources Committee's new ranking minority member Ms. Murkowski. We have been able to work together to develop a truly bipartisan combination of bills which is reflected in the broad support for this package. Of course, I wish to acknowledge the role of Senator Domenici, who was the ranking member in the prior Congress, for his hard work that also is reflected in this legislation.

I wish to also recognize the work of three of our subcommittee chairmen and ranking members: Senators Akaka and Burr on the National Parks Subcommittee, Senators Wyden and Barrasso from the Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee, Senator Johnson and Senator Corker of the Water and Power Subcommittee. Most of the hearings for the bills in this package were held in those subcommittees. These Senators laid much of the groundwork for today's vote. Of course, I wish to recognize Chairman Rahall of the House Natural Resources Committee for all his work and the work of his staff to resolve any differences that could have existed with the other body.

We have had superb staff work in developing this legislation. Let me particularly mention David Brooks, Kara Finkler and, of course, our staff director, Bob Simon, as well as Sam Fowler, the counsel for our Energy and Natural Resources staff; also, Mike Connor, who worked very hard on many of the water provisions contained in the legislation; Scott Miller, who worked on many of the forest-related sections of this legislation. I know Senator Murkowski and, prior to her, Senator Domenici, also had excellent staff work on the Republican side, which resulted in this legislation coming together in a bipartisan fashion.

So I will put a more complete statement acknowledging the great work of members of our committee staff in the Record and elaborate on that as the day proceeds, but I do wish to mention them now.

Madam President, I see my colleague from Oklahoma is here to speak. How much time remains on the two sides? I know he has 5 minutes. Is there any time remaining on our side?

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. This legislation is the culmination of years of hard work, negotiation, and consensus-building, and I commend Chairman Rahall and his subcommittee chairs, including Raul Grijalva and Grace Napolitano, and the Natural Resources Committee staff, for all of their efforts to bring this bill before us today.

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act is a compilation of many of the most important conservation measures that the Congress has considered in years, and it is supported by a diverse coalition that includes the outdoor industry, sportsmen's associations, parks and wilderness advocates, faith groups, and literally dozens of individual conservation and wildlife protection organizations from across the country.

In California, for example, this bill will protect significant stretches of federal land for future generations by enacting the California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act, the Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park Wilderness Act, and the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act.

But this bill is not just about protecting national treasures for future generations. It's also about taking very significant steps to resolve water conflicts. All of us who represent California and the arid West are very concerned about drought, and this bill provides solutions: the legislation before us today resolves conflicts that have dragged on for decades, and it will bring substantial clean water supplies online. We owe it to our constituents to support this bill.

Some previous speakers have erroneously claimed that the Omnibus Public Land Management Act would harm our water supplies.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that this bill increases the clean water supply available to the American West, and it settles years of costly litigation over water. California, for example, will see seven Title XVI water recycling projects authorized by this package, in addition to two groundwater recharge projects. These projects will allow local communities across our state to produce almost half a million acre-feet of reclaimed reuse water and added storage capacity. These water provisions are environmentally sustainable and they are cost-effective, and should be supported by our state's entire congressional delegation.

Because of the widespread benefits of these Title XVI and groundwater water supply authorizations, this bill is supported by a broad coalition that includes the Association of California Water Agencies, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the National Water Resources Association, and the Western Urban Water Coalition. I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter of support sent by this coalition earlier this month to Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Boehner. These agencies and associations are supporting the Omnibus Public Land Management Act because they know that this bill represents a historic chance to meet our water challenges head-on. I strongly support continued investment in these and other alternative water supplies, and encourage the Bureau of Reclamation to move expeditiously on these projects.

The bill before us today also provides us with the remarkable opportunity to resolve nearly two decades of litigation over the restoration of the San Joaquin River in California. The San Joaquin Restoration Settlement Act is supported by the local affected water districts and the Friant Water Users Authority, the environmental and fishing group plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit, and by the state and federal government. By approving H.R. 146, we are voting to restore water and salmon to the once-mighty San Joaquin River, as well as to authorize programs to help local farmers avoid potential negative impacts from the restoration program.

Without this legislation, the parties to the lawsuit would have no choice but to return to court, meaning wasted time and energy, a lack of certainty for both sides, and the loss of significant nonfederal funding. By passing this legislation today, we provide the funding and legal authority the Department of the Interior needs to ensure a timely and robust restoration program, which is so essential to the success of this settlement.

As many of my colleagues know, the continued shutdown of the sport and commercial salmon fisheries in our state has resulted in significant economic losses. While California must do more to restore the health of the Bay-Delta and the Sacramento River, restoring 30,000 spring run Chinook salmon to the San Joaquin River each year, as this legislation intends, will help ensure that California's salmon, and the considerable statewide economic activity that depends on healthy salmon runs, are restored and sustained for future generations.

Approving the San Joaquin River Settlement will help bring the State's second largest river back to life, improving water quality for the Bay-Delta, and it will achieve some of the goals of the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act. Perhaps most importantly, Congress's approval of this settlement will demonstrate that environmentalists and farmers can work together with federal and state agencies to resolve California's water challenges in a way that all parties can live with. While passage of this legislation is not the final step in the restoration of the river, and although we will need to watch the agencies' implementation of the settlement carefully, this vote today is a critical step in a very long process.

For those of us who represent California and the West, it's very clear that this bill offers a significant opportunity to protect our natural resources, address serious economic problems, and resolve conflicts over water. We can't afford to miss this chance.

For all these reasons and more, I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 146--the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.

March 10, 2009.

Re S. 22 Omnibus Public Lands Act.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

House of Representatives, Capitol Building, Washington, DC

Hon. John A. Boehner,

House of Representtives, Capitol Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Representative Boehner: The

undersigned organizations urge your support for key

provisions of S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act

of 2009 and ask that you oppose any parliamentary or

procedural efforts to delay or disrupt S. 22.

This legislation includes many key water provisions and

authorizations for critically important water projects and

water resource management programs that would help increase

local water supplies. The bill could not come at a more

important time as California and the southwest grapple with a

multi-year drought--one of the most severe we have

experienced in the last hundred years.

Additionally, S. 22 authorizes the terms of two historic

environmental settlement agreements, the Lower Colorado River

Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, and the San

Joaquin River Restoration settlement agreement. The Secure

Water Act, as detailed in S. 2156, is also included in the

Omnibus Public Land Management Act.

Your support of S. 22 is imperative and we ask that you

move expeditiously to help ensure that the key water

provisions of S. 22 including the San Joaquin River

Restoration Settlement Agreement, the Lower Colorado River

Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan can be enacted as

soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration of our

request which would greatly benefit all Californians.

Very truly yours,

Tim Quinn Executive Director, Association of California

Water Agencies; Donald R. Kendall, General Manager,

Calleguas Municipal Water District. Art Aguilar,

General Manager, Central Basin Municipal, Water

District; Tony Pack, General Manager, Eastern Municipal

Water District; Ronald E. Young, General Manager,

Elsinore Valley Municpal Water District; Richard

Atwater, General Manager, Inland Empire Utilities

Agency; John R. Mundy, General Manager, Las Virgenes

Municipal Water District; Jeffrey Kightlinger, General

Manager, Metropolitan Water District of Southern

California.

Tom Donnelly, Executive Director, National Water

Resources Association; Michael R. Markus, General

Manager, Orange County Water District; Matt Stone,

General Manager, Rancho California Water District;

Leroy Goodson, General Manager, Texas Water

Conservation Association; G. Wade Miller, Executive

Director, Watereuse Association; Richard Nagal, General

Manager, West Basin Municipal Water District; Charles

L. Nylander, President, Wester Coalition of Arid

States; Guy Martin, National Counsel, Western Urban

Water Coalition.

Madam President, I commend the chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for their diligent work on this package, which contains several bills that I have championed for Colorado. I particularly wish to thank my colleague and friend, Chairman Bingaman, and his staff, for his work and cooperation on the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act, which is included in subtitle N of title I of S. 22, and which is critical to preserving some of the Nation's most beautiful and critical wilderness lands. This has been a long road to reach agreement with all constituencies involved and we have faced some unique challenges. But ultimately, and with the chairman's assistance, we have worked through a number of issues to our mutual satisfaction in order to pass a bill that is good for all Coloradans.

One of those challenges has been our effort to protect the operation and maintenance of the Alva B. Adams Tunnel which is the critical component of the Colorado-Big Thompson Reclamation Project. The Adams tunnel was authorized in 1915 by Congress and later constructed within the park and has delivered water from the Colorado River drainage to Colorado's north eastern communities for decades.

I appreciate the Chairman working with us on protecting this facility that provides water to hundreds of thousands of people in Colorado. With his help, we included within section 1953(d) a provision that ensures that nothing in the subtitle, including the designation of wilderness, ``prohibits or affects current and future operation and maintenance activities . . . that were allowed as of the date of enactment . . . under the Act of January 26, 1915 (16 U.S.C. 191), relating to the Alva B. Adams Tunnel or other Colorado-Big Thompson Project facilities located within the Park.''

The bill also includes in section 1953(g) an additional savings clause, which ensures that the Secretary of the Interior's authority to manage lands and resources within the park is not diminished. It is my understanding that this type of general savings clause does not undermine or contradict the more specific provisions included in section 1953(d) of the subtitle. That is, the savings clause included as section 1953(g) does not alter or affect the provisions in section 1953(d), which make clear that the designation of the park as wilderness is not meant to affect the current and future operation and maintenance activities for the tunnel nor to prohibit or restrict the conveyance of water through the Alva B. Adams Tunnel for any purpose.

Am I correct in my understanding of section 1953(g)?

I thank the Chairman.

As with any wilderness legislation in a headwaters State, the water rights language in the Rocky Mountain National Park wilderness bill proved to be the most challenging. This legislation strikes a good balance between protection of park wilderness resources and protection of existing water rights, ditch rights-of-way, and water infrastructure, some of which predate the existence of the park.

The Water Supply and Storage Company--WSSC--owns and operates the Grand River Ditch, which is a water supply ditch located in the Never Summer Range in RMNP. The Grand River Ditch provides irrigation water to approximately 40,000 acres of land located in Larimer and Weld Counties in northern Colorado. WSSC owns, operates and maintains 11 reservoirs and 7 ditch systems, including the Grand River Ditch. WSSC's system of ditches, canals and laterals is more than 100 miles in total length and provides approximately 60,000 acre-feet of water annually to 173 shareholders. The Grand River Ditch is an integral component of WSSC's system. WSSC holds a right-of-way for the Grand River Ditch under the Irrigation or General Right of Way Act of March 3, 1891--1891 Act--codified at 43 U.S.C Sec. Sec. 946-49.

The Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Act itself should not cause any change in land use, land management, or water rights within Rocky Mountain National Park. Towards this end, section 1953(e) is intended to clarify that neither the Grand River Ditch nor its right- of-way will be adversely affected if the end use of water diverted by the Grand River Ditch is for municipal purposes as opposed to irrigated agriculture. The Grand River Ditch diverts water high in the Colorado mountains and transports it some 50 miles downstream to its location of use. At present, all of the water is used for agricultural irrigation; however, a portion of WSSC's stock is owned by Colorado municipalities and Grand River Ditch water will be used for this purpose in the future. No matter what the end use is, the existence of the Grand River Ditch in RMNP imposes the same burden on the park. In other words, there is no difference in land use, land management or water rights in the park, whether the end use of water is agricultural irrigation or municipal use.

In 1921, the Supreme Court approved forfeiture of a right-of-way that had never been used for its authorized purpose of irrigation, but instead was used for developing electric power. See Kern River Co. v. United States, 257 U.S. 147, 1921. The case is distinguishable on several grounds from the Grand River Ditch, but the purpose of Section 1953 (e) is to avoid any attempt to apply a Kern River-type theory to the Grand River Ditch. Over 20 years ago the U.S. Department of Agriculture recognized this point when it said: ``The end use of water off the Federal lands, as it may change over time, casts no greater burden on the Federal property to carry the water to its place of use.'' See letter dated October 1, 1986, from Douglas W. MacCleery, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, Department of Agriculture, to Malcomb Wallop of the United States Senate, included in the legislative history of Public Law 99-545.

Conversion of agricultural water to municipal purposes is commonplace in Colorado, and the Grand River Ditch is no exception. In a mutual ditch company such as WSSC, ownership of stock represents a pro rata share of ownership in the water rights of the company. The language of section 1953(e)

ensures that WSSC and the right-of-way of the Grand River Ditch will not be adversely affected by the change in end use of GRD water.

The language of section 1953(e), ``primarily for domestic purposes or any purpose of a public nature,'' was not lightly chosen. It was taken directly from the act of May 11, 1898, which--in the words of the great Justice Van Devanter, who is considered the most knowledgeable authority on public land law to ever sit on the Supreme Court-- ``permit[ted] rights of way obtained under the Act of 1891 [like the Grand River Ditch], the use of which was restricted to irrigation, to be also used for the other purposes named in the section,'' namely ``purposes of a public nature'' and ``domestic purposes.'' See Kern River Co. v. U.S., 257 U.S. 147, 152-153, 1921. After more than a century, the terms ``purposes of a public nature'' and ``domestic purposes'' seem to be fairly well understood. The phrases ``purposes of a public nature'' and ``domestic purposes'' are especially broad, and include municipal uses following delivery, by a potable water provider, through the Grand River Ditch or by means of another conveyance structure. We have agreed to exempt the Grand River Ditch from any restriction that conditions the existence of the right-of-way on agricultural uses and instead to allow them to make ``purposes of a public nature'' or ``domestic purposes'' the sole or predominate purpose.

The Grand River Ditch ``right of way . . . was granted on an implied condition that it should revert to the United States in the event the grantee ceased to use or retain it for the purpose indicated in the [1891 and 1898] statutes. That purpose--the main and controlling one-- was irrigation.'' See Kern River Co. v. U.S., 257 U.S. 147, 154 (1921). In the future, the water transported in the ditch will be increasingly used for water supply and municipal purposes, not irrigation. This transition may eventually ``entitle[] the United States to assert and enforce a forfeiture of the grant. . . .'' 257 U.S. at 154. To address this concern, we have agreed to state in the bill that ``the right of way . . . shall not be terminated, forfeited, or otherwise affected as a result'' of the change in purpose, ``unless the Secretary determines that the change in main purpose or use adversely affects the park.'' If the Secretary, in his discretion, makes that determination, he would then have to assert and enforce a forfeiture of the grant in court.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today in strong support of H.R. 146, a bipartisan piece of legislation that will do wonders for conservation and historic preservation across the United States. If one, Mr. Speaker, were to add up all the hours that were devoted to each part of this legislation in the House and the Senate, it would minimize basically what I just heard from the other side, over 100 hours of debate on these bills separately. And now we are bringing them together in one omnibus public land management bill.

This bill includes the Paterson Great Falls National Park Act. It was originally introduced in the 109th Congress and passed the House in October of 2007, like many of these other bills that are part of this omnibus bill, which is a bipartisan piece of legislation.

As a lifelong Paterson resident and the city's former mayor, I have fought for many years to bring recognition to the site that has played such a seminal role in American history. Alexander Hamilton knew what he was doing, because it became the gateway to industry in this country so that immigrants could come here, go to work and build the greatest country in the world.

With a National Park designation, the Great Falls will be transformed into an attraction for visitors and Patersonians alike that could lead to the economic revitalization of Paterson, joining together of public and private investment. Isn't that what we are here for?

As soon as President Obama signs this bill into law, Federal resources will be leveraged to revitalize the Great Falls area, refurbish the beautiful historic mill buildings, maintain and protect the waterfalls, and create a living reminder of our Nation's rich industrial history. I'm proud and thankful that Congress and the President fully recognize the vision of Hamilton, the design of L'Enfant, and the cultural and historic landmarks that have shaped America's history.

After this bill is signed into law, I would be honored to have my colleagues visit the Great Falls where they can all see firsthand the value that urban parks bring to the National Park System and to the local communities.

I want to thank Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Rahall and Chairman Grijalva for bringing this bill to the floor. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

I think, Mr. Chairman, when we are involved more in substance rather than process, we get a lot done in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Lands Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation that will do wonders for conservation and historic preservation across the United States. This bill includes the Paterson Great Falls National Park Act, which I originally introduced in the 109th Congress and passed this House in October of 2007.

As a lifelong Paterson resident and the city's former mayor, I have fought for many years to bring recognition to this site that has played such a seminal role in American history. A National Historical Park is the only way to properly showcase the significant cultural and historic landmarks and natural beauty that the Great Falls Historic District has to offer, I am proud and thankful that the Congress will soon pass this legislation and President Obama will sign it into law.

Fifteen miles west of New York City, the majestic Great Falls in Paterson, New Jersey was the second largest waterfall in colonial America. No other natural landmark has played such an important role in our nation's quest for freedom and prosperity.

Alexander Hamilton recognized the grandeur and unique power of the Great Falls when he founded Paterson in 1792 as America's first planned industrial city. Hamilton was committed to demonstrating the profitability of manufacturing in America rather than depending upon foreign goods. As Paterson rapidly rose into a thriving industrial city, it became the living manifestation of Hamilton's prescient belief in the capitalist revolution.

Development of the raceway system to harness the power of the 77-foot Great Falls, the second largest waterfall east of the Mississippi River, created one of the country's first manufacturing centers. Paterson was the site of the first water-powered cotton spinning mill, and the first continuous roll paper mill. It was the site of the manufacture of the Colt Revolver, the Rogers Steam Locomotive, the Wright aeronautic engines and the first practical submarine. Its mills manufactured paper, cotton, and famously, silk, earning Paterson the name of ``Silk City.''

The National Park Service has long been aware of the importance of protecting and preserving the Great Falls district. In 1969, the Great Falls was listed as a National Natural Landmark and the 117 acres surrounding them were entered on the Department of Interior's National Register as a Historic District. In 1976, the Great Falls became a National Landmark. Since 1988, the Interior Department has listed the district as a Priority One threatened National Historic Landmark.

In a special Bicentennial speech in Paterson with the spectacular natural beauty of the Great Falls in the background, the late President Gerald R. Ford said, ``We can see the Great Falls as a symbol of the industrial might which helps to make America the most powerful nation in the world.''

With a National Park designation, the Great Falls will be transformed into an attraction for visitors and Patersonians alike that could lead to the economic revitalization of Paterson.

As soon as President Obama signs this bill into law, federal resources will be leveraged to revitalize the Great Falls area, refurbish the beautiful, historic mill buildings, maintain and protect the waterfall, and create a living reminder of our nation's rich industrial history. I am proud and thankful that Congress and the President will fully recognize the vision of Hamilton, the design of L'Enfant, and the cultural and historic landmarks that have shaped America's history.

After this bill is signed into law I would be honored to have my colleagues visit Paterson and tour the new Great Falls National Historic Park, where they can all see first hand the value that urban parks bring to the National Park System and to their local communities.

This has been a long road we have traveled to get to this point. The Great Falls National Historic Park would not be at this point without the work of many dedicated staff members who have worked on this proposal. Obviously the patient staffers working under Chairman Rahall and Chairman Grijalva at the Natural Resources Committee deserve our thanks and appreciation. Since 2001, the many staffers from my office working towards this goal have included Mia Dell, Susan Quatrone, Caley Gray, Stephanie Krenrich and Arthur Mandel. On the other side of the Capitol, Arvin Ganesan with Senator Lautenberg and Hal Connolly with Senator Menendez deserve our appreciation.

And let me conclude by extending special thanks to Leonard Zax, a good friend and Paterson native, who has testified in committees, drafted support letters, brought parties together and has basically worked tirelessly to see this bill through from concept to completion.

We have a great deal of work left to do, but let us celebrate this important milestone for the City of Paterson and the preservation of the Great Falls on the Passaic River.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is a sense of poetic irony that Mr. Holt's language was removed when you amended his bill. I hope you can fix that at some time.

You have a pattern of individuals coming down here, speaking of good parts to this bill. There are good parts to this bill. I actually have two measures in here that, I think, are good to this bill, but it doesn't cover up the fact that, within that, there are some problems in this particular bill.

It does not cover up the fact that there are heritage areas when the Department of the Interior specifically asked us to wait until they could come up with rules on what heritage areas should be and how they should be constituted, because the way we are doing it right now is chaotic. There are elements in here that create national parks which I will visit when they include a baseball stadium, and not until.

Those national parks were actually rejected by the Park Service because they have enough of this generic portion. It did not meet the standards. It was expensive. Even though at one time they said that they might be comfortable with it, last night, in talking to a reporter, they once again stood by that analysis of that park, especially when we have $9 billion of needs in the rest of the National Park System that is yet to be met. I reject it when, in fact, some judge includes the fact that 8 months of study and of public input is not long enough or that NEPA actually has more importance than the second amendment.

I actually want to speak a little bit differently right now. I want to explain to my good friends who live east of the Rocky Mountains why I feel so passionate about this particular bill.

This is a map of the United States, and everything that is colored in red is owned by the Federal Government. You will notice it is all concentrated in the West. Even though most of our forest land is in the East, the Forest Service land is all in the West.

Does this make a difference to people? In a way, I think it does because this map illustrates the difference in education.

The States in red are the States that are having the most difficult time raising money to fund their own public education system. As you know, there is a strong correlation between the amount of public land and the difficulty in funding education. In Utah, it is a common statement. We will always simply say: The reason we are having such a hard time in funding education is we do not control enough of our land.

If the Federal Government even paid at the lowest tax rate for the land that it owns in the State of Utah, that would be $116 million every year. That does not count government funding; it is just for the education portion--$116 million that we would get every year. When decisions are made in the Department of the Interior that take leases off the land, that is a $3 million cut to education in the State of Utah, not only counting the State trust lands that develop money for education but above those lands that now become sterile at the same time.

The New York Times recently wrote an article in which they compared a school district in Utah and one in Wyoming, across the border. The one in Wyoming is awash with money, and will get more money in the stimulus package than the district in Utah. They said: Well, that is simply an anomaly of the distribution formulas that we use. I really don't care about the distribution formula. The amount of Federal money that goes to education in Utah only rates at about 7 percent. What is significant is why the State of Utah has less money to begin with, and it goes back to the issue of resources.

This chart shows you the difference in teachers' salaries between the two States of Wyoming and Montana. Wyoming starts their teachers at $20,000 a year higher than Montana's. Why? Because Wyoming is much more aggressive at the way they develop their resources. Even though this particular bill, once again, takes resource land off the table in Wyoming, threatening them, acknowledged by the chairman who says it is not a problem, it could, indeed, be a problem, but for us in Utah, well, this is a problem that we still face.

This is the State of Utah. Everything that is a color is owned by the Federal Government. Now, this is the problem that we simply have. The problem we simply have is that two of the three most important decisions recently made by the Interior Department also affect the resources that are in Utah that we need desperately to fund our education system, but when you create more wild and scenic areas in the West, you make it much more difficult for us to fund our education system. When you create more wild and scenic areas in the East, you cut into the PILT money that goes into the West, which is necessary to fund our education system.

We have yet to discuss the fundamental issue of the role of Federal ownership of this land--if it is, indeed, appropriate, if it is right, if it should be more or if it should be less or if it should be balanced between the West and the East.

I'm sorry for my experience in the legislature in Utah. We have difficulties in Utah in being able to fund our roads and to pay for our colleges and to pay for our public education, and it goes back to this basic fact: We are not just creating nice, pretty vistas again. We have an ancillary harm that takes place to real kids. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. My kids in Utah are more important to me than a park that is created that the National Park Service does not want. It is more important to me than a wild and scenic river that is created when it violates the standards of the Wild and Scenic River Act. My kids are more important to me than heritage areas that are chaotically done because my kids' future is harmed by these decisions. Even though those who create these decisions are well-intentioned and well-meaning, my kids' decisions and my kids' futures are still controlled by what Nelson Rockefeller used to say is the deadening hand of bureaucracy.

I realize that this particular bill has had more procedural twists than Lombard Street, but at the same time, there are many provisions in this bill that would easily pass if they stood alone, and there are provisions in this bill that would not. There is no reason we need to lump all of these things together.

Mr. Speaker, Satchel Paige used to say, ``Just throw strikes. Home plate don't move.''

We do not need to have this omnibus bill to go through these particular procedures, and my kids are worth fighting for: They are worth fighting the provisions of this bill that would not pass if they were standing on their own. That is the problem. That is the problem, and that is why I am passionate.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, Abraham Lincoln once told of a farmer who said, ``I ain't greedy for land. All I want is what is next to mine.'' I think our Federal Government is starting to resemble that farmer.

H.R. 146 is a massive land grab that would literally put more land in the United States into wilderness designation than we currently have actually developed from coast to coast. That pretty much means no human activities other than walking through it--as long as you don't touch anything. So I have to ask a question, when is enough enough?

The Federal Government already owns nearly 650 million acres of land. That is 30 percent of the entire land area of the United States. It owns 45 percent of my home State of California. Now, compare that to the District of Columbia, Washington, D.C., the Federal Capital, the home to every agency in our vast Federal bureaucracy. The Federal Government owns only 25 percent of the District of Columbia.

The bill is estimated to cost about $10 billion, not only to pay for this land grab but for all of the other bells and whistles that are attached to it. That includes congressional earmarks like $3.5 million to celebrate the birthday of St. Augustine, Florida, and $250,000 to decide--to decide--what we are going to do with Alexander Hamilton's boyhood home in the Virgin Islands.

Now, $1 billion of the $10 billion of this bill is for salmon population restoration on the San Joaquin River in California, with the stated objective of establishing a population of at least 500 salmon.

Five hundred salmon. One billion dollars.

Mr. Speaker, that comes to $2 million per fish. And that is without accounting for all of the costs that will be incurred by central valley farmers as water that is already in critically short supply is diverted to this project.

Overall, this bill spends $10 billion of people's earnings. In real world numbers, that means about $130 from an average family of four through their taxes. I'm afraid that the mega-spending by this administration has begun to desensitize us to figures that are under $1 trillion. But let's try to put this $10 billion in perspective. The National Park Service reports a maintenance backlog of $9 billion on the land we already own. So, we can't take care of the land we already have, but we are going to spend $10 billion on acquiring additional land that we can't take care of.

This bill withdraws 3 million acres of land from energy leasing. Just from reserves that we know about, that is

going to cost the American economy 330 million barrels of oil and 9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in Wyoming alone.

I was particularly struck by a provision that allows the Federal Government to condemn private property where fossils are found. So if you find a fossil in your backyard, Mother and Father America, be very careful. You will be well advised to keep it a secret. Under this bill, such a discovery could cost you your property.

This bill also means new restrictions on BLM lands. Now these public lands currently contribute to our Nation's economy by providing multiple uses such as farming, ranching, timber harvesting and offroad vehicle recreation, all for the broader public good. I have an awful lot of land in my district that is under Federal jurisdiction and under BLM management, and the constant complaints that I get from the public are not that there is too much access to public lands, but that there is too little access and too many restrictions to those lands. This bill codifies the National Landscape Conservation System, which means less public access and more restrictions on the public's use of the public's land.

So I ask again, when is enough enough? The preservation of public land is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end, that end being the public good. And the public good is not served by the mindless and endless acquisition of property at the expense of the sustainable use of our natural resources, the responsible stewardship of our public lands and the freedom and property rights of our citizens.

National Rifle Association of America, Institute for

Legislative Action,

Fairfax, VA, March 10, 2009.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Republican Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner: On behalf of the

National Rifle Association, I am writing to express our

support for the Altmire amendment to S. 22, the Omnibus

Public Land Management Act of 2009. The Altmire amendment

would ensure that the provisions of S. 22 will not be used to

close lands that are currently open to hunting, fishing,

trapping, target shooting and other forms of traditional

recreation. In addition, the amendment clarifies that the

states retain the authority to manage resident fish and

wildlife.

Encroaching development and the increasing population

demand for open space has resulted the closure of federal

lands that were once open to traditional forms of recreation,

such as hunting and target shooting. Whether it is the

closure of a trail that served as the access point for a

generations-old hunting camp or the closure of large areas to

target shooting, the sportsman's way of life has been under

attack. There are those who would exacerbate this situation

by attempting to use land designations to further close

federal lands to sportsmen. This is why the Altmire amendment

is necessary.

The Altmire amendment has already been applied to the

National Landscape Conservation System Act within S. 22. It

is critical to extend this protection for sportsmen to other

areas of the bill, specifically Titles V and VIII pertaining

to Rivers and Trails and National Heritage Areas,

respectively. This is precisely what the Altmire amendment

would do.

While the NRA takes no position on S. 22 as a whole, the

meaningful protections provided by the Altmire amendment are

critical to preserve access for sportsmen and the authority

of the states to manage resident wildlife populations. For

these reasons, we support its inclusion in S. 22.

Should you have any questions or need additional

information, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at

(202) 651-2560.

Sincerely,

Chris W. Cox,

Executive Director, NRA-ILA.