Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House today to reintroduce the Mourning Dove Harvest Act, a bill that will give individuals who reside in all states a fair and equal opportunity to hunt mourning doves.

Hunters in states north of the 37th parallel often find that mourning doves already have migrated south for the winter by the time hunting season opens on September 1st. It is not uncommon for the fall hunting season to last less than one week or even one day in such northern states as Idaho, Montana and Washington. Many sportsmen unable to follow this migration are left without a hunting opportunity. States south of the 37th parallel, meanwhile, have a full season and ample opportunity to harvest these birds. Hunters in Mexico have the additional advantage of no harvest limits. Passage of this bill is the first step toward creating a season that will give residents of northern states an equal opportunity.

The designated hunting season for mourning doves that begins September 1st and ends March 10th is the result of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, which in turn stems from the Migratory Bird Treaty of 1916. The Treaty signed by the United States, Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, Japan and Russia covers a multitude of migratory birds, including mourning doves. There is little legislative history justifying the selection of this fall opening date, and migration routes, hunting practices and conservation efforts have changed significantly in the 86 years since the Treaty's ratification. The last week in August has been identified as a period when these birds are not nesting, but are preparing for their annual southern migration.

Passage of this bill will allow hunters in states north of the 37th parallel to hunt mourning doves seven days earlier--during a time when their migration south is about to begin. Hunters in the north will be on a more equal footing with their counterparts in the south.

Scientists have found that regulated hunting has no significant effect on the mourning dove population.

This legislation amends the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and asks the Secretary of State to begin discussions with the signatories of the Migratory Bird Treaty to include this change in the Treaty.

It is important to note that (1) this legislation offers hunters in the north a more equal opportunity to harvest mourning doves; (2) the morning dove is the most widely distributed and harvested game bird in North America; (3) in states north of the 37th parallel, mourning doves often begin their southern migration prior to September 1st, the opening day of the hunting season; (4) this change will not impact the mourning dove population.

After exhaustive studies, analysis and discussion of this issue, the time to pass this measure is now. In the name of equitable access to this resource, I urge the passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of five Idaho artists who were selected to exhibit this week in Boise at the ``Women's History Month Juried Art Exhibition''. Katie Rosenberg, Diane Ronayne, Tobiann Grindstaff, and Katie Cepek, all of Boise; and Sheila Martz, of Payette, are showing their works as part of an event to showcase and promote female artists.

The exhibition features 33 diverse pieces produced by nineteen women throughout nine states. Having five Idaho artists selected for the exhibit reflects exceptionally well on our state. It is especially important to showcase women artists in order to fully reflect the times we're living in. Whether or not the art deals with women's issues specifically, each of these women has a purpose and an individual interpretation of the world she's living in. They are history-makers.

The ``Women's History Month Juried Exhibition'' opened Friday, March 7, 2003 at the Boise State University Hemingway Center Gallery. I encourage my constituents to avail themselves of this opportunity and I congratulate Katie, Diane, Tobiann, Katie, and Sheila on their successes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House today to introduce the America's Wilderness Protection Act--a bill to apply urgency and accountability to the process of evaluating potential wilderness by setting firm deadlines.

There are 666 wilderness study areas across the nation that were designated more than 10 years ago, totaling nearly 23 million acres in 18 states. In Idaho alone there are 86 wilderness study areas totaling about 3.1 million acres.

Sixty-three of the 67 Idaho parcels managed by the Bureau of Land Management have been locked up since the early 1980s--even though 40 of them have been found unsuitable for wilderness protection. The other four have been withdrawn from multiple-use since 1976. Most of the 19 Forest Service wilderness study areas have been in place since the mid- I980s and two have held that status since 1972.

That means Congress has dragged its feet and obstructionists have gladly accepted the do-nothing status quo on these lands through the administrations of seven presidents and during the entire lifetime of many working people in Idaho.

The problem stems from the failure of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, which created the wilderness study area process, to provide for release of areas eventually deemed unsuitable for wilderness designation.

America's Wilderness Protection Act addresses that intractable situation by establishing a timetable for completion of wilderness studies. Lands designated as study areas would be released from that status on the earlier of: (1) 10 years after the legislation is enacted; (2) the date the area is designated wilderness by Congress, or (3) the date that the secretary of Interior or Agriculture determines the area is unsuitable for wilderness designation.

In the past, some have referred to acreage allowed to languish as wilderness study areas for decades as ``de facto wilderness.'' This term is too kind. Designated wilderness has the advantage under law of being actively managed to retain its values. Wilderness study areas, on the other hand, are virtually untouchable. These lands are left to overgrowth, disease and infestation by noxious weeds and other invasive species. They become ripe for catastrophic wildfires that threaten not only the acreage being ``studied'' for preservation but nearby private and public land as well.

Critics contend this bill would eliminate any incentive for ranchers and other multiple-use advocates to become engaged in earnest discussions of possible wilderness designations. The argument goes that they would only have to wait out the process and protection ultimately would be denied any parcel they choose. That couldn't be further from the truth.

There are no more avid outdoors enthusiasts and conservationists than those who make their living from the land. They have a deep understanding of the cycles of life and the value of protecting and cherishing the natural world. They appreciate the importance of stewardship; it's a principle they embody every day.

While the land itself is timeless, the scenic, cultural, habitat and aesthetic values of any particular tract--if left to the ravages of time--are decidedly limited. Just as vulnerable are the economic futures of the many families whose livelihoods have been stripped away by the loss of access to so much of what now can only laughingly be called `public' land in the West.

This legislation promotes resolution and collaboration. After a generation of paralyzing indecision and refusal to accept responsibility, the 108th Congress has an historic opportunity--if it can muster the wisdom and courage to embrace it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House today to introduce the Clearwater Basin Project Act, a bill to provide for enhanced collaborative forest stewardship management within the Clearwater and Nez Perce national forests in Idaho. I am pleased to be joined by Congressman Mike Simpson, a fellow Idahoan, in introducing this legislation.

The Forest Service has not been able to adequately address insect outbreak, catastrophic fire, and other fish and wildlife habitat and ecosystem health issues on the lands it manages within the basin. That is why I am introducing The Clearwater Basin Project Act to provide a better mechanism to address critical resource issues concerning Clearwater and Nez Perce national forest lands. The legislation takes advantage of existing collaboration and stewardship mechanisms to provide a more effective framework for stakeholders to work with the Forest Service to attain some meaningful forest management results on the ground.

In 1996, the state of Idaho established a Federal Land Task Force to design potential pilot projects on federal lands. The task force report identified a broken decision-making process as part of the problem on federal lands. An eight-member working group identified five pilot projects on Idaho's federal lands. The legislation I am introducing today is a product of that process. The Clearwater Basin Project Act implements concepts and addresses needs identified in the Clearwater Basin Collaborative Project that was described in the December 2000 Federal Land Task Force Working Group Report, ``Breaking the Gridlock.'' The aims of the original Clearwater Project and the Act are to provide a better mechanism to address critical resource issues concerning Clearwater and Nez Perce national forest lands within the basin.

This legislation provides an up-to-date, reasonable and realistic approach to implementing a pilot project on national forest lands in the Clearwater Basin. The Act facilitates forest management through consensus-building procedures to expedite identification, scheduling and implementation of specific high-priority forest stewardship activities. The legislation provides a working test of innovative collaborative management, fully within the framework of existing environmental laws.

This legislation requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish the Clearwater Advisory Panel (CAP), a collaborative group comprised of a broad spectrum of stakeholders in Clearwater Basin national forest management. The CAP is to work with the Forest Service, other agencies and the public to consider and recommend specific high-priority forest stewardship activities to implement over a five-year period within the Basin.

This act does not bypass existing environmental legislation. Rather, it requires the Forest Service and other federal agencies to complete National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other consultation and coordination procedures for each proposed schedule of activities, within one year after the Forest Service issues the public scoping notice for the proposed schedule. The appropriate forest supervisor is required to review the five-year schedule of activities for each forest, then issue a decision document within 30 days regarding whether to approve the schedule recommended by the CAP.

The Act also provides additional authority for stewardship and other contracting to prepare and carry out activities recommended and approved for priority implementation. Also authorized is monitoring to measure the success of the project and to assure accountability and determine what funding and other support is needed for the project to succeed.

It is important to note that nothing in this act (1) transfers ownership or control of any national forest lands from the United States to anyone else; (2) transfers Forest Service national forest decision authority to anyone else; (3) exempts Forest Service decisions or the priority activities from environmental laws, or from administrative appeal and judicial review; or (4) impairs opportunities for participation by any interest group or the general public.

The need for this legislation is greater now then ever. Elk City, a small rural community in my district, is an island in a sea of Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and state lands. The town is surrounded by dead and dying timber. However, because of federal regulations there is little or no access to the resource. That is threatening the local mill and placing the city and its residents at risk of catastrophic wildfires. Inaction no longer is an alternative for the Clearwater Basin. We cannot sit idly by and watch the forest bum. We must take action before our precious resource is destroyed and the lives of those dependent upon the resources are changed forever.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the American Frozen Food Institute (AFFI) on the occasion of its 60th Anniversary of service to the food industry. AFFI is the only national trade association representing the entire spectrum of frozen food professionals, including processors, suppliers of goods and services, transporters and marketers.

Like other complex enterprises, the frozen food industry benefits not only from competition, but also from cooperative, coordinated action. Launched in 1942 by 19 frozen fruit and vegetable packers, the National Association of Frozen Food Packers went on to become today's American Frozen Food Institute. AFFI's more than 500 member companies account for over 90 percent of the total annual production of frozen food in the United States, valued at more than $60 billion.

AFFI works to ensure that nourishing and convenient frozen foods are continually abundant, reliable, varied, satisfying and economical. During its years of growing use and popularity, the technology of frozen foods has earned its place among modern America's constructive innovations.

When Clarence Birdseye, one March morning in 1930, optimistically combined an inventor's creativity with a salesman's confidence and arrayed his selection of neatly packaged, quick-frozen foods into a grocery store display case in Springfield, Massachusetts, he inaugurated an industry that would forever change the way the world eats.

The industry's momentum initially was driven by the economy and convenience of frozen foods. However, a further reality ultimately would ensure their enthusiastic endorsement by health experts: frozen foods supply superior nutrition. Following years of scientific studies at the University of Illinois, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded in 1998 that fruits and vegetables picked at peak freshness and immediately frozen contain as many, and often more, nutrients than their raw equivalents. Moreover, for food of all kinds, modern freezing and packaging means unsurpassed food safety, reliable product consistency, and year-round availability anywhere.

In addition, I would invite my colleagues to join Congressman Cal Dooley and me on September 25 at the Frozen Food Filibuster, a reception showcasing the variety of frozen foods here in the Cannon Caucus Room. Congressman Dooley and I are co-chairmen of the frozen food caucus on Capitol Hill. Caucus participants are Members of Congress who have AFFI member companies' headquarters or plants located within their district, or an interest in the food industry in general. The Institute briefs the membership periodically on issues that affect their constituents who work in the frozen food industry. Our goal is to ensure the caucus is as active and innovative as the nation's frozen food companies.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying special tribute to the American Frozen Food Institute. Our democratic institutions

are served well by having responsible industry associations, who care about the active participation of their companies in the legislative and regulatory process. I am confident that AFFI will continue to serve the food community for many years, well into the future. We wish them the very best on this special occasion.