Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Healthy Forests bill. This legislation will help restore Utah's forests that have been devastated by fire, drought, and insect infestations.

I am hopeful that this legislation will prevent a repeat of this year's severe wildfire season and stop fires from spreading so quickly and affecting our communities. This legislation focuses its resources on hazardous fuel reduction efforts close to home by prioritizing efforts to prevent fires within a mile and a half of at-risk communities. This bill also provides grants for states and local communities to perform the fuel reduction activities that will benefit them the most.

Not only will this legislation help prevent forest fires, but it will address the infestation of the bark beetle that has affected much of southern Utah. This bill requires the Forest Service to develop a plan to combat insect infestation and allows for the expedition of projects that would help eliminate this problem that has turned Cedar Mountain in the Dixie National Forest into a skeleton of what it once was.

The passage of this bill is critical to protecting the health of the forests in Utah and throughout the West. We've seen too much devastation and damage in recent years to allow the situation to go unchanged. I am committed to this legislation as an important first step toward remediating our forests.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 3140, the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act. I am pleased to have been an original cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation. It simply does the right thing for consumers.

This legislation will require eye doctors and optometrists to provide patients with a copy of their prescription for contact lenses, regardless of whether or not the patient asks for that copy. And the bill also requires that these prescribers to verify and provide a copy of the prescription to any person designated by the consumer to act on their behalf, such as third-party sellers.

What many people may not know, is that eye doctors have been required to provide patients with a copy of their prescriptions for eyeglasses since 1978, but the same requirement for some reason has not been in place for contact lens prescriptions. Today, with around 36 million Americans wearing contact lenses, ensuring that consumers are able to obtain their contact lens prescriptions and make a choice in where they purchase their contact lenses is simply the right thing to do.

I strongly support this bill and urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to two provisions in this energy and water conference report. First, this bill provides $7.5 million for study of a new-generation, earth-penetrating nuclear warhead and $6 million for research on advanced nuclear weapons concepts such as low-yield mini nukes. Supporters of these new nuclear weapons argue the current funding is limited to weapons research and development in DOE labs, but this argument ignores the obvious end results of these studies, and that is that they will have to be tested. These weapons will be tested most likely at the Nevada test site. That will once again expose Utah and the rest of this Nation to fallout from those tests.

High-yield weapons present an additional problem, unacceptable amounts of fallout would endanger U.S. troops approaching the target to confirm the weapons' success. No one is going to argue about pursuing new technologies to address the threats posed by terrorists hiding in hardened or deeply-buried sites, but we should ask and answer this question about whether nuclear weapons, regardless of yield, can even get the job done.

I oppose this bill that would once again move toward exposing Utahans to nuclear testing in Nevada. That brings me to a second point I also raise in opposition to the bill, and that is there is a provision that would reclassify radioactive waste from two Department of Energy sites as a type of waste that can be shipped to commercial facility. This language was included in the conference report without the knowledge of States like Utah that had commercial facilities where the DOE has suggested shipping such highly-concentrated radioactive waste. This waste has much higher radioactive levels than other radioactive waste that commercial facilities are currently regulated to accept under this classification.

This is unacceptable to Utah, and I am fundamentally opposed to language that makes Utah into a dumping ground not only for waste from Ohio and New York, but waste from other east coast States as well. Some Members argue this waste is not that bad. Mr. Speaker, if the waste is not that bad, then Ohio and New York should not be in such a rush to get rid of it.

Utah has a history on this issue, a history of being downwinders. My family comes from southern Utah. I would not put Utah into a back seat to anyone when it comes to their patriotism and commitment to this country, but we need to make sure when we move ahead and potentially expose our citizens to radiation, that we make sure we make these decisions in the clear light of day, and we look out for the health and safety of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act. I believe that our country needs a balanced, comprehensive national energy policy that promotes short-term and long-term solutions. We need to increase our energy supplies in an environmentally responsible manner, improve energy infrastructure, and invest in research and development. In the short term, we need more supply, more conservation and energy efficiency, and additional transmission lines and pipelines. But equally as important, a forward- thinking, long-term energy strategy requires a strong commitment to the research and development of current and future energy sources and energy-efficient technologies.

My support for this bill is based on these principles; however, I am extremely disappointed that a provision was inserted in conference that would reclassify radioactive waste from Ohio and allow it to be shipped to Utah. I strongly oppose this provision and I will do everything in my power to ensure that this waste is not dumped on Utah.

Mr. Speaker, I have always been a strong supporter of the military and I'm well aware of the unconventional war we face against terrorists. However, I continue to oppose the nuclear weapons related provisions in this year's defense authorization bill.

No one is arguing about the need to find new technologies with which our nation can combat deeply buried targets, particularly those held by terrorists. At issue is whether Congress needs to resort to repealing the Spratt-Furse prohibition on nuclear weapons development and encouraging the production of new weapons.

There is a disconnect in the federal government between weapons development and the realistic application of nuclear weapons. Advocates of new nuclear weapons see them as just another tool in the War on Terror, without realizing nuclear weapons work best as a deterrent, not as first-use weapons.

Supporters of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and new nuclear weapons, argue that the current authorization language is strictly limited to weapons research and development in Department of Energy labs. This claim ignores the obvious end result of weapons development--weapons design does not occur in a vacuum. In order for our soldiers to use nuclear weapons in combat, these weapons must first be physically tested, most likely at the Nevada Test Site. The federal government's poor record on weapons testing and containment of fallout is lengthy and disappointing, at best.

Like many Utahns, I come from a family of downwinders. My father, as well as other loved ones, developed terminal cancer after he was exposed to radiation from Cold War nuclear weapons tests conducted by the federal government. I do not believe that we should even consider a resumption of nuclear weapons testing when rational alternatives have not been fully explored.

I have already seen too many Americans succumb to then-unforeseen consequences of weapons testing. Advances in containment technology are certainly possible, however, the current circumstances do not lend themselves to a resumption of nuclear weapons testing and I will do everything in my power to avoid that end result.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw attention to the issue of national debt. It has been 874 days since this administration came into office. During that time, the national debt has increased by $1,142,246,097,598, and according to the Web site for the Bureau of the Public Debt at the U.S. Department of Treasury, yesterday at 4:30 p.m. eastern daylight time, the Nation's total outstanding debt was $6,782,571,483,957. Furthermore, in the current fiscal year we are in, 2003, which actually ended yesterday, interest on our national debt or what I call the ``debt tax'' is $304,978,878,641.

It is time for Congress to pay attention to this disturbing trend.

Mr. Speaker, here we are at the end of September, and I find it pretty remarkable we are still talking about this.

I am convinced that most people in this country expect us to come back here and get something done. I really do. When I meet with my constituents back home, there may be this issue that they care about or that issue they care about, but at the end of the day, they are looking for people to come back here and try to get something done.

I supported H.R. 1308, the House passed-bill. I supported that. I also recognize that the United States Senate voted 94 to 2, 94 to 2, to fix this one problem. If we want to talk about the art of what is possible, and to get something done, then we ought to support this motion we are talking about right now.

Let us talk about what is fair. Let us talk about what is right, and let us try to get something done. We are talking about folks in a lower-income situation. This was in the bill when the House and the Senate were first negotiating this tax cut package this last spring. It was taken out, $3.5 billion, which in the grand scheme of the overall cost of the bill was 1 percent, but it was taken out.

But it is a pretty important $3.5 billion, pretty important to those families of all those kids. It is really important. It is so important, in fact, that 94 out of 96 senators thought so and voted to fix this problem. What I do not understand is, we come over here to the House of Representatives and this breaks down into a partisan issue. I do not get it. It sure was not partisan in the United States Senate. Everybody, just about everybody other than two, sure felt it was the right thing to do. So I would encourage all of us to take a little bit of a step back from the rhetoric, a little bit of a step back from trying to pursue what may be the ultimate and perfect piece of legislation in some people's eyes.

Let us get away from looking at the art of perfection, and let us look at the art of what is possible. There is no question that if the House of Representatives passes this measure and agrees to go to conference with the Senate to move this package for these kids that are in that income bracket of 10 to $26,000, that it is going to get done. We can get something done around here.

As I said at the start of my comments, I think that is what people in this country are looking for. They are looking for this Congress to make some progress, get something done. I encourage passage of this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to an issue of utmost importance to my home State of Utah and to the rest of this country.

As we are now in the beginning of a new school year, I am very troubled by news from across our State about the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. The concepts and ideas behind this Federal education reform legislation remain just as good as they were 2 years ago when, with bipartisan support, Congress enacted the bill at the urging of President Bush. Despite the bill's good intentions, such as improving student achievement, increasing teacher quality, and providing parents with greater options, the legislation implementation has strayed off course.

How bad is it? Under the strictest interpretation of standards, 78 out of the 83 schools in Utah's Jordan School District will be designated as failing schools. In rural Utah it is questionable whether any junior high or high school will be able to meet all of the criteria. This just does not make sense. I have met with teachers, principals, parents, school board members, and superintendents throughout my State, and I know first hand about the good work that is done every day in our schools. Utah's schools face challenges based on large class sizes and low State funding. Now, due to the imposition of a new series of underfunded Federal requirements, they face the possibility of being labeled as ``failures.''

There are two basic problems with the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. First, the act promised significant Federal funding to assist local schools in meeting new requirements. In fact, a strong commitment to fund the No Child Left Behind Act requirements was critical in garnering overwhelming bipartisan support for the legislation. Unfortunately, when it came time to provide the actual funding, Congress fell short by $9 billion. At a time when State budgets are already tight, Federal requirements to push schools to do more with less set up our schools to fail.

Second, as with any complex law enacted by Congress, the Federal agency responsible for administration develops

specific regulations. And in this case of No Child Left Behind, the U.S. Department of Education has developed a set of regulations based on an extreme interpretation of the legislation. There are many problems with the way No Child Left Behind regulations have evolved, but let us just take a look at two examples.

Acknowledging that quality teaching is critical to student performance, No Child Left Behind calls for teachers to meet competency and training standards for subjects they teach. This sounds reasonable, but any new Utah secondary teacher is required to have a bachelor's degree in the subject that he or she teaches. In rural schools, teachers often must teach multiple subjects.

In the case of foreign language teachers, many Utah teachers are former LDS missionaries with foreign language fluency. Even if these teachers have college minors in the language, they would still not be considered qualified to teach the subject. Special education teachers also teach a variety of subjects every day. Is it reasonable to require multiple college degrees? Clearly, greater flexibility is necessary to pursue teacher quality.

Now, the No Child Left Behind Act also recognized that teacher turnover is a problem, and it directs States to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught by inexperienced teachers at higher rates than other students. Again, this sounds reasonable, but the implementation has proven problematic.

In Utah, anyone with less than 3 years of teaching is considered an inexperienced teacher. The Jordan School District has a low percentage of inexperienced teachers across the whole district, and Midvale Elementary School in that district, they just recently aggressively recruited a dozen new teachers with foreign language skills to meet students' needs. But because they are all new teachers, it drives the school's percentage of inexperienced teachers above the district average, so the school is a failure under this requirement. Again, this just does not make sense.

As a Congressman, I often hear about the unintended consequences of legislation. As someone who supported the No Child Left Behind Act, I am gravely concerned that a lack of funding and an inappropriate set of regulations have brought on many unintended consequences that will harm Utah's schools.

The gap between legislative intent and real world implementation must be addressed. That is why I have cosponsored legislation to suspend No Child Left Behind requirements until Congress fulfills its funding commitments.

I have seen the great work that goes on every day in our schools. Our teachers, our principals, the PTA parents, teacher aides and school district staff work hard for our kids. None of them would ever want to leave any child behind. They know that the best investment we can make is the investment in our children's education. Congress should do everything we can to help them succeed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my fellow Members to oppose the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, these are difficult times in our Nation. We are fighting terrorism on numerous fronts. Our economy is in serious trouble, unemployment is at record-high levels, and our future budget deficits are predicted to be the highest in the history of this great Nation.

Now is not the time for Members of Congress to be voting themselves a pay raise. We need to show the American people that we are willing to make sacrifices. We need to budget, live within our means and make careful spending decisions based on our most pressing priorities.

Mr. Speaker, let us send a signal to the American people that we recognize their struggle in today's economy. Vote no on the previous question so we can have an opportunity to block the automatic cost-of- living adjustment to Members of Congress. Regardless of how Members feel about this issue, they should all be willing to make their position public and on the record.

A no vote will allow Members to vote up or down on the COLA. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will block the fiscal year 2004 automatic cost-of-living pay raise for Members of Congress. Because this amendment requires a waiver, the only way to get to this issue is to defeat the previous question.

Therefore, I urge Members to vote no on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, in my district, nearly 200 children and their families utilize Head Start. I am opposed to the legislation before us today because it would pose a risk to the many Utahns who receive health, dental, social and educational services under this vital program.

This is a program with a long-term record of success in investing in the future of our children. Head Start has a proven pattern of success with enrollment correlating to IQ gains, improved high school graduation rates and higher achievement in writing, vocabulary and social skills.

For almost 40 years, Head Start has been a lifeline for disadvantaged Utah children, providing comprehensive services to them and their families. I have seen the positive results. Children are receiving medical, social and education help unavailable to them from any other entity.

After taking to Utah parents, administrators and children in Head Start, I am convinced that the current program serves as well, and I don't understand the why Congress would want to make the significant changes before us today.

Mr. Chairman, I rise as a sixth generation Utahn. I come from the West, and I come from a State with public lands. Quite frankly, public lands in the West are what this issue is all about. I have grown up with a legacy of the use of those public lands in my State. My roots are in southern Utah.

Utah is a remarkable State. It is like a lot of the Western States, and it has got a lot of remarkable public lands, some places that are very special. As time has evolved, a lot of people around the world have discovered those lands as well; and I think it is safe to say, and I think there would be consensus at some point, that there is a lot of land out there that is worthy of protection because of its remarkable value.

When I talk about the public lands debate, I know tonight we are talking about the issue of RS 2477 and designation of roads, but it is really part of the overall public lands debate we have in our State and in the West. I look back over my lifetime about how that debate has been carried out. When I think about it, I think about so much emotion and so much effort that has gone into this debate, but there has been no progress. I am alarmed by the lack of progress.

As the West continues to grow and the population grows and the pressures develop, it is time for us to try to come together and try to make progress on these issues and resolve these issues as best we can.

There are not just two sides to this issue. It is not that simple. There are multiple stakeholders involved in public land matters in Utah and in the West. I have talked to so many of them. Quite frankly, I have talked to a lot of them just during this week in preparation and anticipation of the amendment from the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) that would be introduced today.

I have talked to county commissioners throughout rural Utah, and there is not unanimity among that group, quite frankly. There is a divergence of opinion. I have talked to all kinds of stakeholders. The sportsmen community, the recreation community.

There are many different points of view, and these points of view all have legitimate claims, and it is unfortunate that we have been unable to bring those stakeholders together in a way to resolve these issues.

In some respects, life repeats itself, as was mentioned by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) earlier. The Department of the Interior in 1997 under Secretary Babbitt issued rules to deal with RS 2477. Congress did not like it, passed legislation just like we are looking at now to stop the funding of processing under that rule, and Congress said the Department of the Interior should not make any other rules until Congress deals with it.

Now we flash forward to 2003. The Department of the Interior under a different Secretary has issued a new set of rules, and once again we are revisiting the issue of whether or not Congress should be involved in trying to have an inclusive process where we get all the stakeholders together and try to make progress on this issue.

There is no question that there are legitimate claims out there for roads under RS 2477. We all know that. We all know there are roads that are roads. We know there would be some claims out there where we would agree they are really not roads. I would submit to the Members, in fact, that most of the claims in Utah are not controversial. But the problem is that everybody has been scared, everyone has been scared to deal with the noncontroversial roads, thinking they would make some precedent that would place them at a disadvantaged position when we deal with the controversial claims.

So we have been involved in one litigation action after another, and one administration promulgates one set of rules, and another administration promulgates a different set of rules, and we are not making any progress.

I bring before the Members tonight an amendment. It is not a perfect amendment. It is not perfect to any stakeholder in this debate. But what it attempts to do is make some progress, some progress in trying to designate the least controversial roads and allow them to move forward. In Utah, we call them class B roads. That is a State classification. But we have adopted that language in my substitute amendment.

These are roads that can be traveled by two-wheel-drive vehicles. These are roads where I would suspect that no one would disagree that there is a legitimate claim. And I am not saying this solves the entire RS 2477 debate, but it is an opportunity to have some people come together on the least controversial part of this whole issue and try to make some progress.

I also want to mention one other component of my substitute amendment, and that is that I specifically talk about the issue of roads that cross private property, and I say that private property rights need to be maintained and that one cannot file claims on that type of land.

Finally, I mentioned earlier the amount of litigation that has been associated with this, and this is not the end of that pattern. It is unfortunate how much litigation we have seen here, and we are going to see it again. We are going to see it on this ruling that came out on January 6, I predict, and I think all of us are a little tired of that. I think we are tired of having that as a way to try to resolve things. It is time for Congress to step up to the plate and do its job.

In 1997, I was not here, but Congress said we have got to do this. Congress did not agree with what Secretary Babbitt did at that time, and it is up to Congress to come together now.

This substitute amendment is a stopgap. It is a stopgap to move forward on one set of the least controversial roads. It is not the solution. The solution is that we ought to hold hearings, we ought to try to move forward and make progress, bring the interests of all the stakeholders together, and let us make progress and move forward on RS 2477 claims.

Mr. Chairman, over the last few months, I have met with local law enforcement in Utah and the message is loud and clear, COPS and Byrne grants are efficient and effective programs. As a result of these meetings, I fought hard to preserve some of the most basic and fundamental law enforcement funding mechanisms offered by the federal government.

The number one program that Utah law enforcement officers bring to my attention is the importance of the Byrne Grant program. This partnership among federal, state, and local governments creates safer communities by providing funds for personnel, equipment, training, technical assistance, and information systems for more widespread apprehension, prosecution, adjudication, detention, and rehabilitation of offenders who violate such state and local laws.

Another successful program is Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS. Since its inception in 1994, the COPS program has been one of the most successful law enforcement grant programs in American history. A central goal of the COPS Office is to help law enforcement agencies implement and enhance community-based policing, and this program in particular has been successful in Utah.

While I am pleased to see that the House Appropriations Committee provided $683 million for the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS program, it deserves more funding. I am happy that the House Appropriations Committee funded the Byrne Formula Grants at $500 million. This grant program is vital to local law enforcement in Utah. It is my hope that Congress and the Administration can recognize the value of these programs and that in the future we can work toward full funding.

Mr. Chairman, our nation is facing a protracted economic downturn, and manufacturers have been particularly hard hit. It is crucial that the federal government assists the smaller manufacturing businesses, which contribute significantly to the economy. This is why I support the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, program.

Many small businesses in my home state of Utah have benefited substantially from the MEP. I believe that if the federal government is content to merely study the problems of manufacturers, without providing a plan of action or tangible assistance, then our efforts to improve local economies will necessarily fall short.

While I am pleased to see that the House Appropriations Committee provided $39.6 million for MEP, I hope that this worthy program will receive full funding during Senate consideration. Our government has devised and implemented an excellent resource for manufacturers and I believe that it deserves the continued support of Congress and the administration. Thank you for your consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arkansas for yielding me time and raising this issue tonight. It has indeed been an interesting discussion.

When I was elected to Congress, I thought I was coming back here to get things done, and I think that a lot of people in this country would like to see us make progress on issues. So when I look at issues, I try to approach what I call ``what is possible.''

There are a lot of points of view around here, not just a Democratic and a Republican point of view. There are a lot of points of view that different people have about what is a perfect piece of legislation, and I do not know if any of us have ever seen a perfect piece of legislation come through. But tonight I suggest again that we ought to think about what is possible.

I supported the $300 billion tax cut, and, quite frankly, I supported H.R. 1308 as well. But I am also trying to be realistic about what we can do to get some tax relief through for these particular families we have been talking with in that lower income range.

The United States Senate has spoken in a profoundly bipartisan way with a 94 to 2 vote. If we really want to make progress, it may not be perfect for my friend from Arizona, it probably is not perfect for a lot of folks in this body, but if we want to make progress in terms of providing some relief for these folks, this is the opportunity that I think is before us today.

I think as we have had this discussion about what is in the tax bill and what is not in the tax bill and who said what, we have missed the bigger picture, and the bigger picture is this economy is not doing well right now, and the reason why we looked at a tax cut in the first place was because we know we have got to take steps to stimulate this economy.

A lot of people are hurting out there. It has been going on for a long time. This week, we are going to see a bunch of checks mailed out, and it is my sincere hope that those checks are going to have a stimulative effect on this economy and we are going to see economic growth result from that.

I would submit that in the context of those checks going out right now, it only highlights the omission, the omission of this group from $10,000 to $26,000 in annual income, this group that was

included, quite frankly, in H.R. 1308, and is actually included, at least after 2005, in the original House bill we passed, and then in conference committee it got taken out.

So whether the Earned Income Tax Credit is part of a benefit to those folks in that income range, I do not dispute that. It is. It is an important program. It is something that has bipartisan support. The question is, do those families deserve some piece of additional relief, as has been handed out to other families in this country? I would suggest that they do.

So, in closing, I just want to suggest again, let us look for the art of the possible. This may not be a perfect tax bill, but let us look at the art of the possible. I saw a 94 to 2 result on the other side of the Hill. That is a pretty good indicator to me, that if the House of Representatives would pass similar legislation that that could go to the President's desk and be signed into law, and these low-income families, these folks who are working families, who work hard every day, would receive some tax benefit as well.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the Advance Weapons Concepts funding in this appropriations bill. While I was pleased to see that the Energy and Water Appropriators chose to reduce funding for the ``Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator,'' I am still concerned that this bill provides $5 million for the weapon.

We live in an era when terrorism and national security concerns dominate the political landscape, as well they should. No one is arguing about the need to find new technologies with which our Nation can combat deeply buried targets, particularly those held by terrorists. Supporters of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, argue that the current funding is strictly limited to weapons research and development in Department of Energy labs.

This claim ignores the obvious end result of such funding--weapons design does not occur in a vacuum. In order for our soldiers to use nuclear weapons in combat, these weapons must first be physically tested, most likely at the Nevada Test Site. The Federal Government's poor record on weapons testing and containment of fallout is lengthy and disappointing, at best.

I have already seen too many Americans succumb to then-unforeseen consequences of nuclear weapons. The price of new usable nuclear weaponry is too high for this great Nation, once again, and I reiterate my opposition to the advance weapons concepts funding.

Mr. Chairman, last year I spoke in opposition to the approval of Yucca Mountain as a site for the Nation's nuclear waste and I rise again to urge support for the Porter-Udall amendment to reduce funding for Yucca.

My home state, Utah, produces no nuclear waste. However, we are engaged in our own battle against storing out of state nuclear waste at a site called Skull Valley.

Our neighbor, the State of Nevada also produces no nuclear waste. Yet, this Congress insists that Nevada should bear the responsibility for housing thousands of tons of spent fuel. Not only is Nevada expected to house this waste, but states like Utah are expected to allow the transportation of these hazardous, life-threatening fuel rods through our neighborhoods.

This great Nation depends on the concept of shared responsibility. The transportation of this waste throughout the Nation is a huge risk that has not been properly considered. In the event of an accident, either at Yucca or on the way to Yucca, all of our fellow Americans will be forced to live with the consequences. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing funding for Yucca Mountain and in supporting the Porter-Udall amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise as the sixth generation of Utah, and I come from the West. I come from a State with public lands. Quite frankly, public lands in the West are what this issue is all about that we talk about tonight; and I have grown up with a legacy of the use of those public lands in my State. My roots are in southern Utah. Some of my family is involved in grazing on public lands in Utah.

It is a remarkable State. It is like a lot of the Western States, and it has got a lot of remarkable public lands, some places that are very special. As time has evolved, a lot of people around the world have discovered those lands as well; and I think it is safe to say, and I think there would be consensus at some point, that there is a lot of land out there that is worthy of protection because of its remarkable value.

When I talk about the public lands debate, I know tonight we are talking about the issue of RS 2477 and designation of roads, but it is really part of the overall public lands debate we have in our State and in the West. I look back over my lifetime about how that debate has been carried out. When I think about it, I think about so much emotion and so much effort that has gone into this debate, but there has been no progress. I am alarmed by the lack of progress.

As the West continues to grow and the population grows and the pressures develop, it is time for us to try to come together and try to make progress on these issues and resolve these issues as best we can.

There are not just two sides to this issue. It is not that simple. There are multiple stakeholders involved in public land matters in Utah and in the West. I have talked to so many of them. Quite frankly, I have talked to a lot of them just during this week in preparation and anticipation of the gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Udall) amendment that would be introduced today.

I have talked to county commissioners throughout rural Utah, and there is not unanimity among that group, quite frankly. There is a divergence of opinion. I have talked to all kinds of stakeholders, the sportsmen community. I have talked to the recreation community.

There are lots of different points of view, and these points of view all have legitimate claims, and it is unfortunate that we have been unable to bring those stakeholders together in a way to resolve these issues.

In some respects, life repeats itself, as was mentioned by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) earlier. The Department of Interior in 1997 under Secretary Babbitt issued rules to deal with RS 2477. Congress did not like it, passed legislation just like we are looking at now to stop the funding of processing under that rule, and Congress said they are not going to make any other rules until Congress deals with it.

Let us flash forward to 2003. The Department of Interior under a different Secretary has issued a new set of rules, and once again we are revisiting that issue of whether or not Congress should be involved in trying to have an inclusive process where we get all the stakeholders together and try to make progress on this issue.

There is no question that there are legitimate claims out there for roads under RS 2477. We all know that. We all know there are roads that are roads. We know there would be some claims out there where we would agree there really are not roads. I would submit to the Members, in fact, that most of the claims in Utah are not controversial. But the problem is that everybody has been scared, everyone has been scared to deal with the noncontroversial roads, thinking they would make some precedent that would get them at a disadvantaged position when we deal with the controversial claims.

So we have been involved in one litigation after another, and one administration promulgates one set of rules, and another administration promulgates a different set of rules, and we are not making any progress.

I bring before the Members tonight an amendment. It is not a perfect amendment. It is not a perfect amendment. It is not perfect to any stakeholder in this debate. But what it attempts to do is make some progress, some progress in trying to designate the least controversial roads and allow them to move forward. In Utah, we call them class B roads. That is a State

classification. But we have adopted that language in my substitute amendment.

These are roads that can be traveled by two-wheel-drive vehicles. These are roads where I would suspect that no one would disagree that it is a legitimate claim. And I am not saying this solves the entire RS 2477 debate, but it is an opportunity to have some people come together on the least controversial part of this whole issue and try to make some progress.

I also want to mention one other component of my substitute amendment, and that is that I specifically talk about the issue of roads that cross private property, and I say that private property rights need to be maintained and that one cannot file claims on that type of land.

Finally, I mentioned earlier the amount of litigation that has been associated with this, and this is not the end. This is not the end. It is unfortunate how much litigation we have seen here, and we are going to see it again. We are going to see it on this ruling that came out on January 6, I predict, and I think all of us are a little tired of that. I think we are tired of having that as a way to try to resolve things. It is time for Congress to step up to the plate and do its job.

In 1997, I was not here, but Congress said we have got to do this. We do not agree with what Secretary Babbitt did at that time, and it is up to Congress to come together.

This substitute amendment is a stopgap. It is a stopgap to move forward on one set of the least controversial roads. It is not the solution. The solution is that we ought to hold hearings, we ought to try to move forward and make progress, bring the interests of all the stakeholders together, and let us make progress and move forward on RS 2477 claims.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) to talk on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for his comments.

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

Point of Order