Commerce, Justice, Science, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, Interior, Environment, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, there is no doubt that we are blessed with beautiful, useful, and productive lands in our Nation. And there is no doubt that some of them should be preserved as what they are, which happen to be national treasures. But, unfortunately, the Federal Government owns far too much land. It owns far more of these Federal public lands than it should own and far more of these lands than it can possibly take care of.

Let's take a look at this map, for example. This shows in red the land that is owned by the Federal Government in parts of the United States. The Federal Government owns most of the land. This is certainly the case in my home State of Utah, where the Federal Government owns two-thirds of the land. Notice, by the way, that in every State east of Colorado, the Federal Government owns less than 15 percent of the land--in most States, significantly less. In every State west of Colorado, the Federal Government owns more than 15 percent of the land, and in many cases, a whole lot more than 15 percent.

The sheer volume of land that it owns is nothing short of staggering. In fact, the Federal Government owns 640 million acres of land. This is a total larger than the entireties of France, Spain, Germany, Poland, Italy, the United Kingdom, Austria, Switzerland, and the Netherlands combined. That is how much land the Federal Government owns just in America.

With such a vast estate, it is no wonder that there is currently a $19.38 billion maintenance backlog on those lands. Of that backlog, $11.92 billion is on lands owned and managed by just the National Park Service. In fact, there are National Park Service backlogs in every single State in the country, as this map demonstrates.

I see here that the question is not whether a particular State has a National Park Service backlog within its State; the question is, How much? In some States, it is very severe. In some States, it is significant but not yet severe. But there is a National Park Service maintenance backlog in every single State.

Many of my colleagues--especially those from the Midwest, as this map shows--don't have a whole lot of Federal land in their States. They have a whole lot less Federal land to maintain, and therefore they have less of a maintenance backlog. They should thank their lucky stars for that. That is a position to be envied.

On one end of the spectrum, there is a $1.3 million backlog on National Park Service properties in Delaware. The backlog for the parks in Rhode Island is just under $1 million. But at the other end of the spectrum, California alone has a whopping $1.8 billion maintenance backlog just on its national parks alone. That is in just one State. What does that mean? That means the damage from wildfires, ill-kept roads and trails, and neglected facilities have actually kept citizens from accessing our national treasures--national treasures like Yosemite and Yellowstone, our National Mall and the Grand Canyon. Visitors who come from far and wide to see them are either unable to see them at all, or perhaps they make it, but they don't have a good experience when they do. All the while, Washington continues to purchase ever more land, so the maintenance backlog continues to grow.

This must not continue. This staggering, stunning maintenance backlog on the Federal land that we own--the Federal land that is more than all of the long list of European countries I mentioned just a minute ago-- can't continue. If we continue on this path, we will only do greater disservice to our citizens and to the lands themselves.

That is why I have introduced an amendment that would stop the Federal Government's use of taxpayer dollars to acquire more lands in the next year. Specifically, it would prevent the money currently going to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Range Improvement Funds, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service from being used to acquire new lands that the Federal Government cannot properly care for.

It is important, when describing a piece of legislation--in this case, an amendment to another piece of legislation--to explain both what it does and what it does not do. Let me be very clear in telling you what this amendment does not do. This amendment would not reduce the dollar amount being given to any of these programs--not one of them, not by one dollar. It would simply reauthorize the money to ensure that it is being used to care for the lands we already own and lands that need to be cared for so desperately.

While some of my colleagues may disagree with me and may believe that we should continue growing the Federal estate, I ask that, at least for this year, we think of our current lands and our existing national parks and that we think of those States where there are a lot of them and States where the maintenance backlog is especially staggering. These lands won't be national treasures for everyone if we don't, can't, or simply won't properly care for them.

If we continue in this pattern of neglect, there will be treasures for no one. If we continue with this pattern of neglect, we will continue to inflict significant environmental harm that, in addition to being stunning in and of itself, may, in some cases, be difficult or impossible to reverse.

If you support the environment, if you want to protect the environment and the natural wonders and beauties with which this land has been blessed, if you want to protect our national treasures, then you should vote for this amendment.

Voting against this amendment means you are willing to have the gluttonous Federal Government continue to acquire more land, even while it refuses to and professes itself to be utterly incapable of maintaining the land it has.

For now, at the very least, we ought to ensure that these lands are safe and accessible for generations to come. Our lands, our citizens, and our environment deserve nothing less. Amendment No. 1209 to Amendment No. 948

(Purpose: To prohibit the expenditure of certain amounts from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for land acquisition.)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1209.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source