69–006 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 110–561 

NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM ACT 

APRIL 1, 2008.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. RAHALL, from the Committee on Natural Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2016] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 2016) to establish the National Landscape Conservation 

System, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report 

favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill 

as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Landscape Conservation System Act’’. 

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the Interior. 

(2) SYSTEM.—The term ‘‘system’’ means the National Landscape Conservation 

System established by section 3(a). 

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—In order to conserve, protect, and restore nationally significant landscapes that have outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific values for 

the benefit of current and future generations, there is established in the Bureau of 

Land Management the National Landscape Conservation System. 

(b) COMPONENTS.—The system shall include each of the following areas administered by the Bureau of Land Management: 

(1) Each area that is designated as— 

(A) a national monument; 

(B) a national conservation area; 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTS
2 

(C) a wilderness study area; 

(D) a National Scenic Trail or National Historic Trail designated as a 

component of the National Trails System; 

(E) a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; or 

(F) a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

(2) Any area designated by Congress to be administered for conservation purposes, including— (A) the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area, 

as designated under section 101(a) of the Steens Mountain Cooperative 

Management and Protection Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 460nnn–11(a)); 

(B) the Headwaters Forest Reserve; 

(C) the Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area; and 

(D) any additional area designated by Congress for inclusion in the system. 

(c) MANAGEMENT.—The Secretary shall manage the system— (1) in accordance with each applicable law (including regulations) relating to 

each component of the system included under subsection (b); and 

(2) in a manner that protects the values for which the components of the system were designated. 

SEC. 4. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION. 

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to enhance, diminish, or modify any law 

or proclamation (or regulations related to such law or proclamation) under which 

the components of the system identified in section 3(b) were established, or are 

managed, including, but not limited to, the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), the National Trails System 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1241 et seq.), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 2016 is to establish the National Landscape 

Conservation System, and for other purposes. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) includes 

approximately 26 million acres, or about 10% of the land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The System includes more than 800 units, including all National Scenic and Historic Trails, National Conservation Areas, National Monuments, 

wilderness areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and wilderness study 

areas managed by the BLM. 

Each NLCS unit was established by Congress or Presidential 

Proclamation and is managed according to its enabling authority, 

as well as the Wilderness Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act, or other laws applicable to specific units. Former Interior Secretary Babbitt established the NLCS 

administratively as a framework to tie each of these units together 

into a larger conservation system. The NLCS has never been established by statute, however. 

NLCS units include significant natural resources, including approximately 12% of the BLM-managed sage grouse habitat, as well 

as important cultural and scientific resources. For example, the 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument in Colorado includes 

more than 6,000 archeological sites significant to Native American 

cultures. NLCS units provide unique recreational opportunities, 

with many located in or near heavily developed urban areas. 

H.R. 2016 establishes the NLCS, lists the components of the system, and specifies that any future additions must be authorized by 

Congress. The legislation makes clear that each NLCS unit is to be 

managed in accordance with all laws applicable to that unit and in 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTS
3 

1 1ACompanion legislation (S. 1139) was introduced by Senate Energy and Natural Resources 

Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman. The Senate bill was ordered reported from the Energy and 

Natural Resources Committee on May 23, 2007 by voice vote. 

‘‘a manner that protects the values for which the components of the 

system were designated.’’ In addition to the support of the Bush Administration, this legislation enjoys broad support from a diverse coalition which includes 

the American Hiking Society, National Council of Churches, Boone 

and Crockett Club, National Trust for Historic Preservation, National Wildlife Federation, and the Outdoor Industry Association. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 2016 was introduced on April 24, 2007, by National Parks, 

Forests, and Public Lands Subcommittee Chairman Raul Grijalva 

(D–AZ) along with a bipartisan group of 16 cosponsors. The bill 

currently has 65 bipartisan co-sponsors. The bill was referred to 

the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to 

the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands.1

On June 6, 2007, the House Subcommittee on National Parks, 

Forests and Public Lands held a hearing on the bill, during which 

a representative from the Department of the Interior testified in 

support of the bill. 

On March 12, 2008, the subcommittee was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2016 and the full Natural Resources 

Committee met to consider the bill. Subcommittee Chairman 

Grijalva offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to 

H.R. 2016. In addition to technical changes, the substitute clarifies 

that enactment of H.R. 2016 will not alter existing authorities 

under which units of the NLCS are currently managed. Specifically, the substitute states that, ‘‘Nothing in this Act shall be construed to enhance, diminish, or modify any law or proclamation (or 

regulations related to such law or proclamation) under which the 

components of the system identified in section 3(b) were established, or are managed.’’. 

Representative Jeff Flake (R–AZ) offered an amendment to the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute (Flake #1) prohibiting additional appropriations for the NLCS. The amendment was not 

agreed to by a rollcall vote of 12 yeas and 16 nays, as follows: 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTS
4 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 5 HR561.001
5 

Representative Steve Pearce (R–NM) offered an amendment to 

the amendment in the nature of a substitute (Pearce #3) stating 

that inclusion in the NLCS would not affect grazing permits. The 

amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 yeas and 21 

nays, as follows: 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTS
6 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 7 HR561.002
7 

Representative Pearce then offered an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute (Pearce #1) stating that inclusion in the NLCS would not affect eligibility for wind and solar energy development. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call 

vote of 15 yeas and 22 nays, as follows: 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTS
8 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 9 HR561.003
9 

Representative Pearce then offered an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute (Pearce #2) providing that no 

funds can be expended on the NLCS until the Bureau of Land 

Management Payment in Lieu of Taxes program is fully funded at 

authorized levels for that fiscal year. The amendment was not 

agreed to by a roll call vote of 13 yeas and 23 nays, as follows: 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTS
10 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 11 HR561.004
11 

Representative Chris Cannon (R–UT) offered an amendment to 

the amendment in the nature of a substitute (Cannon #1) stating 

that nothing in this Act creates a federal cause of action based on 

inclusion within the NLCS. The amendment was not agreed to by 

voice vote. 

Representative Cannon then offered an amendment to the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute (Cannon #2) providing 

that no county would be included in the NLCS if the county elects 

not to be included through passage of a resolution or similar statement. The amendment was not agreed to by voice vote. 

Representative Rob Bishop (R–UT) offered an amendment to the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute (Bishop #24) stating that 

existing multiple uses of the areas in the NLCS remain a high 

value. The amendment was not agreed to by voice vote. 

The Grijalva amendment in the nature of a substitute was then 

agreed to by voice vote. 

The bill, as amended, was then ordered favorably reported to the 

House of Representatives by a roll call vote of 24 yeas and 13 nays, 

as follows: 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTS
12 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 13 HR561.005
13 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 entitles this Act ‘‘The National Landscape Conservation 

System Act.’’

Section 2. Definitions 

Section 2 defines the terms in this Act. 

Section 3. Establishment 

Section 3(a) establishes the National Landscape Conservation 

System within the Bureau of Land Management in order to conserve, protect, and restore nationally significant landscapes that 

have outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific values, for the 

benefit of current and future generations. 

Section 3(b) identifies and lists the components, administered by 

the Bureau of Land Management, which shall be included within 

the National Landscape Conservation System: 

Subsection (1) provides that the NLCS shall include each area 

that is designated as: (A) a national monument; (B) a national conservation area; (C) a wilderness study area; (D) a National Scenic 

Trail or National Historic Trail designated as a component of the 

National Trails System; (E) a component of the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System; or (F) a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Subsection (2) provides that the NLCS shall also include any 

area designated by Congress to be administered for conservation 

purposes, including: (A) the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area as designated under section 101(a) of the 

Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 

2000 (16 U.S.C. 460nnn–11(a)); (B) the Headwaters Forest Reserve; 

(C) the Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area; and (D) any additional area designated by Congress for inclusion in the system. 

These areas are listed specifically because they are currently part 

of the NLCS but are not covered by the broad categories in subsection (1). 

Section 3(c) provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall manage the NLCS, (1) in accordance with each applicable law (including regulations) relating to each component of the system included 

in this Act; and (2) in a manner that protects the values for which 

the components of the system were designated. 

Section 4. Statutory construction 

Section 4 ensures and guarantees that nothing in this Act shall 

be construed to alter, enhance, diminish or modify any law or proclamation (or regulations related to such law or proclamation) under 

which the components of the NLCS, identified in section 3(b), were 

established, or are managed. This specifically includes, but is not 

limited to, the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (43 

U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1241 et seq.), and the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTS
14 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 and Article IV, section 3, of the Constitution 

of the United States grants Congress the authority to enact this 

bill. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides 

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) of rule 

XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 

308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this bill does not 

contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill is to establish the National Landscape Conservation 

System. 

4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 2016—National Landscape Conservation System Act 

H.R. 2016 would provide a statutory basis for the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), which was established administratively in 2000. The NLCS encompasses about 20 million acres 

of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

Based on information provided by that agency, CBO estimates that 

enacting H.R. 2016 would have no effect on the BLM budget (which 

currently includes about $50 million a year for the NLCS) because 

BLM already has permanent authority to manage the lands in the 

system, subject to amounts provided annually in appropriations 

acts. Enacting H.R. 2016 would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

On June 6, 2007, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 1139, 

the National Landscape Conservation System Act, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTS
15 

on May 23, 2007. S. 1139 and H.R. 2016 are similar, and the CBO 

cost estimates for the two pieces of legislation are the same. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant for Budget Analysis. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

H.R. 2016 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e) 

or 9(f) of rule XXI. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing law. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTS
(16) 

DISSENTING VIEWS ON H.R. 2016 

We strongly oppose H.R. 2016. The true purpose of H.R. 2016 is 

to prevent many locally popular, wholesome family recreational opportunities and almost all economic activities from taking place on 

26 million acres of BLM land. H.R. 2016 will create a two-tiered 

system within the BLM under which some BLM land can be carefully managed for multiple use while other vast tracts would be 

walled off from almost all human use and managed for ‘‘preservation’’ or in layman’s terms, no use. While well- meaning, few supporters of this bill live in the areas most affected by the legislation 

and fewer still ever truly get know first hand the rural communities of farmers, ranchers, and others whose ability to provide for 

their families can be devastated by decisions we so cavalierly make 

from afar. More that one third of the land in the United States is 

federally managed, but in much of the West, that ratio is reversed 

and doubled. To those of us who live in the public land states, multiple use means having the opportunity to practice conservation as 

it was defined by Teddy Roosevelt’s mentor, Gifford Pinchot, ‘‘conservation means the wise use of natural resources.’’ It means having the opportunity to obtain the many compatible esthetic and economic benefits well managed resources can provide. Properly managed, public lands can simultaneously contribute to energy independence, timber for affordable housing, needed food and fiber, 

wildlife conservation, outdoor recreation and the advancement of 

science and technology. We can choose to remove land from multiple us, but that choice is not cost-free; indeed, it will be impossible to meet any of these vital needs domestically if more and 

more public land is locked up every year. 

Rep. Grijalva has contended both during the hearing that took 

place in June of 2007 and during the March 12, 2008 markup session of H.R. 2016 that this legislation just codifies the existence of 

a division within the BLM that has already been administratively 

created. Putting aside for a moment our objections to ‘‘just,’’ the 

language in H.R. 2016 goes well beyond a codification of what already exists. Section 3(c)(2) states the Secretary (of the Interior) 

shall manage the system (NLCS) ‘‘in a manner that protects the 

values for which the components of the system were designated’’. The term ‘‘values’’ is a wholly new concept to the BLM and this 

would be the first time legislation directing the management and 

operation of BLM interjects this nebulous, malleable term. This is 

not an accidental or trivial insertion of verbiage in the legislation; 

it was specifically plucked from the National Park Service’s organic 

act in order to purposefully mandate broad and vague new management practices. What are some ‘‘values’’ to the National Park Service that allow the iron-fisted ‘‘no-impairment standard’’ of enforcement to protect them? They include such things as ‘‘viewscapes,’’

‘‘soundscapes,’’ and ‘‘smellscapes.’’ It happens that many times 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTS
17 

these wonderfully indefinable concepts are enforced laxly within 

the park but used with draconian severity against the park’s neighbors. This is a particularly poor model for BLM lands which, unlike 

National Parks, are more often part of a mixed checkerboard of private, state and federal land. 

When asked how the term ‘‘values’’ is defined, proponents point 

to the assortment of declarations made when the units were added 

to the NLCS system. What happens when it is unclear if the Secretary is managing the system in a manner that protects the values for which a component was designated? Many of the designations of units within the NLCS consist of wonderful prose and lofty 

platitudes but have very little in the way of management direction 

or substance. The Secretaries of the Interior who make these declarations range from Bruce Babbitt to James Watt and it may be 

noted that their values and the language they used to describe the 

ideal use of federal land have not always coincided exactly. Are we 

in Congress not then abdicating our responsibility as the policy setting branch of government if we simply punt this issue to whatever 

team is currently at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue? NLCS 

Director Elena Daly testified that today ninety percent of NLCS 

lands are potentially open to grazing with much currently taking 

place. How does grazing fit into the concept of ‘‘smellscapes’’? Not 

too well we suspect, based on our observations of city folks experiencing their first encounter with the grand smellscape provided by 

cattle. How do shooting ranges and hunting activities, which are 

currently part of several NLCS units, fit into the concept of 

‘‘soundscapes’’? How does OHV use, mining, oil exploration, horseback riding, camping, and numerous other activities that are currently part of most NLCS units square with the new concept of 

‘‘values’’? The fact that this is even debatable shows that the ultimate arbiter will be the Courts. Far-fetched? Not hardly. Take for 

example one of the strongest advocates of this bill, The Wilderness 

Society, who testified in support of H.R. 2016 and has a history of 

using litigation to stop activities on federal lands. The Wilderness 

Society in its 18 page packet in support of the NLCS lists road 

building, energy exploration and mining, recreational use, off road 

vehicle use and boundary adjustments as ‘‘immediate threats to the 

units of the NLCS’’ that must be stopped. The Wilderness Society 

and their contingent of special interest allies, who are disdainful of 

people who work outdoors, and have sued federal land management 

agencies several times before to stop such activities on federal 

lands and this vague new management directive of ‘‘values’’ is a 

perfect entree for more lawsuits. Not to just single out The Wilderness Society, numerous other supporters of H.R. 2016 such as the 

Center for Biological Diversity, National Parks Conservation Association and the Defenders of Wildlife have used the courts to drive 

off ranchers and destroy the livelihood of timber workers in the 

United States. We also view the inclusion of Wilderness Study 

Areas (WSA) in H.R. 2016 as a way to congressionally lock in the 

administratively created and released WSA, turning them into de 

facto wilderness areas. This is especially problematic given the fact 

that over half of BLM’s WSA’s do not meet even the minimum 

acreage requirement and should be released immediately. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTS
18 

H.R. 2016 at best would codify a division of BLM (NLCS) that 

performs work that can better be performed by other agency officials and creates a duplicative agency without a clear mission or 

structure. H.R. 2016 would also bestow Congressional recognition 

on over a dozen BLM monuments that we still cannot identify as 

having met the three criteria that must be met in the Antiquities 

Act. We remain unsatisfied and troubled with the Administration’s 

answers when asked about the scope, structure and powers of the 

NLCS and specifically its Washington, D.C. office. It is even fair to 

say that something mischievous is afoot when one compares what 

has been said before the Committee with what has been reported 

in the press and proclaimed in BLM’s own documents. In testifying 

before the Committee (in two separate hearings) NLCS Director 

Daly and Deputy Director (BLM) Henri Bisson gave the impression 

that the NLCS had no binding authority, no ability to supersede 

or interfere with the longstanding BLM organizational structure at 

any level, and had no real way to implement policy or management 

changes or recommendations and ability to appoint staff. ‘‘The 

NLCS is more or less a policy office, is what it is. It doesn’t exactly 

manage the system,’’ is what Deputy Director Bison stated during 

a budget hearing. Yet according to the BLM’s own organizational 

structure chart located on their website the NLCS office is one of 

four departments directly underneath the Director and above the 

state offices. 

Former Secretary of the Interior Babbitt was forthright from the 

beginning when he by fiat created the NLCS and set forth what he 

envisioned it to be: a new way of managing BLM lands (he estimated up to 100 million acres someday) through the NLCS system 

so that ‘‘the old bureaucratic mule will awaken to a new future as 

an environmental steward right up there with the National Park 

Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System. The day is coming, I believe, when the BLM so often stereotyped and dismissed 

as the Bureau of Livestock and Mining will be better known as the 

Bureau of Landscape and Monuments.’’ Rep. Grijalva, when asked 

if H.R. 2016 would lead to NLCS lands receiving more regulation 

stated candidly, ‘‘You’ve got to establish the system.. .and then you 

go to step 2.’’ NLCS Director Daly, not exactly invoking images of 

a policy shop, was quoted in the Arizona Republic stating, ‘‘This is 

like being part of a birthing. I think we are all about to witness 

the next major conservation system in the United States.’’ BLM’s 

2007 ‘‘National Landscape Conservation System Science Strategy’’

clearly sets up a system for the NLCS apart from the rest of the 

BLM. Despite assurances that the field offices (overseen by BLM 

State Directors) will continue to operate freely and will only get 

guidance from the NLCS, the Science Strategy document directs 

the NLCS to develop and implement (using ‘‘leverage’’ i.e. the millions in subactivity budget accounts the Administration is proposing the NLCS control). NLCS official Jeff Jarvis outlined very 

clearly in a report titled ‘‘National Landscape Conservation System: A New Approach to Conservation’’ that the purpose behind 

the NLCS is to shed the old, burdensome role of ‘‘developing commodities’’ that Congress gave the BLM and to move into conservation, assuming the two concepts were incompatible. We find this 

troublesome given how much and how irreplaceably BLM lands 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTS
19 

contribute to our nation’s economy and security. Many of us have 

districts whose viability is dependent on ongoing multiple uses of 

BLM land. And the country as a whole has a continuing vital need 

to ensure that our local and national economies grow stronger, 

more resilient and have access to vital resources from secure domestic sources. One thing is certain: there are no more zealous and 

knowledgeable guardians of environmental and recreational ‘‘values’’ of these lands than the local people who hunt, fish, ride, hike, 

camp, raise their kids and, yes, try to earn a living on and around 

these lands. 

Many and imperfect are the federal laws that set the course for 

the management of our public land. But they are duly enacted laws 

passed by Congress and signed by a President and they can be 

changed the same way they were adopted. For us to pass legislation delegating to the Secretary of the Interior of the moment and 

unelected bureaucrats within a federal land management agency a 

mandate to create a management regime to enforce legislatively 

undefined ‘‘values’’ on a vast, resource rich part of the country is 

an unacceptable abdication of our responsibility as the policy setting branch of the government. 

DON YOUNG. ROB BISHOP. STEVE PEARCE. CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS. HENRY BROWN. BILL SALI. JEFF FLAKE. DOUG LAMBORN. LOUIE GOHMERT. 

JIMMY DUNCAN. 

ADRIAN SMITH. TOM TANCREDO. 

CHRIS CANNON. MARY FALLIN. 

TOM COLE. LUIS FORTUN ̃ O. ELTON GALLEGLY. BILL SHUSTER. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTS
20 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 23 here HR561.006
21 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 24 here HR561.007
22 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 25 here HR561.008
23 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 26 here HR561.009
24 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 27 here HR561.010
25 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 28 here HR561.011