u.s. house of representatives - search result list for 'hr

U.S. House of Representatives - Search Result List

The U.S. House of RepresentativesWeb Sites Search Results

4 of 162141 documents match your search < HR 3558 >4 are presented, ranked by relevance.

Rank Score Title/Information

1 (0.92)

October 30, 1998 +++++++++++ HR 3558 is designed to provide grants to States for

activities to protect, conserve, and restore native fish, wildlife, and their natural habitats on Federal lands. + All these programs offer grants or funding to states, private landowners or http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/107cong/fisheries/2002mar14/okeefe.htm

2 (0.77)

Committee on Resources (Democrats) - Press Release - Remarks of Rep. Rahall: Joint Hearing on H.R. 3558, Invasive Species Legislation WASHINGTON, D.C. -

Harmful non-native species, or invasive species as they are more commonly called, represent one of our Nationïs most critical environmental challenges. According to the National Invasive Species Council, approximately 4,200 h http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ii00_democrats/031402.html

3 (0.77)

John Shannon Testimony for HR 3558 Stefan Bergmann .Committee on Resources .2 .470

.2002-03-12T18:01:00Z .2002-03-13T19:55:00Z .2002-03-13T19:55:00Z .1 .1685 .9611 .NASF .80

.22 .11274 .10.2625 . 1972533956 .HR 3558 Testimony for John Shannon [email protected]

.Stefan Bergmann . . .Micros http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/107cong/fisheries/2002mar14/shannon.htm

4 (0.77)

Statement of 3558 contributes to the further implementation of the National Invasive Species

Management Plan, and enhances the capacity of private, State and Federal entities to manage invasive species. The backlog in invasive species management on the National Wildli http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/107cong/fisheries/2002mar14/bartuska.htm

Home | House Directory | Write Your Representative This Week on the House Floor | Currently on the House Floor | Committee Schedules

Member Offices | Committee Offices | Leadership Offices | Other House Organizations, Commissions, and Taskforces | Media Galleries

House Operations | Educational Links | Visiting the Nation's Capital | Government Links

Prepared by House Information Resources.

file:///E|/x/hr3558comments.htm [05/23/2002 10:08:03 AM]

http://clerkweb.house.gov/floor/current.htm

October 30, 1998

[Next Doc in Result List]

Statement by the

NATIONAL CATTLEMEN¡S BEEF ASSOCIATION

and PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL

on

H. R. 3558, the Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act

Submitted to the

House Resources Committee

The Honorable James V. Hansen, Chairmen

http://wwws.house.gov/search97cgi/s97_cgi?acti...ction=coxreport&ViewTemplate=memberview%2Ehts& (1 of 7) [05/23/2002 10:08:21 AM]

http://wwws.house.gov/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=View&Collection=comms&Collection=members&Collection=other&Collection=coxreport&ViewTemplate=memberview%2Ehts&QueryZip=HR+3558&SourceQueryZip=&DocOffset=2

October 30, 1998

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

The Honorable Wayne Gilchrest, Chairman

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health

The Honorable Scott McInnis, Chairman

and

Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands

The Honorable George Radanovich, Chairman

by

Mr. John O¡Keeffe

Adel, Oregon

March 14, 2002

Chairman Gilchrest, Chairman McInnis, Chairman Hefley and Distinguished Members of the House Resources Committee:

On behalf of the National Cattlemen¡s Beef Association (NCBA), the trade association of America¡s cattle farmers and ranchers, and the marketing organization for the largest segment of the nation¡s food and fiber industry, and


October 30, 1998

the Public Lands Council (PLC), a non-profit organization representing over 27,000 federal grazing permittees, thank you for your interest in my comments concerning invasive species.+

I am a member of NCBA, the PLC and the Oregon Cattlemen¡s Association (OCA).+ I also chair the Public Lands Committee of the Oregon Cattlemen¡s Association and PLC¡s Sage Grouse Committee.+ My wife and I, our two sons and my mother operate our family ranch in south central Oregon.+ We run our cow-calf operation on about 16,000 private deeded acres and lease about 200,000 acres from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS).+ Therefore, I have a vested interest in what happens on my own land as well as how federal lands surrounding my private acreage are managed.+

NCBA and PLC appreciate the attention the Committee has directed to invasive species issues and also appreciate the opportunity to speak to these joint subcommittees on H.R. 3558, the Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act.+ We have long been aware of the economic and environmental harm caused by invasive species and have urged the Federal Government to recognize invasive species as a priority issue and to develop a national effort to address the problem.+ We support Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species.+ We support the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) that was established by the Executive Order and provided input into the preparation of ~Meeting the Invasives Species ChallengeE (the national management plan developed by NISC), through participation in the Invasive Species Advisory Council. +We have also worked with Congress through the appropriations and other legislative processes to direct resources to, and focus attention on, invasive species issues.+

Our priorities for invasive species legislation are perhaps easier to articulate than they are to implement, but we nonetheless believe that every effort needs to be made to provide a strong foundation for efficient distribution of federal funds, strive to avoid duplication, coordinate activities between Federal and State agencies and private landowners, and provide the flexibility for decisions to be made locally where the problems arise.+

HR 3558 is important legislation, as it elevates the significance of invasives


October 30, 1998

species and underscores the need for Congress to focus more attention on this issue.+ It strengthens the ability for Federal, State, and private entities to develop partnerships and coordinate activities, and also emphasizes rapid response to outbreaks of harmful nonnative species.+ We are encouraged by the efforts of this Committee to provide mechanisms for States and private landowners to manage all invasive species.++

We do have several concerns with the legislation that I will summarize below:

+++++++++++ HR 3558 is designed to provide grants to States for activities to protect, conserve, and restore native fish, wildlife, and their natural habitats on Federal lands.+ We are concerned that the legislation duplicates current programs and competes with on-going efforts that direct resources to problem areas not adequately addressed.++ Federal dollars are appropriated every year to fund programs that protect, conserve, and restore fish and wildlife and their habitats.+ For example, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program directs funds for wildlife habitat restoration and we are concerned that HR 3558 may be duplicative of these efforts.+ Another example is the Department of Interior¡s Landowner Incentive Program (LIP).+ For FY 2003, the Department budgeted an additional $10 million over last year¡s budget for a total budget request of $50 million.+ The LIP provides landowners with technical and financial assistance to private landowners for habitat protection and restoration.+ Yet another example is the Cooperative Conservation Program, proposed funding for this program is $50 million.+ This program offers grants to states for habitat protection, wetlands restoration and riparian area protection.+ Other examples where HR 3558 essentially duplicates current efforts of Department of Interior programs (and proposed funding amounts in the Department¡s FY 2003 budget request) include programs such as the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund ($43.56 million), Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund ($91 million), and the National Wildlife Refuge Fund ($14.558 million).+ All these programs offer grants or funding to states, private landowners or federal agencies to protect, conserve or restore fish and wildlife habitats.

However, existing sources of funds for addressing invasive weeds do not come


October 30, 1998

close to addressing the needs we are facing on public and private lands.+ There currently is no existing independent federal fund to address these needs.+ In BLM FY 2003 budget request, the agency plans to treat 245,000 acres.+ This acreage is the same as last year and 7,000 acres less than 2001¡s total acres.+ I find it interesting that for an agency responsible for managing 264 million acres of federal land ¤ or nearly one-eighth of the country¡s landmass ¤ only one acre out of every 1,078 acres will be treated.+ To me, this number is shocking.+ More federal dollars need to allocated for treating more acreage.+ While the cattle industry recognizes the threats posed by all invasive species and supports all efforts to manage them, our primary concern is the threat posed by invasive weeds.+ Weeds are also the invasives where I have the most personal experience, as reflected in this testimony.+

The Federal Interagency Weed Committee has estimated that annual losses in the productivity of agricultural lands are as much as $20 billion.+ These losses are personal to cattle producers+ -- so each of us has a vested interest in the health of the land that we own or manage and in minimizing financial impacts caused by invasive weeds.+ New money should be directed to a program that gives states maximum flexibility to direct funds where they can be utilized by local decision makers most effectively.+ Federal red tape and administrative requirements must be minimized to ensure that the dollars are getting to the ground where they are needed most.+ For federal lands, we also need a programmatic environmental impact statement so the agencies can deal with all weeds at all times, rather than one at a time.+

I have been involved with fighting non-native species, particularly noxious weeds, for about 20 years now.+ I helped organize our county¡s weed board, the Lake County Weed Board.+ In fact, I am still serving as vice chairman.+ The principle function of the weed board is to advise our county commissioners on weed management and what can be done to help fight the struggle.+ About five years ago, I also helped establish the Warner Weed Working Group.+ I still serve as the chair of this group.+ This group seeks to target weed control and eradication through cost-share efforts, education and awareness.+ My involvement also includes assisting landowners and other cattle producers by commenting on federal land management proposals to ensure non-native invasive species, such as noxious weeds, are adequately addressed in the proposed action.+

As I stated earlier, I have been fighting weeds on my own land for over 20 years.+ I spray, learn what I can about control and management and even break out the shovel to eradicate weeds such as the Canadian thistle.+ But my individual efforts are not enough.+ In my area, we are currently facing invasions of whitetop, perennial pepperweed and Russian knapweed.+ If more effort, particularly federal funding, is not devoted to combat invasive species, we are all fighting a losing battle and rural communities such as my own will face severe economic crises.+


October 30, 1998

If there is one thing I have noticed in all my years of fighting these non-native species is that if something is not done fast we will lose a lot of land that will never be recovered.+ For instance, fighting cheatgrass is a lost cause.+ One might as well try to empty the ocean with a bucket.+ Cheatgrass is a prime example of what can happen if proactive measures are not taken immediately.+

The best method of fighting these invasions is to act locally.+ Currently, we have a limited amount of resources.+ In order to maximize resources, I have found that resources are best utilized by those who intuitively know the geography and flora of an area -- for instance, those who have been running up and down fields and ditches like myself and other members of my weed board and weed working group.+ Furthermore, we need to have additional funding diverted to the local level to assist those who know best how to manage the land and treat the problem ¤ whether the land is federal or private.

I feel HR 3558 fails to devote adequate resources to the local level and when HR 3558 provides resources to the local level, any effort is burdened with red tape and bureaucracy -- two things I find totally unnecessary in the fight against invasive species.+ In particular, for a project to qualify under Section 5(e), objectives include establishing a science-based restoration of fish and wildlife habitats.+ I am not a wildlife biologist but I feel this section requires expertise beyond my capability.+ My expertise comes from living on the land, working on the land, and nurturing the land in order to reach its highest sustainability.+ In other words, application of common sense local know how.

HR 3558 expands bureaucracy and red tape with the state assessment requirements of Section 4 and places an additional burden on states.+ Many states currently have weed management programs and directs state dollars to local weed management boards.+ My own state of Oregon customarily follows this practice.+ My basic thoughts are we do not need more bureaucracy or red tape, or more government for that matter.+ What we need is more federal funding to get more money on the ground, using local folks, to attack the problem effectively.+

Because invasive species know no boundaries, any Federal program must allow for funds to be directed where they are most needed.+ HR 3558 appears to limit use of funds to only those projects on State and private lands that are adjacent to Federal lands and also requires there be a Federal partner to be eligible for a grant under the Also Leopold Native Heritage Grant Program.+ NCBA and PLC believe that our limited Federal dollars should be directed to projects that hold the most promise for success, whether they are on Federal lands, State lands or private lands, or any combination thereof.+

One provision of HR 3558 I am particularly interested in is Section 7, the Rapid Response Capability to Harmful Non-native species.+ When it comes to fighting invasive species such as noxious weeds, I feel we need to attack the problem as if it were a wildfire, move resources into the problem area, eradicate the problem and don¡t leave until the threat is eliminated.+

In closing, the National Cattlemen¡s Beef Association and the Public Lands Council support the goals of HR 3558 and support the efforts of this Committee


October 30, 1998

to address invasive species issues.+ However, we are concerned that HR 3558 will not adequately address the non-native invasive species problems, particularly noxious weeds.+ Nonetheless, we look forward to working with the Committee to ensure that our efforts to manage and control these harmful species are targeted in the most efficient manner possible.+ Thank you for the opportunity to testify before your committee.+ I will gladly answer any questions you may have.++

+

[Next Doc in Result List]



October 30, 1998

Statement by the

NATIONAL CATTLEMEN’S BEEF ASSOCIATION

and PUBLIC LANDS COUNCILon


Submitted to the

House Resources CommitteeThe Honorable James V. Hansen, Chairmen

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

The Honorable Wayne Gilchrest, ChairmanSubcommittee on Forests and Forest Health

The Honorable Scott McInnis, Chairmanand

Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public LandsThe Honorable George Radanovich, Chairman

by

Mr. John O’Keeffe Adel, Oregon

March 14, 2002

Chairman Gilchrest, Chairman McInnis, Chairman Hefley and Distinguished Members of the House Resources Committee:

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/107cong/fisheries/2002mar14/okeefe.htm (1 of 7) [05/23/2002 10:08:26 AM]

October 30, 1998

On behalf of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), the trade association of America’s cattle farmers and ranchers, and the marketing organization for the largest segment of the nation’s food and fiber industry, and the Public Lands Council (PLC), a non-profit organization representing over 27,000 federal grazing permittees, thank you for your interest in my comments concerning invasive species.

I am a member of NCBA, the PLC and the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association (OCA). I also chair the Public Lands Committee of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association and PLC’s Sage Grouse Committee. My wife and I, our two sons and my mother operate our family ranch in south central Oregon. We run our cow-calf operation on about 16,000 private deeded acres and lease about 200,000 acres from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS). Therefore, I have a vested interest in what happens on my own land as well as how federal lands surrounding my private acreage are managed.

NCBA and PLC appreciate the attention the Committee has directed to invasive species issues and also appreciate the opportunity to speak to these joint subcommittees on H.R. 3558, the Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act. We have long been aware of the economic and environmental harm caused by invasive species and have urged the Federal Government to recognize invasive species as a priority issue and to develop a national effort to address the problem. We support Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species. We support the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) that was established by the Executive Order and provided input into the preparation of “Meeting the Invasives Species Challenge” (the national management plan developed by NISC), through participation in the Invasive Species Advisory Council. We have also worked with Congress through the appropriations and other legislative processes to direct resources to, and focus attention on, invasive species issues.

Our priorities for invasive species legislation are perhaps easier to articulate than they are to implement, but we nonetheless believe that every effort needs to be made to provide a strong foundation for efficient distribution of federal funds, strive to avoid duplication, coordinate activities between Federal and State agencies and private landowners, and provide the flexibility for decisions to be


October 30, 1998

made locally where the problems arise.

HR 3558 is important legislation, as it elevates the significance of invasives species and underscores the need for Congress to focus more attention on this issue. It strengthens the ability for Federal, State, and private entities to develop partnerships and coordinate activities, and also emphasizes rapid response to outbreaks of harmful nonnative species. We are encouraged by the efforts of this Committee to provide mechanisms for States and private landowners to manage all invasive species.

We do have several concerns with the legislation that I will summarize below:

HR 3558 is designed to provide grants to States for activities to protect, conserve, and restore native fish, wildlife, and their natural habitats on Federal lands. We are concerned that the legislation duplicates current programs and competes with on-going efforts that direct resources to problem areas not adequately addressed. Federal dollars are appropriated every year to fund programs that protect, conserve, and restore fish and wildlife and their habitats. For example, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program directs funds for wildlife habitat restoration and we are concerned that HR 3558 may be duplicative of these efforts. Another example is the Department of Interior’s Landowner Incentive Program (LIP). For FY 2003, the Department budgeted an additional $10 million over last year’s budget for a total budget request of $50 million. The LIP provides landowners with technical and financial assistance to private landowners for habitat protection and restoration. Yet another example is the Cooperative Conservation Program, proposed funding for this program is $50 million. This program offers grants to states for habitat protection, wetlands restoration and riparian area protection. Other examples where HR 3558 essentially duplicates current efforts of Department of Interior programs (and proposed funding amounts in the Department’s FY 2003 budget request) include programs such as the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund ($43.56 million), Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund ($91 million), and the National Wildlife Refuge Fund ($14.558 million). All these programs offer grants or funding to states, private landowners or federal agencies to protect, conserve or restore fish and wildlife habitats.


October 30, 1998

However, existing sources of funds for addressing invasive weeds do not come close to addressing the needs we are facing on public and private lands. There currently is no existing independent federal fund to address these needs. In BLM FY 2003 budget request, the agency plans to treat 245,000 acres. This acreage is the same as last year and 7,000 acres less than 2001’s total acres. I find it interesting that for an agency responsible for managing 264 million acres of federal land – or nearly one-eighth of the country’s landmass – only one acre out of every 1,078 acres will be treated. To me, this number is shocking. More federal dollars need to allocated for treating more acreage. While the cattle industry recognizes the threats posed by all invasive species and supports all efforts to manage them, our primary concern is the threat posed by invasive weeds. Weeds are also the invasives where I have the most personal experience, as reflected in this testimony.

The Federal Interagency Weed Committee has estimated that annual losses in the productivity of agricultural lands are as much as $20 billion. These losses are personal to cattle producers -- so each of us has a vested interest in the health of the land that we own or manage and in minimizing financial impacts caused by invasive weeds. New money should be directed to a program that gives states maximum flexibility to direct funds where they can be utilized by local decision makers most effectively. Federal red tape and administrative requirements must be minimized to ensure that the dollars are getting to the ground where they are needed most. For federal lands, we also need a programmatic environmental impact statement so the agencies can deal with all weeds at all times, rather than one at a time.

I have been involved with fighting non-native species, particularly noxious weeds, for about 20 years now. I helped organize our county’s weed board, the Lake County Weed Board. In fact, I am still serving as vice chairman. The principle function of the weed board is to advise our county commissioners on weed management and what can be done to help fight the struggle. About five years ago, I also helped establish the Warner Weed Working Group. I still serve as the chair of this group. This group seeks to target weed control and eradication through cost-share efforts, education and awareness. My involvement also includes assisting landowners and other cattle producers by commenting on


October 30, 1998

federal land management proposals to ensure non-native invasive species, such as noxious weeds, are adequately addressed in the proposed action.

As I stated earlier, I have been fighting weeds on my own land for over 20 years. I spray, learn what I can about control and management and even break out the shovel to eradicate weeds such as the Canadian thistle. But my individual efforts are not enough. In my area, we are currently facing invasions of whitetop, perennial pepperweed and Russian knapweed. If more effort, particularly federal funding, is not devoted to combat invasive species, we are all fighting a losing battle and rural communities such as my own will face severe economic crises.

If there is one thing I have noticed in all my years of fighting these non-native species is that if something is not done fast we will lose a lot of land that will never be recovered. For instance, fighting cheatgrass is a lost cause. One might as well try to empty the ocean with a bucket. Cheatgrass is a prime example of what can happen if proactive measures are not taken immediately.

The best method of fighting these invasions is to act locally. Currently, we have a limited amount of resources. In order to maximize resources, I have found that resources are best utilized by those who intuitively know the geography and flora of an area -- for instance, those who have been running up and down fields and ditches like myself and other members of my weed board and weed working group. Furthermore, we need to have additional funding diverted to the local level to assist those who know best how to manage the land and treat the problem – whether the land is federal or private.

I feel HR 3558 fails to devote adequate resources to the local level and when HR 3558 provides resources to the local level, any effort is burdened with red tape and bureaucracy -- two things I find totally unnecessary in the fight against invasive species. In particular, for a project to qualify under Section 5(e), objectives include establishing a science-based restoration of fish and wildlife habitats. I am not a wildlife biologist but I feel this section requires expertise beyond my capability. My expertise comes from living on the land, working on the land, and nurturing the land in order to reach its highest sustainability. In other words, application of common sense local know how.


October 30, 1998

HR 3558 expands bureaucracy and red tape with the state assessment requirements of Section 4 and places an additional burden on states. Many states currently have weed management programs and directs state dollars to local weed management boards. My own state of Oregon customarily follows this practice. My basic thoughts are we do not need more bureaucracy or red tape, or more government for that matter. What we need is more federal funding to get more money on the ground, using local folks, to attack the problem effectively.

Because invasive species know no boundaries, any Federal program must allow for funds to be directed where they are most needed. HR 3558 appears to limit use of funds to only those projects on State and private lands that are adjacent to Federal lands and also requires there be a Federal partner to be eligible for a grant under the Also Leopold Native Heritage Grant Program. NCBA and PLC believe that our limited Federal dollars should be directed to projects that hold the most promise for success, whether they are on Federal lands, State lands or private lands, or any combination thereof.

One provision of HR 3558 I am particularly interested in is Section 7, the Rapid Response Capability to Harmful Non-native species. When it comes to fighting invasive species such as noxious weeds, I feel we need to attack the problem as if it were a wildfire, move resources into the problem area, eradicate the problem and don’t leave until the threat is eliminated.

In closing, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Public Lands Council support the goals of HR 3558 and support the efforts of this Committee to address invasive species issues. However, we are concerned that HR 3558 will not adequately address the non-native invasive species problems, particularly noxious weeds. Nonetheless, we look forward to working with the Committee to ensure that our efforts to manage and control these harmful species are targeted in the most efficient manner possible. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before your committee. I will gladly answer any questions you may have.


October 30, 1998


Committee on Resources (Democrats) - Press Release - Remarks of Rep. Rahall: Joint Hearing on H.R. 3558, Invasive Species Legislation

[Previous Doc in Result List] [Next Doc in Result List]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 14, 2002

CONTACT: Kathryn Seck (202) 226-4050

Remarks of U.S. Rep. Nick J. Rahall Joint Hearing on H.R. 3558, Invasive Species Legislation

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Harmful non-native species, or invasive species as they are more commonly called, represent one of our Nationïs most critical environmental challenges.

According to the National Invasive Species Council, approximately 4,200 harmful non-native species are responsible for a $137 billion drain on the National economy. Additional costs to the natural environment have not been estimated but could be even higher.

At present, the Federal government, mostly through the Department of Agriculture, spends roughly $1 billion annually to implement a variety of invasive species programs.

Unfortunately, these existing programs are either marginally effective, too narrowly focused, or of no direct benefit to native fish and wildlife resources. If anything, despite these programs, the condition of our native fish and wildlife resources continues to deteriorate as a result of habitat loss, competition, and predation by these space invaders.





The status quo is not working. A new approach is desperately needed or we risk losing our fish and wildlife heritage which is enjoyed by millions of sportsmen and outdoor enthusiasts.

That is why I introduced HR 3558, the Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act, or SPACE Act, along with Congressman Wayne Gilchrest and Delegate Robert Underwood.

This legislation reflects an entirely new approach which incorporates many of the objectives found in the National Invasive Species Management Plan. The plan was developed by the National Invasive Species Council as directed by a 1999 executive order.

At its core, the SPACE Act seeks to promote partnerships designed to bring together Federal and other public and private landowners to promote efforts to control the infestation and migration of invasive species across the landscape. The bill would provide vital grant funding to make progress on the ground where it counts.

This legislation also represents the scientific and professional input of the National Invasive Species Council, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other State and non-governmental fish and wildlife conservation organizations which was provided through many hours of discussion.

The numerous letters of support concerning the SPACE Act reaffirms that this legislation is a new idea with merit and a true prospect for success. And after todayïs hearing, I believe that the members of this committee will come to a similar conclusion.

- 30 -

Next Previous

Press Release List



http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ii00_democrats/energyhrng.htm

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ii00_democrats/22702.htm


http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ii00_democrats/~list.html





FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 14, 2002

CONTACT: Kathryn Seck (202) 226-4050

Remarks of U.S. Rep. Nick J. Rahall Joint Hearing on H.R. 3558, Invasive Species Legislation

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Harmful non-native species, or invasive species as they are more commonly called, represent one of our Nation’s most critical environmental challenges.

According to the National Invasive Species Council, approximately 4,200 harmful non-native species are responsible for a $137 billion drain on the National economy. Additional costs to the natural environment have not been estimated but could be even higher.

At present, the Federal government, mostly through the Department of Agriculture, spends roughly $1 billion annually to implement a variety of invasive species programs.

Unfortunately, these existing programs are either marginally effective, too narrowly focused, or of no direct benefit to native fish and wildlife resources. If anything, despite these programs, the condition of our native fish and wildlife resources continues to deteriorate as a result of habitat loss, competition, and predation by these space invaders.

The status quo is not working. A new approach is desperately needed or we risk losing our fish and wildlife heritage which is enjoyed by millions of sportsmen and outdoor enthusiasts.

That is why I introduced HR 3558, the Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act, or SPACE Act, along with Congressman Wayne Gilchrest and Delegate Robert Underwood.

This legislation reflects an entirely new approach which incorporates many of the objectives

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ii00_democrats/031402.html (1 of 2) [05/23/2002 10:08:39 AM]


found in the National Invasive Species Management Plan. The plan was developed by the National Invasive Species Council as directed by a 1999 executive order.

At its core, the SPACE Act seeks to promote partnerships designed to bring together Federal and other public and private landowners to promote efforts to control the infestation and migration of invasive species across the landscape. The bill would provide vital grant funding to make progress on the ground where it counts.

This legislation also represents the scientific and professional input of the National Invasive Species Council, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other State and non-governmental fish and wildlife conservation organizations which was provided through many hours of discussion.

The numerous letters of support concerning the SPACE Act reaffirms that this legislation is a new idea with merit and a true prospect for success. And after today’s hearing, I believe that the members of this committee will come to a similar conclusion.

- 30 -

Next Previous

Press Release List

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ii00_democrats/031402.html (2 of 2) [05/23/2002 10:08:39 AM]




http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ii00_democrats/~list.html


John Shannon Testimony for HR 3558


Statement of John T. Shannon

State Forester of Arkansas

On Behalf of the National Association of State Foresters

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources Subcommittees on

Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans

Forests and Forest Health

National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands

March 14, 2002

SUBJECT






INTRODUCTION

On behalf of the National Association of State Foresters (NASF), I am pleased that Chairman Gilchrest and Chairman McInnis have asked us to testify on this bill. NASF is a non-profit organization that represents the directors of the State Forestry agencies from all fifty states, eight U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. The State Foresters manage and protect state and private forests across the U.S., which together encompass two-thirds of the nation´s forests.

I am representing NASF in my role as Chairman of the Forest Health Protection Committee. The spread of harmful non-native species is an important issue to the State Foresters, private landowners, and our partners. NASF applauds the efforts undertaken in this bill to address the pervasive problem of invasive species on both public and private lands. We support the bill, and believe that it can be strengthened even more.

In this testimony, I would like to address the topics you raised in your invitation to testify: (1) the need for the measure; (2) whether it can become an effective mechanism to deal with the growing problem of invasive species on public and private lands; (3) if the proposed funding levels are adequate to address this problem; and (4) our recommendations on any proposed changes that could improve this proposal.

NEED

There is clearly a call for measures to control, mitigate, and eradicate invasive species on forestland and elsewhere. Invasive species are a growing concern among foresters and other land managers. Indeed, addressing the spread of exotics is one of the objectives of



the NASF Forest Health Protection Committee, and it is of high priority for the Committee this year. We agree with the inclusion of U.S. Territories and Tribal lands in the definition of "state" as these lands have specific needs for control of nonnative invasive species.

EFFECTIVENESS

This bill provides an important mechanism to deal with the growing problem of invasive species, and we believe it can be strengthened in several critical ways.

Emphasize Role of State and Local Government

State forestry and other state and local agencies play key roles in invasive species management. State forestry agencies, in particular, have longstanding relationships with private landowners and federal partners, and we can assist in the development of priorities and selection of grantees. Our technical experts on the ground, who interact daily with private landowners, have first-hand understanding of local needs and solid relationships with landowners and local government officials. This places state forestry agencies in an ideal position to help ensure that on the ground management stemming from this bill will be effective in dealing with invasive species when and where they threaten forested habitats.

Expand Involvement of Federal Agencies



If we are to successfully tackle the problem of invasive species, we need to devote resources to those federal lands and programs where the greatest progress on the ground can be made. Most importantly, the bill must include the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), specifically the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), as key partners. The USFS, one of our traditional partners, has an excellent Forest Health Protection Unit that deals with invasive species issues on forested land. The USFS is also home to Cooperative Forestry, a vital link between private landowners and cost share assistance that funds management on private land. Invasive species remain core management issues for the National Forest System and Research and Development within the USFS, as well. Likewise, APHIS, which has a rapid response program in place, has the capacity to quickly detect and respond to exotic pests that threaten agricultural crops and natural habitats. In addition to the National Wildlife Refuge System, there are other lands managed by the Department of Interior, and also Department of Defense lands, which contain habitats threatened or affected by invasive nonnative species. It is essential to identify these federal agencies as partners in this legislation.

Building upon existing federal programs that deal with invasive species issues, and encouraging agencies that control large amounts of public land to participate, will most effectively address harmful nonnative species across public and private lands. We need the flexibility to detect and rapidly respond to invasive species when and where they occur, and limiting the demonstration projects to wildlife refuges, which is a small geographic subset of federal lands, may not ensure that our limited federal dollars will be spent in the most effective and efficient manner.

Keep Grants Accessible / Keep Administration Simple

The process of applying for, reviewing, and administering grants must be as simple as possible. If grants are too demanding, key applicants will not apply for these much needed funds. Our experience has shown us that some states, especially in the South, lack adequate staffing and other resources necessary to participate in the programs identified in this bill. In order to achieve the greatest good on the ground, the requirements of the bill must provide accessibility to all partners.

In addition, we believe the Aldo Leopold Native Heritage Grant Program would be more effective if the requirement for a federal partner were expanded to allow projects with either state or federal partners. Quick and aggressive action on state and private lands could actually prevent the spread of invasive



species to federal lands. The requirement that grants may only be issued for projects with adjacent federal lands or waters may disqualify important projects.

Broaden Scope of State Assessments

NASF recommends broadening the State Native Species Protection Assessment Grant Program to allow and encourage the states to assess the impacts of invasive species on the broad range of sectors that contribute to their own states´ economy and the national economy, rather than just impacts to native habitats. Our experience at both the state and national level has shown that a broad range of sectors (e.g., agriculture, tourism, and transportation) contribute to the propagation and spread of invasive species. These sectors hold the promise for innovative and incentive-driven solutions, and these constituents should be at the table in developing state, regional, and national assessments and solutions. The preparation of statewide assessments will help identify strategic regional approaches to priority invasive species. This will also bring more public support for the investments needed to tackle invasive species problems over the long run-all of which will help native habitats. State assessments will be helpful to states and regions that have not already conducted assessments. However, to effectively address the protection of natural habitats and processes, a broader assessment of the risk from invasive nonnative species is needed, which may include altered habitats such as reservoirs or other lands and waters that are no longer in a natural condition.

Expand Definition of Environmental Soundness

Defining `environmental soundness´ as only projects that emphasize non-chemical measures may restrict the control and eradication of some invasive species, especially plants. It is important to recognize that, in some cases, chemicals provide the most effective and environmentally sound technique for control and eradication.



Recognize Invasive Species are Long Term Problems

Long term programs with ongoing funding are needed if we are to successfully control, mitigate, and eradicate harmful nonnative species on public and private lands. The two to four year limit for grants, along with the 2008 sunset for the Act, do not provide the levels of continuous public investment that are needed to fully address these problems. This is due to both the extended survival or dormancy of seeds and the continuous threat of new species introductions from overseas.

FUNDING

NASF believes this bill will improve efforts to take action on the ground in areas where the problems of invasive species are most prevalent, if we can focus primarily on rapid action. When management actions are hampered by assessment processes, the problems associated with invasive species intensify. The successful management and control of invasive species requires the ability to quickly and aggressively respond to emerging threats. We would like to see a greater proportion of funding directed towards the Rapid Response Program and the Aldo Leopold Grants Program, where on the ground management happens.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In summary, NASF believes that this bill provides an effective mechanism for dealing with the growing problem of invasive species on public and private lands and waters, and it will be strengthened through the following recommendations:



• Emphasize the important role that state and local government can play in setting priorities and selecting grantees.

• Expand the involvement of federal agencies within the U.S. Department of Agriculture that have expertise and programs in invasive species management to include the USFS and APHIS.

• Expand the involvement of federal agencies and departments controlling large acreages of public land, including the Bureau of Land Management and other land management agencies in the U.S. Department of Interior, the USFS in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Department of Defense.

• Keep the requirements for the programs as simple as possible, which will encourage the participation of states and other key partners.

• Broaden the scope of state assessments to include the impact of invasive nonnative species on states´ economies and altered lands that are no longer in a natural condition.

• Expand the definition of `environmental soundness´ to include the use of chemicals where needed to control and eradicate invasive species.

• Along with considering reauthorization of the bill in 2008, we encourage you to extend grants beyond the two to four year limitation currently detailed in the bill.

• Shift the balance of funding towards on the ground management, particularly the Rapid Response program. There is value in being ready to handle outbreaks of invasive species before they occur.



CONCLUSION

NASF looks forward to the opportunity to work with the Subcommittees and the sponsors to develop and carry out an effective program to address the spread and control of nonnative species. We commend representatives Rahall, Gilchrest, and Underwood for your work on this important legislation. We are willing to work with you to refine specific language as the bill progresses, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony and answer your questions today.






Statement of John T. Shannon

State Forester of ArkansasOn Behalf of the National Association of State Foresters

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources

Subcommittees onFisheries, Wildlife and Oceans

Forests and Forest HealthNational Parks, Recreation and Public Lands

March 14, 2002

SUBJECT

H. R. 3558, the Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act INTRODUCTION On behalf of the National Association of State Foresters (NASF), I am pleased that Chairman Gilchrest and Chairman McInnis have asked us to testify on this bill. NASF is a non-profit organization that represents the directors of the State Forestry agencies from all fifty states, eight U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. The State Foresters manage and protect state and private forests across the U.S., which together encompass two-thirds of the nation’s forests. I am representing NASF in my role as Chairman of the Forest Health Protection Committee. The spread of harmful non-native species is an important issue to the State Foresters, private landowners, and our partners. NASF applauds the efforts undertaken in this bill to address the pervasive problem of invasive species on both public and private lands. We support the bill, and believe that it can be strengthened even more.

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/107cong/fisheries/2002mar14/shannon.htm (1 of 7) [05/23/2002 10:08:55 AM]


In this testimony, I would like to address the topics you raised in your invitation to testify: (1) the need for the measure; (2) whether it can become an effective mechanism to deal with the growing problem of invasive species on public and private lands; (3) if the proposed funding levels are adequate to address this problem; and (4) our recommendations on any proposed changes that could improve this proposal. NEED There is clearly a call for measures to control, mitigate, and eradicate invasive species on forestland and elsewhere. Invasive species are a growing concern among foresters and other land managers. Indeed, addressing the spread of exotics is one of the objectives of the NASF Forest Health Protection Committee, and it is of high priority for the Committee this year. We agree with the inclusion of U.S. Territories and Tribal lands in the definition of “state” as these lands have specific needs for control of nonnative invasive species. EFFECTIVENESS

This bill provides an important mechanism to deal with the growing problem of invasive species, and we believe it can be strengthened in several critical ways.

Emphasize Role of State and Local Government State forestry and other state and local agencies play key roles in invasive species management. State forestry agencies, in particular, have longstanding relationships with private landowners and federal partners, and we can assist in the development of priorities and selection of grantees. Our technical experts on



the ground, who interact daily with private landowners, have first-hand understanding of local needs and solid relationships with landowners and local government officials. This places state forestry agencies in an ideal position to help ensure that on the ground management stemming from this bill will be effective in dealing with invasive species when and where they threaten forested habitats.

Expand Involvement of Federal Agencies If we are to successfully tackle the problem of invasive species, we need to devote resources to those federal lands and programs where the greatest progress on the ground can be made. Most importantly, the bill must include the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), specifically the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), as key partners. The USFS, one of our traditional partners, has an excellent Forest Health Protection Unit that deals with invasive species issues on forested land. The USFS is also home to Cooperative Forestry, a vital link between private landowners and cost share assistance that funds management on private land. Invasive species remain core management issues for the National Forest System and Research and Development within the USFS, as well. Likewise, APHIS, which has a rapid response program in place, has the capacity to quickly detect and respond to exotic pests that threaten agricultural crops and natural habitats. In addition to the National Wildlife Refuge System, there are other lands managed by the Department of Interior, and also Department of Defense lands, which contain habitats threatened or affected by invasive nonnative species. It is essential to identify these federal agencies as partners in this legislation.

Building upon existing federal programs that deal with invasive species issues, and encouraging agencies that control large amounts of public land to participate, will most effectively address harmful nonnative species across public and private lands. We need the flexibility to detect and rapidly respond to invasive species when and where they occur, and limiting the demonstration projects to wildlife



refuges, which is a small geographic subset of federal lands, may not ensure that our limited federal dollars will be spent in the most effective and efficient manner.

Keep Grants Accessible / Keep Administration Simple

The process of applying for, reviewing, and administering grants must be as simple as possible. If grants are too demanding, key applicants will not apply for these much needed funds. Our experience has shown us that some states, especially in the South, lack adequate staffing and other resources necessary to participate in the programs identified in this bill. In order to achieve the greatest good on the ground, the requirements of the bill must provide accessibility to all partners. In addition, we believe the Aldo Leopold Native Heritage Grant Program would be more effective if the requirement for a federal partner were expanded to allow projects with either state or federal partners. Quick and aggressive action on state and private lands could actually prevent the spread of invasive species to federal lands. The requirement that grants may only be issued for projects with adjacent federal lands or waters may disqualify important projects.

Broaden Scope of State Assessments NASF recommends broadening the State Native Species Protection Assessment Grant Program to allow and encourage the states to assess the impacts of invasive species on the broad range of sectors that contribute to their own states’ economy and the national economy, rather than just impacts to native habitats. Our experience at both the state and national level has shown that a broad range of sectors (e.g., agriculture, tourism, and transportation) contribute to the propagation and spread of invasive species. These sectors hold the promise for innovative and incentive-driven solutions, and these constituents should be at the



table in developing state, regional, and national assessments and solutions. The preparation of statewide assessments will help identify strategic regional approaches to priority invasive species. This will also bring more public support for the investments needed to tackle invasive species problems over the long run—all of which will help native habitats. State assessments will be helpful to states and regions that have not already conducted assessments. However, to effectively address the protection of natural habitats and processes, a broader assessment of the risk from invasive nonnative species is needed, which may include altered habitats such as reservoirs or other lands and waters that are no longer in a natural condition.

Expand Definition of Environmental Soundness Defining ‘environmental soundness’ as only projects that emphasize non-chemical measures may restrict the control and eradication of some invasive species, especially plants. It is important to recognize that, in some cases, chemicals provide the most effective and environmentally sound technique for control and eradication.

Recognize Invasive Species are Long Term Problems Long term programs with ongoing funding are needed if we are to successfully control, mitigate, and eradicate harmful nonnative species on public and private lands. The two to four year limit for grants, along with the 2008 sunset for the Act, do not provide the levels of continuous public investment that are needed to fully address these problems. This is due to both the extended survival or dormancy of seeds and the continuous threat of new species introductions from overseas. FUNDING



NASF believes this bill will improve efforts to take action on the ground in areas where the problems of invasive species are most prevalent, if we can focus primarily on rapid action. When management actions are hampered by assessment processes, the problems associated with invasive species intensify. The successful management and control of invasive species requires the ability to quickly and aggressively respond to emerging threats. We would like to see a greater proportion of funding directed towards the Rapid Response Program and the Aldo Leopold Grants Program, where on the ground management happens. RECOMMENDATIONS In summary, NASF believes that this bill provides an effective mechanism for dealing with the growing problem of invasive species on public and private lands and waters, and it will be strengthened through the following recommendations:

• Emphasize the important role that state and local government can play in setting priorities and selecting grantees.

• Expand the involvement of federal agencies within the U.S. Department of Agriculture that have expertise and programs in invasive species management to include the USFS and APHIS.

• Expand the involvement of federal agencies and departments controlling large acreages of public land, including the Bureau of Land Management and other land management agencies in the U.S. Department of Interior, the USFS in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Department of Defense.

• Keep the requirements for the programs as simple as possible, which will encourage the participation of states and other key partners.

• Broaden the scope of state assessments to include the impact of



invasive nonnative species on states’ economies and altered lands that are no longer in a natural condition.

• Expand the definition of ‘environmental soundness’ to include the use of chemicals where needed to control and eradicate invasive species.

• Along with considering reauthorization of the bill in 2008, we encourage you to extend grants beyond the two to four year limitation currently detailed in the bill.

• Shift the balance of funding towards on the ground management, particularly the Rapid Response program. There is value in being ready to handle outbreaks of invasive species before they occur.

CONCLUSION NASF looks forward to the opportunity to work with the Subcommittees and the sponsors to develop and carry out an effective program to address the spread and control of nonnative species. We commend representatives Rahall, Gilchrest, and Underwood for your work on this important legislation. We are willing to work with you to refine specific language as the bill progresses, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony and answer your questions today.


Statement of

[Previous Doc in Result List]

Statement of

Ann M. Bartuska, Ph.D.

Executive Director, Invasive Species Initiative

The Nature Conservancy

Before the Subcommittees on

Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans;

Forests and Forest Health;

and National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands

of the

House Committee on Resources

March 14, 2002



Statement of

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony for the record on H. R. 3558, Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act. In particular, the Nature Conservancy is grateful to the Committee for introducing H.R. 3558 which is helping to bring needed attention to the serious harm caused by invasive species to our biological heritage and economic resources.

The Nature Conservancy is dedicated to preserving the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. The Conservancy has approximately 1 million individual members and over 1,900 corporate donors. We currently have programs in all 50 states and in 28 nations. To date our organization has protected more than 90 million acres in the 50 states and abroad, and has helped local partner organizations preserve million acres in other nations. The Conservancy itself owns more than 1,390 preserves - the largest private system of nature sanctuaries in the world. Our conservation work is grounded on sound science, strong partnerships with other landowners, and tangible results at local places.

Why is The Nature Conservancy concerned about invasive species?

• An internal survey of the Conservancy found that approximately 75% of the operating units believe invasive species are a killer threat preventing the accomplishment of our conservation strategies.

• Up to 46% of the plant and animal species listed as endangered in the United States have been negatively impacted by invasive species - In this regard, invasive species are a threat second only to habitat loss.

• The economic costs to the people of the United States alone are estimated at $137 billion


Statement of

annually. Damages by invasive plants has led to annual losses in agricultural productivity of $20 billion. Globally the costs are much higher.

• Taking action on invasive species provides powerful common ground with our partners - public and private, national and international.

Comments on H.R. 3558

There is no question that invasive species - both aquatic and terrestrial - pose a huge problem to the natural resources of the United States. In addition, Federal and state agencies and private landowners face a management challenge with inadequate resources - personnel, management options, and funding. Any program that provides mechanisms to work across land ownership to solve the challenge of invasive species management is a positive step forward. HR. 3558 contributes to the further implementation of the National Invasive Species Management Plan, and enhances the capacity of private, State and Federal entities to manage invasive species. We commend the members of the Committee for raising the awareness regarding the significant impacts of invasive species of all taxa to our environment, and ultimately to our economy.

1. Providing resources to areas of greatest need. The prevention, eradication, control and restoration of invasive species are, to a significant extent, a matter of local management. We believe it is important to provide mechanisms that stimulate local stakeholders to take action and the resources to see the action to a successful conclusion. H.R. 3558 makes an important effort to stimulate local action through its provisions addressing assessment, planning, monitoring and subsequent action on private, state and Federal lands. The legislation greatly expands the public/private model of invasives action presented by the "Pulling Together Initiative". This model for action has been used successfully by the Conservancy and many others throughout the country.

2. Prevention and rapid response. The emphasis in the bill on prevention and rapid response highlights very constructively those management activities that most effectively minimize the


Statement of

establishment of invasive species. Natural resource managers need sufficient resources to eradicate incipient populations of invasive species wherever possible. The need for enhanced rapid response capability associated with non-agricultural lands is clear. This capacity must be matched, however, by sufficient resources to implement an early detection system that is the triggering mechanism for the response.

3. Capacity building for Fish and Wildlife Service. As with many of the Federal agencies, there is a growing gap between the need to manage invasive species and the resources available for even the highest priority management activities. The backlog in invasive species management on the National Wildlife Refuge System is a serious threat to fish and wildlife habitat. The implementation of demonstration projects in the refuge system could contribute to reducing this backlog and help test new management tools.

Areas of concern:

1. State management plans. There is the potential for confusion between the goals and target groups of the grant programs within this bill and the "Partners for Fish and Wildlife" program managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Similarly, state management plans are called for through the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force under the authority of the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) which is scheduled for re-authorization in 2002. Through the Forest Service implementation of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act, States also are called upon to develop plans to address forest insects and disease, including non-native invasive species like gypsy moth. The National Invasive Species Council should be required to develop guidance which leads to comprehensive and consistent state plans for invasive species management

2. Scope of lands covered by grants. Language relevant to the Aldo Leopold Native Heritage Program suggests that projects on State and private lands are currently limited to those adjacent to Federal lands. However, invasives know no boundaries and federal funds should be directed to where the greatest resource needs are located. We recommend language that allows the use of federal funds on either federal, state, or private lands, or some combination of these lands, depending on


Statement of

where the greatest resource need is in a particular area.

3. Costs of monitoring. It has become standard practice to include statements that call for monitoring of projects and program implementation. However, insufficient resources and accountability for monitoring are all too often provided for this purpose. We recommend increasing the funding level authorized to a level commensurate with the need for monitoring.

4. Federal versus local focus. Success in the fight against invasives requires to a great extent cooperation among federal, state and private stakeholders. It is important to stimulate as much activity in organizing local stakeholders to fight invasives as possible. We would like more of the focus of decision making regarding funding of projects to involve local stakeholders, and less of the decision making to be made at the headquarters level.

5. Implementation through the National Invasive Species Council. The Council is a potentially powerful mechanism to harmonize, standardize and integrate the actions of all federal agencies who deal with invasive species. Authorizing the Council to implement activities within H.R. 3558 will significantly contribute to coordination among agencies and Departments.

Future Opportunities

The Nature Conservancy would like to take this opportunity to identify several areas not covered by H.R. 3558 which we believe must be addressed in the future to more effectively use Federal and State processes and programs:

1. Authorize the National Invasive Species Council. The Council was established through an Executive Order in 1999 and has been given the broad responsibility for implementing the Executive Order and the components of the National Invasive Species Management Plan. We believe the full


Statement of

potential of the Council - administratively and legislatively - will not be achieved until it is codified and provided more permanent status.

2. Encourage the development and support for a cross-cut budget to implement the National Invasive Species Management Plan. Until a cross-cut budget is deployed, federal and state efforts to address invasive species will continue to be fragmented and inconsistent and ultimately will not lead to the performance outcomes we should expect from federal funding. Congress can boost the development of such a budget through appropriations language and other communications with the Administration.

3. Bolster Rapid Response. Rapid response, by definition, means the rapid deployment of people and resources to eradicate a plant or animal population prior to establishment. On Federal lands, rapid response is hampered by procedural requirements associated with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). While TNC fully supports the use of NEPA as an important tool in achieving conservation goals, we also believe that new and creative solutions in the application of NEPA requirements is essential. NEPA streamlining is one area of opportunity being explored through the National Fire Plan and more recently by NISC staff, and we support expanding these efforts to include rapid response to invasive species.

4. Establishment of a permanent fund. We also encourage the establishment of a permanent fund to fight invasive species. The annual appropriations process, coupled with the inability of Federal agencies to maintain funds for invasive species management across fiscal years, is a serious limitation to Federal and non-Federal rapid response capabilities. While APHIS has the broadest authority currently to address invasive species, this authority has generally been used only for agricultural systems. The GAO identified other barriers to a comprehensive Federal rapid response effort in a June 2001 report entitled "Obstacles Hinder Federal Rapid Response to Growing Threat"; we believe their recommendations have merit.

In summary, The Nature Conservancy believes HR 3558 is consistent with the needs identified in the National Invasive Species Management Plan and provides for important support to States and to private landowners to increase their capability in prioritizing and managing invasive species. We look forward to working with the Committee to make further improvements to


Statement of

H.R. 3558 and other legislation on invasive species.

[Previous Doc in Result List]



Statement of

Statement ofAnn M. Bartuska, Ph.D.

Executive Director, Invasive Species InitiativeThe Nature Conservancy

Before the Subcommittees on

Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans;Forests and Forest Health;

and National Parks, Recreation and Public Landsof the

House Committee on Resources March 14, 2002

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony for the record on H. R. 3558, Species Protection and Conservation of the Environment Act. In particular, the Nature Conservancy is grateful to the Committee for introducing H.R. 3558 which is helping to bring needed attention to the serious harm caused by invasive species to our biological heritage and economic resources. The Nature Conservancy is dedicated to preserving the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. The Conservancy has approximately 1 million individual members and over 1,900 corporate donors. We currently have programs in all 50 states and in 28 nations. To date our organization has protected more than 90 million acres in the 50 states and abroad, and has helped local partner organizations preserve million acres in other nations. The Conservancy itself owns more than 1,390 preserves – the largest private system of nature sanctuaries in the world. Our conservation work is grounded on sound science, strong partnerships with other landowners, and tangible results at local

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/107cong/fisheries/2002mar14/bartuska.htm (1 of 6) [05/23/2002 10:09:06 AM]

Statement of

places. Why is The Nature Conservancy concerned about invasive species?

• An internal survey of the Conservancy found that approximately 75% of the operating units believe invasive species are a killer threat preventing the accomplishment of our conservation strategies.

• Up to 46% of the plant and animal species listed as endangered in the United States have been negatively impacted by invasive species – In this regard, invasive species are a threat second only to habitat loss. • The economic costs to the people of the United States alone are estimated at $137 billion annually. Damages by invasive plants has led to annual losses in agricultural productivity of $20 billion. Globally the costs are much higher. • Taking action on invasive species provides powerful common ground with our partners – public and private, national and international.

Comments on H.R. 3558 There is no question that invasive species – both aquatic and terrestrial – pose a huge problem to the natural resources of the United States. In addition, Federal and state agencies and private landowners face a management challenge with inadequate resources – personnel, management options, and funding. Any program that provides mechanisms to work across land ownership to solve the challenge of invasive species management is a positive step forward. HR. 3558 contributes to the further implementation of the National Invasive Species Management Plan, and enhances the capacity of private, State and Federal entities to manage invasive species. We commend the members of the Committee for raising the awareness regarding the significant impacts of invasive species of all


Statement of

taxa to our environment, and ultimately to our economy.

1. Providing resources to areas of greatest need. The prevention, eradication, control and restoration of invasive species are, to a significant extent, a matter of local management. We believe it is important to provide mechanisms that stimulate local stakeholders to take action and the resources to see the action to a successful conclusion. H.R. 3558 makes an important effort to stimulate local action through its provisions addressing assessment, planning, monitoring and subsequent action on private, state and Federal lands. The legislation greatly expands the public/private model of invasives action presented by the “Pulling Together Initiative”. This model for action has been used successfully by the Conservancy and many others throughout the country.

2. Prevention and rapid response. The emphasis in the bill on prevention and rapid response highlights very constructively those management activities that most effectively minimize the establishment of invasive species. Natural resource managers need sufficient resources to eradicate incipient populations of invasive species wherever possible. The need for enhanced rapid response capability associated with non-agricultural lands is clear. This capacity must be matched, however, by sufficient resources to implement an early detection system that is the triggering mechanism for the response.

3. Capacity building for Fish and Wildlife Service. As with many of the Federal agencies, there is a growing gap between the need to manage invasive species and the resources available for even the highest priority management activities. The backlog in invasive species management on the National Wildlife Refuge System is a serious threat to fish and wildlife habitat. The implementation of demonstration projects in the refuge system could contribute to reducing this backlog and help test new management tools.

Areas of concern:


Statement of

1. State management plans. There is the potential for confusion between the goals and target groups of the grant programs within this bill and the “Partners for Fish and Wildlife” program managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Similarly, state management plans are called for through the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force under the authority of the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) which is scheduled for re-authorization in 2002. Through the Forest Service implementation of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act, States also are called upon to develop plans to address forest insects and disease, including non-native invasive species like gypsy moth. The National Invasive Species Council should be required to develop guidance which leads to comprehensive and consistent state plans for invasive species management

2. Scope of lands covered by grants. Language relevant to the Aldo Leopold Native Heritage Program suggests that projects on State and private lands are currently limited to those adjacent to Federal lands. However, invasives know no boundaries and federal funds should be directed to where the greatest resource needs are located. We recommend language that allows the use of federal funds on either federal, state, or private lands, or some combination of these lands, depending on where the greatest resource need is in a particular area.

3. Costs of monitoring. It has become standard practice to include statements that call for monitoring of projects and program implementation. However, insufficient resources and accountability for monitoring are all too often provided for this purpose. We recommend increasing the funding level authorized to a level commensurate with the need for monitoring.

4. Federal versus local focus. Success in the fight against invasives requires to a great extent cooperation among federal, state and private stakeholders. It is important to stimulate as much activity in organizing local stakeholders to fight invasives as possible. We would like more of the focus of decision making regarding funding of projects to involve local stakeholders, and less of


Statement of

the decision making to be made at the headquarters level.

5. Implementation through the National Invasive Species Council. The Council is a potentially powerful mechanism to harmonize, standardize and integrate the actions of all federal agencies who deal with invasive species. Authorizing the Council to implement activities within H.R. 3558 will significantly contribute to coordination among agencies and Departments.

Future Opportunities The Nature Conservancy would like to take this opportunity to identify several areas not covered by H.R. 3558 which we believe must be addressed in the future to more effectively use Federal and State processes and programs:

1. Authorize the National Invasive Species Council. The Council was established through an Executive Order in 1999 and has been given the broad responsibility for implementing the Executive Order and the components of the National Invasive Species Management Plan. We believe the full potential of the Council – administratively and legislatively – will not be achieved until it is codified and provided more permanent status.

2. Encourage the development and support for a cross-cut budget to implement the National Invasive Species Management Plan. Until a cross-cut budget is deployed, federal and state efforts to address invasive species will continue to be fragmented and inconsistent and ultimately will not lead to the performance outcomes we should expect from federal funding. Congress can boost the development of such a budget through appropriations language and other communications with the Administration.

3. Bolster Rapid Response. Rapid response, by definition, means the rapid deployment of people and resources to eradicate a plant or animal population prior to establishment. On Federal lands, rapid response is hampered by


Statement of

procedural requirements associated with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). While TNC fully supports the use of NEPA as an important tool in achieving conservation goals, we also believe that new and creative solutions in the application of NEPA requirements is essential. NEPA streamlining is one area of opportunity being explored through the National Fire Plan and more recently by NISC staff, and we support expanding these efforts to include rapid response to invasive species.

4. Establishment of a permanent fund. We also encourage the establishment of a permanent fund to fight invasive species. The annual appropriations process, coupled with the inability of Federal agencies to maintain funds for invasive species management across fiscal years, is a serious limitation to Federal and non-Federal rapid response capabilities. While APHIS has the broadest authority currently to address invasive species, this authority has generally been used only for agricultural systems. The GAO identified other barriers to a comprehensive Federal rapid response effort in a June 2001 report entitled “Obstacles Hinder Federal Rapid Response to Growing Threat”; we believe their recommendations have merit.

In summary, The Nature Conservancy believes HR 3558 is consistent with the needs identified in the National Invasive Species Management Plan and provides for important support to States and to private landowners to increase their capability in prioritizing and managing invasive species. We look forward to working with the Committee to make further improvements to H.R. 3558 and other legislation on invasive species.


United States House of Representatives - 107th Congress

U.S. House of Representatives107th Congress, 2nd Session

House Operations

House Directory

Search House Sites

United States House of

RepresentativesWashington D.C. 20515

(202) 224-3121TTY (202) 225-1904

Member Offices

Committee Offices

Leadership Offices

Other House Organizations,

Commissions, and Task Forces

Media Galleries

Congressionally Authorized Coins commemorating the first meeting of Congress in the Capitol to

help build the Capitol Visitor Center, released by the US Mint on March 7, 2001.

http://www.house.gov/Welcome.html (1 of 3) [05/23/2002 10:09:18 AM]

http://www.house.gov/house/searchindex.htm

http://www.house.gov/MemberWWW.html

http://cpc.congress.gov/

http://www.house.gov/htbin/leave_site?ln_url=http://www.aoc.gov/cvc/cvc_overview.htm

http://www.house.gov/htbin/leave_site?ln_url=http://www.usmint.gov/&ln_desc=US+Mint+(coins)


This Week on the House FloorThe schedule the House intends to consider this week.

Currently on the House FloorUp-to-date events on the House floor as they happen.

Annual Congressional Schedule

The Legislative ProcessAccess to information about bills and resolutions beingconsidered in the Congress.

Employment OpportunitiesInformation on job openings within the House.

Roll Call VotesAs compiled through the electronic voting machine by the House Tally Clerks under the direction of Jeff Trandahl, Clerk of the House.

House Committee Hearing Schedules and Oversight PlansEach committee maintains its own schedule of hearings on the web. A committee's oversight plan describes its agenda for the 107th Congress, based on the jurisdiction of the committee. The public can attend any open committee meeting listed, and some hearings are televised by C-SPAN.

In the spirit of THOMAS Jefferson, the Library of Congress provides you with searchable information about the U.S. Congress and the legislative process. Search bills, by topic , bill number, or title. Search through and read the text of the Congressional Record for the 101st through the 107th Congresses. Search and find committee reports by topic or committee name.

Constituents may identify and/or contact their electedMember to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Free, public, full-text searchable and downloadable access to the U.S. Federal statutes of a general and permanent nature, organized by subject.

To comment on how to improve this site, use this form.


http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.php3

http://www.house.gov/house/2002_House_Calendar.htm

http://www.house.gov/Legproc.html

http://www.house.gov/cao-hr/

http://clerkweb.house.gov/evs/index.htm

http://clerkweb.house.gov/107/docs/rules/Contents.htm

http://www.house.gov/htbin/leave_site?ln_url=http://www.c-span.org/

http://www.house.gov/htbin/leave_site?ln_url=http://www.c-span.org/

http://thomas.loc.gov/

http://thomas.loc.gov/

http://www.loc.gov/

http://www.loc.gov/

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c107query.html

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c107query.html#keyword

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c107query.html#billno

http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d107query.html

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r107query.html

http://thomas.loc.gov/cp107/cp107query.html

http://thomas.loc.gov/cp107/cp107query.html

http://thomas.loc.gov/cp107/cp107query.html#keyword

http://thomas.loc.gov/cp107/cp107query.html#comm

http://uscode.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/house/house_comments.html

http://www.house.gov/house/house_comments.html


Privacy, Security, and Accessibility Notice


http://www.house.gov/house/privacy.htm

Members and Committees - Office of the Clerk

House Member Information House Committee Information House Leadership InformationFederal and State Resources

Information about Members and Committees of the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as the latest congressional news and important links to congressional information.

Additional Resources Legislative Information Information about bills, roll call votes, and other legislative topics is available in Legislative Activities.

Frequently Asked QuestionsInformation about House Members, leadership, the committee system, legislation, elected officers and officials, and organizations is available in Frequently Asked Questions.

Locating Member/Committee Web Sites The House Web site includes Member and Committee Web sites for the current Congress.

Who is my Representative? Identify and contact your Representative using the Write Your Representative feature on the House Web site.

Contacting the U.S. Senate For information about the U.S. Senate, visit the Senate Web site.

Home | What's New | About the Clerk's Office | Members and Committees Legislative Activities | Historical Highlights | Public Disclosure | Help | Search

Sitemap | For Congressional Offices

Last modified: March 21, 2002 Security and Privacy Notice

http://clerkweb.house.gov/mbrcmtee/mbrcmtee.htm [05/23/2002 10:09:33 AM]

http://clerkweb.house.gov/mbrcmtee/members/forcong/forcong1.asp

http://clerkweb.house.gov/help/help.htm

http://clerkweb.house.gov/search/search.htm

http://clerkweb.house.gov/help/sitemap.htm

http://clerkweb.house.gov/main.htm

http://clerkweb.house.gov/clerk/whatnew.htm

http://clerkweb.house.gov/clerk/about.htm

http://clerkweb.house.gov/mbrcmtee/legis/legisact.htm

http://clerkweb.house.gov/histrecs/history.htm

http://clerkweb.house.gov/pd/pd.asp

http://clerkweb.house.gov/mbrcmtee/members/housemem.htm

http://clerkweb.house.gov/mbrcmtee/members/commem.htm

http://clerkweb.house.gov/mbrcmtee/members/congnews.htm

http://clerkweb.house.gov/mbrcmtee/members/congres.htm


http://clerkweb.house.gov/histrecs/househis/faq.htm

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/redir2.pl?url=http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html&title=Member+Web+Sites+(House)

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/redir2.pl?url=http://www.house.gov/house/CommitteeWWW.html&title=Committee+Web+Sites+(House)

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/redir2.pl?url=http://www.house.gov/writerep/&title=Write+Your+Representative+(House)

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/redir2.pl?url=http://www.house.gov/writerep/&title=Write+Your+Representative+(House)

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/redir2.pl?url=http://www.senate.gov&title=U.S.+Senate











http://clerkweb.house.gov/security.htm

Write Your Representative - Contact your Congressperson in the U.S. House of Representatives.

U.S. House of Representatives

Write Your Representative Service

This service will assist you by identifying your Congressperson in the U.S. House of Representatives and providing contact information. Please review the frequently asked questions if you have problems using this service.

To contact your Representative:

1. Select your location from list below:

2. Enter your ZIP code and your 4-digit ZIP code extension.

-

3. Click the "Contact My Representative" button.

List of Representatives by StateU.S. House of Representatives Home Page

Send comments about the Write Your Representative Service to the Service Administrator. Please note that messages for specific Representatives sent to the Service Administrator will not be forwarded to the Representative.

http://www.house.gov/writerep/ [05/23/2002 10:09:36 AM]

http://www.house.gov/writerep/wyrfaqs.htm

http://www.house.gov/htbin/leave_site?ln_url=http://new.usps.com/cgi-bin/uspsbv/scripts/frames.jsp?A=B&D=14041&U=X&U1=B&U2+H/&ln_desc=United+States+Postal+Service+National+Customer+Support+Center+ZIP+4+Lookup

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.htm

http://www.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/writerep/wyrsvcadmin.html

House Schedule

PROGRAM FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE WEEK

WEEK OF MAY 19, 2002

Thursday - MAY 23, 2002

The House meets at 10:00 a.m.

Friday - MAY 24, 2002

The House meets at 9:00 a.m.

http://www.house.gov/house/floor/thisweek.htm [05/23/2002 10:09:36 AM]

Currently on The House Floor

Back to Current Legislation and Votes

Use the drop down menu to view Floor proceedingsfor the last 7 legislative days.

CURRENT HOUSE FLOOR PROCEEDINGS

LEGISLATIVE DAY OF MAY 23, 2002 107TH CONGRESS - SECOND SESSION

H.R. 4775:making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes

2:41 P.M. - On sustaining the ruling of the Chair. Agreed to by recorded vote: (Roll No. 198).

2:22 P.M. - Mr. Stenholm appealed the ruling of the Chair. The question was then put on sustaining the ruling of the Chair.

1:56 P.M. - Mr. Young (FL) raised a point of order against the Gephardt amendment Mr. Young stated that the amendment offered proposes to strike an amendment previously adopted and therefore violates the rules of the House. The Chair sustained the point of order.

http://clerkweb.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.php3 (1 of 3) [05/23/2002 10:09:57 AM]











http://clerkweb.house.gov/mbrcmtee/legis/alllegis.htm

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/lgwww_bill.pl?204775

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=198



1:50 P.M. - Amendment offered by Mr. Gephardt.

10:26 A.M. - FIVE-MINUTE RULE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded under the five-minute rule.

10:25 A.M. - On motion that the Committee rise Failed by recorded vote: 99 - 289 (Roll no. 197).

10:05 A.M. - Mr. Obey moved that the Committee rise.

The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.

10:04 A.M. - Considered as unfinished business.

10:03 A.M. - ONE MINUTE SPEECHES - The Chair announced that one minute speeches would be entertained at the end of the legislative day.

10:02 A.M. - The House received a message from the Senate. The Senate passed S. 1644, H.R. 327 amended, H.R. 4592, H.R. 4608, and H.R. 4782.

10:01 A.M. - The Speaker announced approval of the Journal. Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - The Chair designated Mr. Schiff to lead the Members in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

10:00 A.M. - Today's prayer was offered by the House Chaplain, Rev. Daniel Coughlin.

The House convened, starting a new legislative day.









COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


Comprehensive Daily Committee Schedule

House of Representatives Committees Site

Agriculture: Homepage Schedule HearingsOversight Plan (107th)

Judiciary: Homepage Schedule Hearings Oversight Plan (107th)

Appropriations: Homepage Schedule Oversight Plan (107th)

Resources: Homepage Schedule HearingsOversight Plan (106th)

Armed Services: Homepage Schedule & Hearings Oversight Plan (106th)

Rules: Homepage Schedule HearingsOversight Plan (107th)

Budget: Homepage Schedule Hearings Oversight Plan (107th) [pdf]

Science: Homepage Schedule Hearings Oversight Plan (106th)

Education and the Workforce: Homepage Schedule Hearings Oversight Plan (107th) [pdf]

Small Business: Homepage Schedule HearingsOversight Plan (107th)

Energy and Commerce: Homepage Schedule Oversight Plan (107th) [pdf]

Standards of Official Conduct:Homepage

Financial Services:Homepage Schedule Hearings Oversight Plan (107th) [pdf]

Transportation and Infrastructure: Homepage Schedule HearingsOversight Plan (107th)

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/hcomso.html (1 of 2) [05/23/2002 10:10:04 AM]

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html

http://www.house.gov/radiotv/hearings.htm

http://www.house.gov/radiotv/hearings.htm

http://agriculture.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/agriculture/schedule.htm

http://www.house.gov/agriculture/audio.htm

http://www.house.gov/agriculture/plan.htm

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/schedule.htm

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/test.htm

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/oversight.htm

http://www.house.gov/appropriations/

http://www.house.gov/appropriations/hearings.htm

http://www.house.gov/appropriations/info/oversight.htm

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/schedule.htm

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/106cong/print106.htm

http://www.house.gov/resources/106cong/plan106.htm

http://www.house.gov/hasc/

http://www.house.gov/hasc/schedules/

http://www.house.gov/hasc/billsandreports/106thcongress/plan106.htm

http://www.house.gov/rules/

http://www.house.gov/rules/rules_schedule.htm

http://www.house.gov/rules/oj_hearings.htm

http://www.house.gov/rules/rules_over_107.htm

http://www.house.gov/budget/


http://www.house.gov/budget/schedule.htm

http://www.budget.house.gov/hearingstatements.htm

http://www.house.gov/budget/oversightplan.pdf

http://www.house.gov/science/welcome.htm

http://www.house.gov/science/schedule.htm

http://www.house.gov/science/hearing.htm

http://www.house.gov/science/106th_agenda.htm

http://edworkforce.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/schedule.htm

http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/hearings/hearings.htm

http://edworkforce.house.gov/markups/107th/fc/osplanrules/321osplan.pdf

http://www.house.gov/smbiz/

http://www.house.gov/smbiz/schedule/index.html

http://www.house.gov/smbiz/hearings/index.html

http://www.house.gov/smbiz/oversight.htm

http://www.house.gov/commerce/

http://www.house.gov/commerce/schedule.htm

http://www.house.gov/commerce/oversightplan.pdf

http://www.house.gov/ethics/

http://www.house.gov/financialservices/

http://www.house.gov/financialservices/schetoc.htm

http://www.house.gov/financialservices/testoc2.htm

http://www.house.gov/financialservices/oplan107.pdf

http://www.house.gov/transportation/

http://www.house.gov/transportation/schedule.html

http://www.house.gov/transportation/fullchearings/hearings.html

http://www.house.gov/transportation/oversight.html


Government Reform: Homepage & ScheduleOversight Plan (106th)

Veterans Affairs: Homepage Schedule Oversight Plan (107th)

House Administration:Homepage Schedule HearingsOversight Plan (107th)

Ways and Means: Homepage Schedule HearingsOversight Plan (107th) [pdf]

International Relations:Homepage Schedule HearingsOversight Plan (107th)

Homepage | Feedback | About THOMAS

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/hcomso.html (2 of 2) [05/23/2002 10:10:04 AM]

http://www.house.gov/reform/

http://www.house.gov/reform/oversight/plan106.htm

http://veterans.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/va/hearings/schedule107/mainsch.htm

http://veterans.house.gov/about/plan107.htm

http://www.house.gov/cha/

http://www.house.gov/cha/schedule/schedule.html

http://www.house.gov/cha/business/business.html

http://www.house.gov/cha/publications/107HOP/body_107hop.html

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/schedule.htm


http://www.house.gov/ways_means/fullcomm/107cong/107osplan.pdf

http://www.house.gov/international_relations/

http://www.house.gov/international_relations/schedule.htm

http://www.house.gov/international_relations/hearings.htm

http://www.house.gov/international_relations/over107.htm

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/mail.wrapper.html

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/abt_thom.html

U.S. House of Representatives - Member WWW Services

The U.S. House of RepresentativesLocate Representatives' Web Sites Listed by Name

Use the links listed below to go to a Representatives' web site or follow these links to view the list by State or view a clickable map of the United States.

Don't know who your Representative is? Enter your Zip Code and State in the fields below and click on Submit to find out.

ZIP +4 (if required) State

● Abercrombie, Neil, Hawaii, 1st ● Acevedo-Vila, Anibal, Puerto Rico, At Large ● Ackerman, Gary, New York, 5th ● Aderholt, Robert, Alabama, 4th ● Allen, Tom, Maine, 1st ● Akin, Todd, Missouri, 2nd ● Andrews, Robert E., New Jersey, 1st ● Armey, Dick, Texas, 26th ● Baca, Joe, California, 42nd ● Bachus, Spencer, Alabama, 6th ● Baird, Brian, Washington, 3rd ● Baker, Richard, Louisiana, 6th ● Baldacci, John E., Maine, 2nd ● Baldwin, Tammy, Wisconsin, 2nd ● Ballenger, Cass, North Carolina, 10th ● Barcia, Jim, Michigan, 5th ● Barr, Bob, Georgia, 7th ● Barrett, Tom, Wisconsin, 5th ● Bartlett, Roscoe, Maryland, 6th ● Barton, Joe, Texas, 6th ● Bass, Charles, New Hampshire, 2nd ● Becerra, Xavier, California, 30th ● Bentsen, Ken, Texas, 25th

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html (1 of 13) [05/23/2002 10:10:09 AM]

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.htm

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_USA_Map.htm

http://www.house.gov/abercrombie/

http://www.house.gov/acevedo-vila/

http://www.house.gov/ackerman/

http://www.house.gov/aderholt/

http://tomallen.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/akin/

http://www.house.gov/andrews/

http://armey.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/baca

http://www.house.gov/bachus/

http://www.house.gov/baird/

http://www.house.gov/baker/

http://www.house.gov/baldacci/

http://tammybaldwin.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/ballenger/

http://www.house.gov/barcia/

http://www.house.gov/barr/

http://www.house.gov/barrett/

http://www.bartlett.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/barton/

http://www.house.gov/bass/

http://www.house.gov/becerra/

http://www.house.gov/bentsen/


● Bereuter, Doug, Nebraska, 1st ● Berkley, Shelley, Nevada, 1st ● Berman, Howard, California, 26th ● Berry, Marion, Arkansas, 1st ● Biggert, Judy, Illinois, 13th ● Bilirakis, Michael, Florida, 9th ● Bishop Jr., Sanford D., Georgia, 2nd ● Blagojevich,Rod, Illinois, 5th ● Blumenauer, Earl, Oregon 3rd ● Blunt, Roy, Missouri 7th ● Boehlert, Sherwood L., New York, 23rd ● Boehner, John A., Ohio, 8th ● Bonilla, Henry, Texas, 23rd ● Bonior, David E., Michigan, 10th ● Bono, Mary, California, 44th ● Boozman, John, Arkansas, 3rd ● Borski, Bob, Pennsylvania, 3rd ● Boswell, Leonard, Iowa, 3rd ● Boucher, Rick, Virginia, 9th ● Boyd, Allen, Florida, 2nd ● Brady, Kevin, Texas, 8th ● Brady, Robert, Pennsylvania, 1st ● Brown, Corrine, Florida, 3rd ● Brown, Henry, South Carolina, 1st ● Brown, Sherrod, Ohio, 13th ● Bryant, Ed, Tennessee 7th ● Burr, Richard, North Carolina, 5th ● Burton, Dan, Indiana, 6th ● Buyer, Steve, Indiana, 5th ● Callahan, Sonny, Alabama, 1st ● Calvert, Ken, California, 43rd ● Camp, Dave, Michigan, 4th ● Cannon, Chris, Utah, 3rd ● Cantor, Eric, Virginia, 7th ● Capito, Shelley Moore, West Virginia, 2nd ● Capps, Lois, California, 22nd ● Capuano, Michael E., Massachusetts, 8th ● Cardin, Benjamin L., Maryland, 3rd


http://www.house.gov/bereuter/

http://www.house.gov/berkley/

http://www.house.gov/berman/

http://www.house.gov/berry/

http://www.house.gov/biggert/

http://www.house.gov/bilirakis/

http://www.house.gov/bishop/

http://www.house.gov/blagojevich/welcome.htm

http://www.house.gov/blumenauer/

http://www.house.gov/blunt/

http://www.house.gov/boehlert/

http://johnboehner.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/bonilla/

http://davidbonior.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/bono/

http://www.house.gov/boozman/

http://www.house.gov/borski/

http://www.house.gov/boswell/

http://www.house.gov/boucher/

http://www.house.gov/boyd/

http://www.house.gov/brady/

http://www.house.gov/robertbrady/

http://www.house.gov/corrinebrown/

http://www.house.gov/henrybrown/

http://www.house.gov/sherrodbrown/

http://www.house.gov/bryant/

http://www.house.gov/burr/

http://www.house.gov/burton/

http://www.house.gov/buyer/

http://www.house.gov/callahan/

http://www.house.gov/calvert/

http://www.house.gov/camp/

http://chriscannon.house.gov/

http://cantor.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/capito/

http://www.house.gov/capps/

http://www.house.gov/capuano/

http://www.house.gov/cardin/


● Carson, Brad, Oklahoma, 2nd ● Carson, Julia, Indiana, 10th ● Castle, Michael N., Delaware, At Large ● Chabot, Steve, Ohio, 1st ● Chambliss, Saxby, Georgia, 8th ● Christian-Christensen, Donna M., U.S. Virgin Islands ● Clay Jr., William "Lacy", Missouri, 1st ● Clayton, Eva, North Carolina, 1st ● Clement, Bob, Tennessee, 5th ● Clyburn, James E., South Carolina, 6th ● Coble, Howard, North Carolina, 6th ● Collins, Mac, Georgia, 3rd ● Combest, Larry, Texas, 19th ● Condit, Gary, California, 18th ● Conyers Jr., John, Michigan, 14th ● Cooksey, John, Louisiana, 5th ● Costello, Jerry, Illinois, 12th ● Cox, Christopher, California, 47th ● Coyne, William J., Pennsylvania, 14th ● Cramer, Robert E. "Bud", Alabama, 5th ● Crane, Phil, Illinois, 8th ● Crenshaw, Ander, Florida, 4th ● Crowley, Joseph, New York, 7th ● Cubin, Barbara, Wyoming, At Large ● Culberson, John, Texas, 7th ● Cummings, Elijah, Maryland, 7th ● Cunningham, Randy "Duke", California, 51st ● Davis, Danny K., Illinois, 7th ● Davis, Jim, Florida, 11th ● Davis, Jo Ann S., Virginia, 1st ● Davis, Susan, California, 49th ● Davis, Tom, Virginia, 11th ● Deal, Nathan, Georgia, 9th ● DeFazio, Peter, Oregon, 4th ● DeGette, Diana, Colorado, 1st ● Delahunt, William, Massachusetts, 10th ● DeLauro, Rosa L., Connecticut, 3rd ● DeLay, Tom, Texas, 22nd


http://carson.house.gov/

http://www.juliacarson.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/castle/

http://www.house.gov/chabot/

http://www.house.gov/chambliss/

http://www.house.gov/christian-christensen/

http://www.house.gov/clay/

http://www.house.gov/clayton/

http://www.house.gov/clement/

http://www.house.gov/clyburn/

http://www.house.gov/coble/

http://www.house.gov/maccollins/

http://www.house.gov/combest/

http://www.house.gov/gcondit/

http://www.house.gov/conyers/

http://www.house.gov/cooksey/

http://www.house.gov/costello/

http://cox.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/coyne/

http://www.house.gov/cramer/

http://www.house.gov/crane/

http://crenshaw.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/crowley/

http://www.house.gov/cubin/

http://www.culberson.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/cummings/

http://www.house.gov/cunningham/

http://www.house.gov/davis/

http://www.house.gov/jimdavis/

http://www.house.gov/joanndavis/

http://www.house.gov/susandavis/

http://www.house.gov/tomdavis/

http://www.house.gov/deal/

http://www.house.gov/defazio/index.htm

http://www.house.gov/degette/

http://www.house.gov/delahunt/

http://www.house.gov/delauro

http://tomdelay.house.gov/


● DeMint, Jim, South Carolina, 4th ● Deutsch, Peter, Florida, 20th ● Diaz-Balart, Lincoln, Florida, 21st ● Dicks, Norman D., Washington, 6th ● Dingell, John D., Michigan, 16th ● Doggett, Lloyd, Texas, 10th ● Dooley, Cal, California, 20th ● Doolittle, John, California, 4th ● Doyle, Mike, Pennsylvania, 18th ● Dreier, David, California, 28th ● Duncan Jr., John J., Tennessee, 2nd ● Dunn, Jennifer, Washington, 8th ● Edwards, Chet, Texas, 11th ● Ehlers, Vernon J., Michigan, 3rd ● Ehrlich Jr., Robert L., Maryland, 2nd ● Emerson, Jo Ann, Missouri, 8th ● Engel, Eliot, New York, 17th ● English, Phil, Pennsylvania, 21st ● Eshoo, Anna G., California, 14th ● Etheridge, Bob, North Carolina, 2nd ● Evans, Lane, Illinois, 17th ● Everett, Terry, Alabama, 2nd ● Faleomavaega, Eni F. H., American Samoa ● Farr, Sam, California, 17th ● Fattah, Chaka, Pennsylvania, 2nd ● Ferguson, Michael, New Jersey, 7th ● Filner, Bob, California, 50th ● Flake, Jeff, Arizona, 1st ● Fletcher, Ernie, Kentucky, 6th ● Foley, Mark, Florida, 16th ● Forbes, J. Randy, Virginia, 4th ● Ford, Harold, Tennessee, 9th ● Fossella, Vito, New York, 13th ● Frank, Barney, Massachusetts, 4th ● Frelinghuysen, Rodney, New Jersey, 11th ● Frost, Martin, Texas, 24th ● Gallegly, Elton, California, 23rd ● Ganske, Greg, Iowa, 4th


http://www.demint.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/deutsch/

http://www.house.gov/diaz-balart/

http://www.house.gov/dicks/

http://www.house.gov/dingell/

http://www.house.gov/doggett/

http://dooley.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/doolittle/

http://www.house.gov/doyle/

http://dreier.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/duncan/

http://www.house.gov/dunn/

http://www.house.gov/edwards/

http://www.house.gov/ehlers/

http://www.house.gov/ehrlich/index.htm

http://www.house.gov/emerson/

http://www.house.gov/engel/

http://www.house.gov/english/

http://www-eshoo.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/etheridge/

http://www.house.gov/evans/

http://www.house.gov/everett/

http://www.house.gov/faleomavaega/

http://www.house.gov/farr/

http://www.house.gov/fattah/

http://www.house.gov/ferguson/

http://www.house.gov/filner/

http://www.house.gov/flake/

http://www.house.gov/fletcher/

http://www.house.gov/foley/

http://www.house.gov/forbes/

http://www.house.gov/ford/

http://www.house.gov/fossella/

http://www.house.gov/frank/

http://www.house.gov/frelinghuysen/

http://www.house.gov/frost/

http://www.house.gov/gallegly/

http://www.house.gov/ganske/


● Gekas, George, Pennsylvania, 17th ● Gephardt, Dick, Missouri, 3rd ● Gibbons, Jim, Nevada, 2nd ● Gilchrest, Wayne, Maryland, 1st ● Gillmor, Paul, Ohio, 5th ● Gilman, Benjamin A., New York, 20th ● Gonzalez, Charlie A., Texas, 20th ● Goode Jr., Virgil H., Virginia, 5th ● Goodlatte, Bob, Virginia, 6th ● Gordon, Bart, Tennessee, 6th ● Goss, Porter, Florida, 14th ● Graham, Lindsey, South Carolina, 3rd ● Granger, Kay, Texas, 12th ● Graves, Sam, Missouri, 6th ● Green, Gene, Texas, 29th ● Green, Mark, Wisconsin, 8th ● Greenwood, James C., Pennsylvania, 8th ● Grucci, Felix, New York, 1st ● Gutierrez, Luis, Illinois, 4th ● Gutknecht, Gil, Minnesota, 1st ● Hall, Ralph M., Texas, 4th ● Hall, Tony P., Ohio, 3rd ● Hansen, James V., Utah, 1st ● Harman, Jane, California, 36th ● Hart, Melissa, Pennsylvania, 4th ● Hastert, Denny, Illinois, 14th ● Hastings, Alcee L., Florida, 23rd ● Hastings, Doc, Washington, 4th ● Hayes, Robin, North Carolina, 8th ● Hayworth, J.D., Arizona, 6th ● Hefley, Joel, Colorado, 5th ● Herger, Wally, California, 2nd ● Hill, Baron, Indiana, 9th ● Hilleary, Van, Tennessee, 4th ● Hilliard, Earl F., Alabama, 7th ● Hinchey, Maurice, New York, 26th ● Hinojosa, Rubén, Texas, 15th ● Hobson, David, Ohio, 7th


http://www.house.gov/gekas/

http://dickgephardt.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/gibbons/

http://www.house.gov/gilchrest/

http://gillmor.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/gilman/

http://www.house.gov/gonzalez/

http://www.house.gov/goode/

http://www.house.gov/goodlatte/

http://www.house.gov/gordon/

http://www.house.gov/goss/

http://www.house.gov/graham/

http://kaygranger.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/graves

http://www.house.gov/green/

http://www.house.gov/markgreen/

http://www.house.gov/greenwood/

http://www.house.gov/grucci/

http://www.house.gov/gutierrez/

http://www.gil.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/ralphhall/

http://www.house.gov/tonyhall/

http://www.house.gov/hansen/

http://www.house.gov/harman/

http://hart.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/hastert/

http://www.house.gov/alceehastings/

http://www.house.gov/hastings/

http://www.house.gov/hayes/

http://www.house.gov/hayworth/

http://www.house.gov/hefley/

http://www.house.gov/herger/

http://www.house.gov/baronhill/

http://www.house.gov/hilleary/

http://www.house.gov/hilliard/

http://www.house.gov/hinchey/

http://www.house.gov/hinojosa/

http://www.house.gov/hobson/


● Hoeffel, Joseph M., Pennsylvania, 13th ● Hoekstra, Pete, Michigan, 2nd ● Holden, Tim, Pennsylvania, 6th ● Holt, Rush, New Jersey, 12th ● Honda, Mike, California, 15th ● Hooley, Darlene, Oregon, 5th ● Horn, Stephen, California, 38th ● Hostettler, John N., Indiana, 8th ● Houghton, Amo, New York, 31st ● Hoyer, Steny H., Maryland, 5th ● Hulshof, Kenny, Missouri, 9th ● Hunter, Duncan, California, 52nd ● Hyde, Henry, Illinois, 6th ● Inslee, Jay, Washington, 1st ● Isakson, Johnny, Georgia, 6th ● Israel, Steve, New York, 2nd ● Issa, Darrell, California, 48th ● Istook Jr., Ernest J., Oklahoma, 5th ● Jackson Jr., Jesse L., Illinois, 2nd ● Jackson Lee, Sheila, Texas, 18th ● Jefferson, William J., Louisiana, 2nd ● Jenkins, William L., Tennessee, 1st ● John, Christopher, Louisiana, 7th ● Johnson, Eddie Bernice, Texas 30th ● Johnson, Nancy L., Connecticut, 6th ● Johnson, Sam, Texas, 3rd ● Johnson, Timothy V., Illinois, 15th ● Jones, Stephanie Tubbs, Ohio, 11th ● Jones, Walter B., North Carolina, 3rd ● Kanjorski, Paul E., Pennsylvania, 11th ● Kaptur, Marcy, Ohio, 9th ● Keller, Ric, Florida, 8th ● Kelly, Sue, New York, 19th ● Kennedy, Mark, Minnesota, 2nd ● Kennedy, Patrick, Rhode Island, 1st ● Kerns, Brian, Indiana, 7th ● Kildee, Dale, Michigan, 9th ● Kilpatrick, Carolyn, Michigan, 15th


http://www.house.gov/hoeffel/

http://www.house.gov/hoekstra/

http://www.house.gov/holden/

http://www.house.gov/rholt/

http://www.house.gov/honda/

http://www.house.gov/hooley/

http://www.house.gov/horn/

http://www.house.gov/hostettler/

http://houghton.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/hoyer/

http://www.house.gov/hulshof/

http://www.house.gov/hunter/

http://www.house.gov/hyde/

http://www.house.gov/inslee/

http://isakson.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/israel/

http://www.house.gov/issa/

http://www.house.gov/istook/

http://www.house.gov/house/Member.htm#il02

http://www.house.gov/jacksonlee/

http://www.house.gov/jefferson/

http://www.house.gov/jenkins/

http://www.house.gov/john/

http://www.house.gov/ebjohnson/

http://www.house.gov/nancyjohnson/

http://www.house.gov/samjohnson/

http://www.house.gov/timjohnson/

http://www.house.gov/tubbsjones/

http://jones.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/kanjorski/

http://www.house.gov/kaptur/

http://www.house.gov/keller/Frset.htm

http://www.house.gov/suekelly/

http://markkennedy.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/patrickkennedy/

http://www.house.gov/kerns

http://www.house.gov/kildee/

http://www.house.gov/kilpatrick/


● Kind, Ron, Wisconsin, 3rd ● King, Pete, New York, 3rd ● Kingston, Jack, Georgia, 1st ● Kirk, Mark, Illinois, 10th ● Kleczka, Gerald D., Wisconsin, 4th ● Knollenberg, Joe, Michigan, 11th ● Kolbe, Jim, Arizona, 5th ● Kucinich, Dennis J., Ohio, 10th ● LaFalce, John J., New York, 29th ● Lahood, Ray, Illinois, 18th ● Lampson, Nick, Texas, 9th ● Langevin, Jim, Rhode Island, 2nd ● Lantos, Tom, California, 12th ● Larsen, Rick, Washington, 2nd ● Larson, John B., Connecticut, 1st ● Latham, Tom, Iowa, 5th ● LaTourette, Steven C., Ohio, 19th ● Leach, Jim, Iowa, 1st ● Lee, Barbara, California, 9th ● Levin, Sander, Michigan, 12th ● Lewis, Jerry, California, 40th ● Lewis, John, Georgia, 5th ● Lewis, Ron, Kentucky, 2nd ● Linder, John, Georgia, 11th ● Lipinski, William O., Illinois, 3rd ● LoBiondo, Frank, New Jersey, 2nd ● Lofgren, Zoe, California, 16th ● Lowey, Nita, New York, 18th ● Lucas, Frank D., Oklahoma, 6th ● Lucas, Ken, Kentucky, 4th ● Luther, William P., Minnesota, 6th ● Lynch, Stephen F., Massachusetts, 9th ● McCarthy, Carolyn, New York, 4th ● McCarthy, Karen, Missouri, 5th ● McCollum, Betty, Minnesota, 4th ● McCrery, Jim, Louisiana, 4th ● McDermott, Jim, Washington, 7th ● McGovern, James, Massachusetts, 3rd


http://www.house.gov/kind/

http://www.house.gov/king/

http://www.house.gov/kingston/

http://www.house.gov/kirk/

http://www.house.gov/kleczka/

http://www.house.gov/knollenberg/

http://www.house.gov/kolbe/

http://www.house.gov/kucinich/

http://www.house.gov/lafalce/

http://www.house.gov/lahood/

http://www.house.gov/lampson/

http://www.house.gov/langevin/

http://www.house.gov/lantos/

http://www.house.gov/larsen/

http://www.house.gov/larson/

http://www.house.gov/latham/

http://www.house.gov/latourette/

http://www.house.gov/leach/

http://www.house.gov/lee/

http://www.house.gov/levin/

http://www.house.gov/jerrylewis/

http://www.house.gov/johnlewis/

http://www.house.gov/ronlewis/

http://linder.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/lipinski/

http://www.house.gov/lobiondo

http://zoelofgren.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/lowey/

http://www.house.gov/lucas/

http://www.house.gov/kenlucas/

http://www.house.gov/luther/

http://www.house.gov/lynch

http://www.house.gov/carolynmccarthy/

http://www.house.gov/karenmccarthy/

http://www.house.gov/mccollum/

http://www.house.gov/mccrery/

http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/

http://www.house.gov/mcgovern/


● McHugh, John M., New York, 24th ● McInnis, Scott, Colorado, 3rd ● McIntyre, Mike, North Carolina, 7th ● McKeon, Buck, California, 25th ● McKinney, Cynthia, Georgia, 4th ● McNulty, Michael R., New York, 21st ● Maloney, Carolyn, New York, 14th ● Maloney, James H., Connecticut, 5th ● Manzullo, Donald, Illinois, 16th ● Markey, Ed, Massachusetts, 7th ● Mascara, Frank, Pennsylvania, 20th ● Matheson, Jim, Utah, 2nd ● Matsui, Robert, California, 5th ● Meehan, Marty, Massachusetts, 5th ● Meek, Carrie, Florida, 17th ● Meeks, Gregory W., New York, 6th ● Menendez, Bob, New Jersey, 13th ● Mica, John, Florida, 7th ● Millender-McDonald, Juanita, California, 37th ● Miller, Dan, Florida, 13th ● Miller, Gary, California, 41st ● Miller, George, California, 7th ● Miller, Jeff, Florida, 1st ● Mink, Patsy T., Hawaii, 2nd ● Mollohan, Alan B., West Virginia, 1st ● Moore, Dennis, Kansas, 3rd ● Moran, Jerry, Kansas, 1st ● Moran, Jim, Virginia, 8th ● Morella, Constance, Maryland, 8th ● Murtha, John, Pennsylvania, 12th ● Myrick, Sue, North Carolina, 9th ● Nadler, Jerrold, New York, 8th ● Napolitano, Grace, California, 34th ● Neal, Richard E., Massachusetts, 2nd ● Nethercutt Jr., George R., Washington, 5th ● Ney, Robert W., Ohio, 18th ● Northup, Anne, Kentucky, 3rd ● Norton, Eleanor Holmes, District of Columbia


http://www.house.gov/mchugh/

http://www.house.gov/mcinnis/

http://www.house.gov/mcintyre/

http://www.house.gov/mckeon/

http://www.house.gov/mckinney/

http://www.house.gov/mcnulty/

http://www.house.gov/maloney/

http://www.house.gov/jimmaloney/

http://www.house.gov/manzullo/

http://www.house.gov/markey/

http://www.house.gov/mascara/

http://matheson.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/matsui/

http://www.house.gov/meehan/

http://www.house.gov/meek/

http://www.house.gov/meeks/

http://menendez.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/mica/

http://www.house.gov/millender-mcdonald/

http://www.house.gov/danmiller/

http://www.house.gov/garymiller/

http://www.house.gov/georgemiller/

http://www.house.gov/jeffmiller/

http://www.house.gov/mink/

http://www.house.gov/mollohan/

http://www.house.gov/moore/

http://www.house.gov/moranks01/

http://www.house.gov/moran/

http://www.house.gov/morella/

http://www.house.gov/murtha/

http://www.house.gov/myrick/

http://www.house.gov/nadler/

http://www.napolitano.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/neal/

http://www.house.gov/nethercutt/

http://www.house.gov/ney/

http://www.house.gov/northup/

http://www.house.gov/norton/


● Norwood, Charlie, Georgia, 10th ● Nussle, Jim, Iowa, 2nd ● Oberstar, James L., Minnesota, 8th ● Obey, David R., Wisconsin, 7th ● Olver, John, Massachusetts, 1st ● Ortiz, Solomon P., Texas, 27th ● Osborne, Tom, Nebraska, 3rd ● Ose, Doug, California, 3rd ● Otter, Butch, Idaho, 1st ● Owens, Major, New York, 11th ● Oxley, Michael G., Ohio, 4th ● Pallone Jr., Frank, New Jersey, 6th ● Pascrell Jr., Bill, New Jersey, 8th ● Pastor, Ed, Arizona, 2nd ● Paul, Ron, Texas, 14th ● Payne, Donald M., New Jersey, 10th ● Pelosi, Nancy, California, 8th ● Pence, Mike, Indiana, 2nd ● Peterson, Collin C., Minnesota, 7th ● Peterson, John E., Pennsylvania, 5th ● Petri, Thomas, Wisconsin, 6th ● Phelps, David, Illinois, 19th ● Pickering, Charles W. "Chip", Mississippi, 3rd ● Pitts, Joseph R., Pennsylvania, 16th ● Platts, Todd, Pennsylvania, 19th ● Pombo, Richard, California, 11th ● Pomeroy, Earl, North Dakota, At Large ● Portman, Rob, Ohio, 2nd ● Price, David, North Carolina, 4th ● Pryce, Deborah, Ohio, 15th ● Putnam, Adam, Florida, 12th ● Quinn, Jack, New York, 30th ● Radanovich, George P., California, 19th ● Rahall, Nick, West Virginia, 3rd ● Ramstad, Jim, Minnesota, 3rd ● Rangel, Charles B., New York, 15th ● Regula, Ralph, Ohio, 16th ● Rehberg, Dennis, Montana, At Large


http://www.house.gov/norwood/

http://nussle.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/oberstar/

http://www.house.gov/obey/

http://www.house.gov/olver/

http://www.house.gov/ortiz/

http://www.house.gov/osborne/

http://www.house.gov/ose/

http://www.house.gov/otter/

http://www.house.gov/owens/

http://www.house.gov/oxley/

http://www.house.gov/pallone/

http://www.pascrell.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/pastor/

http://www.house.gov/paul/

http://www.house.gov/payne/

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/

http://mikepence.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/collinpeterson/

http://www.house.gov/johnpeterson/

http://www.house.gov/petri/

http://www.house.gov/phelps/

http://www.house.gov/pickering/

http://www.house.gov/pitts/

http://www.house.gov/platts/

http://www.house.gov/pombo/pombo.htm

http://www.house.gov/pomeroy/

http://www.house.gov/portman/

http://www.house.gov/price/

http://www.house.gov/pryce/

http://www.house.gov/putnam

http://www.house.gov/quinn/

http://www.radanovich.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/rahall/

http://www.house.gov/ramstad/

http://www.house.gov/rangel/

http://www.house.gov/regula/

http://www.house.gov/rehberg/


● Reyes, Silvestre, Texas, 16th ● Reynolds, Thomas M., New York, 27th ● Riley, Bob, Alabama, 3rd ● Rivers, Lynn N., Michigan, 13th ● Rodriguez, Ciro D., Texas, 28th ● Roemer, Tim, Indiana, 3rd ● Rogers, Harold, Kentucky, 5th ● Rogers, Mike, Michigan, 8th ● Rohrabacher, Dana, California, 45th ● Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana, Florida, 18th ● Ross, Mike, Arkansas, 4th ● Rothman, Steven, New Jersey, 9th ● Roukema, Marge, New Jersey, 5th ● Roybal-Allard, Lucille, California, 33rd ● Royce, Ed, California, 39th ● Rush, Bobby L., Illinois, 1st ● Ryan, Paul, Wisconsin, 1st ● Ryun, Jim, Kansas, 2nd ● Sabo, Martin Olav, Minnesota, 5th ● Sanchez, Loretta, California, 46th ● Sanders, Bernie, Vermont, At Large ● Sandlin, Max, Texas 1st ● Sawyer, Tom, Ohio, 14th ● Saxton, Jim, New Jersey, 3rd ● Schaffer, Bob, Colorado, 4th ● Schakowsky, Jan, Illinois, 9th ● Schiff, Adam, California, 27th ● Schrock, Ed, Virginia, 2nd ● Scott, Robert C. "Bobby", Virginia, 3rd ● Sensenbrenner, F. James, Wisconsin, 9th ● Serrano, José E., New York, 16th ● Sessions, Pete, Texas, 5th ● Shadegg, John, Arizona, 4th ● Shaw Jr., E. Clay , Florida, 22nd ● Shays, Christopher, Connecticut, 4th ● Sherman, Brad, California, 24th ● Sherwood, Don, Pennsylvania, 10th ● Shimkus, John, Illinois, 20th


http://www.house.gov/reyes/

http://www.house.gov/reynolds/

http://www.house.gov/riley/

http://www.house.gov/rivers/

http://www.house.gov/rodriguez/

http://www.house.gov/roemer/

http://www.house.gov/rogers/

http://www.house.gov/mikerogers/

http://www.house.gov/rohrabacher/

http://www.house.gov/ros-lehtinen/

http://www.house.gov/ross/

http://rothman.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/roukema/

http://www.house.gov/roybal-allard/

http://www.house.gov/royce/

http://www.house.gov/rush/

http://www.house.gov/ryan/

http://www.house.gov/ryun/

http://www.house.gov/sabo/

http://www.house.gov/sanchez/

http://bernie.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/sandlin/

http://www.house.gov/sawyer/

http://www.house.gov/saxton/

http://www.house.gov/schaffer/

http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/

http://www.house.gov/schiff/

http://schrock.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/scott/

http://www.house.gov/sensenbrenner/

http://www.house.gov/serrano/

http://www.house.gov/sessions/

http://www.house.gov/shadegg/

http://www.house.gov/shaw/

http://www.house.gov/shays/

http://www.house.gov/sherman/

http://www.house.gov/sherwood/

http://www.house.gov/shimkus/


● Shows, Ronnie, Mississippi, 4th ● Shuster, Bill, Pennsylvania, 9th ● Simmons, Rob, Connecticut, 2nd ● Simpson, Mike, Idaho, 2nd ● Skeen, Joe, New Mexico, 2nd ● Skelton, Ike, Missouri, 4th ● Slaughter, Louise, New York, 28th ● Smith, Adam, Washington, 9th ● Smith, Chris, New Jersey, 4th ● Smith, Lamar, Texas, 21st ● Smith, Nick, Michigan, 7th ● Snyder, Vic, Arkansas 2nd ● Solis, Hilda, California, 31st ● Souder, Mark E., Indiana, 4th ● Spratt, John, South Carolina, 5th ● Stark, Fortney Pete, California, 13th ● Stearns, Cliff, Florida, 6th ● Stenholm, Charlie, Texas, 17th ● Strickland, Ted, Ohio, 6th ● Stump, Bob, Arizona, 3rd ● Stupak, Bart, Michigan, 1st ● Sullivan, John, Oklahoma, 1st ● Sununu, John E., New Hampshire, 1st ● Sweeney, John E., New York, 22nd ● Tancredo, Tom, Colorado, 6th ● Tanner, John, Tennessee, 8th ● Tauscher, Ellen, California, 10th ● Tauzin, Billy, Louisiana, 3rd ● Taylor, Charles H., North Carolina, 11th ● Taylor, Gene, Mississippi, 5th ● Terry, Lee, Nebraska, 2nd ● Thomas, Bill, California, 21st ● Thompson, Bennie G., Mississippi, 2nd ● Thompson, Mike, California, 1st ● Thornberry, Mac, Texas, 13th ● Thune, John, South Dakota, At Large ● Thurman, Karen, Florida, 5th ● Tiahrt, Todd, Kansas, 4th


http://www.house.gov/shows/

http://www.house.gov/shuster/

http://www.house.gov/simmons/

http://www.house.gov/simpson/

http://joeskeen.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/skelton/

http://www.house.gov/slaughter/

http://www.house.gov/adamsmith/

http://www.house.gov/chrissmith/

http://lamarsmith.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/nicksmith/

http://www.house.gov/snyder/

http://www.house.gov/solis/

http://www.house.gov/souder/

http://www.house.gov/spratt/

http://www.house.gov/stark/

http://www.house.gov/stearns/

http://www.house.gov/stenholm/

http://www.house.gov/strickland/

http://www.house.gov/stump/

http://www.house.gov/stupak/

http://www.house.gov/sullivan/

http://www.house.gov/sununu/

http://www.house.gov/sweeney/

http://www.house.gov/tancredo/

http://www.house.gov/tanner/index.htm

http://www.house.gov/tauscher/

http://www.house.gov/tauzin/

http://www.house.gov/charlestaylor/

http://www.house.gov/genetaylor/

http://www.house.gov/terry/

http://www.house.gov/billthomas/

http://www.house.gov/thompson/

http://www.house.gov/mthompson/

http://www.house.gov/thornberry/

http://johnthune.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/thurman/

http://www.house.gov/tiahrt/


● Tiberi, Pat, Ohio, 12th ● Tierney, John, Massachusetts, 6th ● Toomey, Patrick J., Pennsylvania, 15th ● Towns, Edolphus, New York, 10th ● Traficant Jr., James A., Ohio, 17th ● Turner, Jim, Texas, 2nd ● Udall, Mark, Colorado, 2nd ● Udall, Tom, New Mexico, 3rd ● Underwood, Robert A., Guam Delegate ● Upton, Fred, Michigan, 6th ● Velázquez, Nydia M., New York, 12th ● Visclosky, Peter, Indiana, 1st ● Vitter, David, Louisiana, 1st ● Walden, Greg, Oregon, 2nd ● Walsh, Jim, New York, 25th ● Wamp, Zach, Tennessee, 3rd ● Waters, Maxine, California, 35th ● Watkins, Wes, Oklahoma, 3rd ● Watson, Diane E., California, 32nd ● Watt, Mel, North Carolina, 12th ● Watts Jr., J.C., Oklahoma, 4th ● Waxman, Henry, California, 29th ● Weiner, Anthony D., New York, 9th ● Weldon, Curt, Pennsylvania, 7th ● Weldon, Dave, Florida, 15th ● Weller, Jerry, Illinois, 11th ● Wexler, Robert, Florida, 19th ● Whitfield, Ed, Kentucky, 1st ● Wicker, Roger, Mississippi, 1st ● Wilson, Heather, New Mexico, 1st ● Wilson, Joe, South Carolina, 2nd ● Wolf, Frank, Virginia, 10th ● Woolsey, Lynn, California, 6th ● Wu, David, Oregon, 1st ● Wynn, Albert, Maryland, 4th ● Young, C.W. Bill, Florida, 10th ● Young, Don, Alaska, At Large


http://www.house.gov/tiberi/

http://www.house.gov/tierney/

http://www.house.gov/toomey/

http://www.house.gov/towns/welcome.html

http://www.house.gov/traficant/

http://www.house.gov/turner/

http://www.house.gov/markudall/

http://www.house.gov/tomudall/

http://www.house.gov/underwood/

http://www.house.gov/upton/

http://www.house.gov/velazquez/

http://www.house.gov/visclosky/

http://vitter.house.gov/

http://walden.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/walsh/

http://www.house.gov/wamp/

http://www.house.gov/waters/

http://www.house.gov/watkins/

http://www.house.gov/house/Member.htm#ca32

http://www.house.gov/watt/

http://www.house.gov/watts/

http://www.house.gov/waxman/

http://www.house.gov/weiner/

http://www.house.gov/curtweldon/

http://www.house.gov/weldon/

http://www.house.gov/weller/

http://www.wexler.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/whitfield/

http://www.house.gov/wicker/

http://wilson.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/joewilson/

http://www.house.gov/wolf/

http://www.house.gov/woolsey/

http://www.house.gov/wu/

http://www.house.gov/wynn/

http://www.house.gov/young/

http://www.house.gov/donyoung/


Follow these links to perform a search on the content of one or more Representatives' web sites listed by State or by Name






http://www.house.gov/house/MemStateSearch.htm

http://www.house.gov/house/MemNameSearch.htm


U.S. House of Representatives - Committee WWW Services

The U.S. House Of RepresentativesCommittee Office Web Services

● Committee on Agriculture● Committee on Appropriations● Committee on Armed Services● Committee on the Budget● Committee on Education and the Workforce● Committee on Energy and Commerce ● Committee on Financial Services● Committee on Government Reform● Committee on House Administration● House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence● Committee on International Relations● Committee on the Judiciary

● Committee on Resources● Committee on Rules● Committee on Science ● Committee on Small Business● Committee on Standards of Official Conduct● Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure● Committee on Veterans Affairs● Committee on Ways and Means● Joint Economic Committee● Joint Committee on Printing● Joint Committee on Taxation

Search the Committee Sites:

To search all committee data, enter a single word, several words,or a phrase in the text box provided. To narrow your search to a singlecommittee or several committees, check the committee(s) from the following list.Some helpful search tips.

Search for:

Reminder: To search across all Committee informationdo not mark any checkboxes.

Select number of results displayed per page

Committee Quick Links

Membership:

Subcommittees:

Schedules:

Hearings:

Jurisdiction:

http://www.house.gov/house/CommitteeWWW.html (1 of 2) [05/23/2002 10:10:12 AM]

http://agriculture.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/appropriations/

http://www.house.gov/hasc/


http://edworkforce.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/commerce/

http://www.house.gov/financialservices/

http://www.house.gov/reform/

http://www.house.gov/cha/

http://intelligence.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/international_relations/

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/rules/

http://www.house.gov/science/welcome.htm

http://www.house.gov/smbiz/


http://www.house.gov/transportation/

http://veterans.house.gov/


http://www.house.gov/jec/

http://www.house.gov/jcp/

http://www.house.gov/jct/

http://wwws.house.gov/search97/doc/iqptips/inettips.htm

U.S. House of Representatives - Committee WWW Services

Committees:

Agriculture

Appropriations

Armed Services

Budget

Education & the Workforce

Energy and Commerce

Financial Services

Government Reform

House Administration

International Relations

Joint Economic

Joint Printing

Joint Taxation

Judiciary

Resources

Rules

Science

Small Business

Standards of Official Conduct

Transportation & Infrastructure

Veterans Affairs

Ways & Means

Hot Topics:





http://www.house.gov/house/CommitteeWWW.html (2 of 2) [05/23/2002 10:10:12 AM]


U.S. House of Representatives - House Leadership WWW Services

The U.S. House Of RepresentativesHouse Leadership Web Services

● Office of the Speaker ● Office of the Majority Leader -- Freedom Works

Majority Leader Dick Armey's Revolutionary Flat Tax Plan ● Democratic Leadership

Minority Leader Dick Gephardt ● House Majority Whip ● Democratic Whip - Rep. Nancy Pelosi, California, 8th ● House Republican Conference -- Chairman J.C. Watts, Jr. ● Democratic Caucus -- Chairman Martin Frost, Texas; Vice Chair Robert Menendez, New Jersey ● House Republican Policy Committee - Chairman Christopher Cox





http://www.house.gov/house/orgs_pub_hse_ldr_www.html [05/23/2002 10:10:13 AM]

http://speaker.house.gov/

http://freedom.house.gov/

http://flattax.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/democrats/welcome.html

http://www.house.gov/democrats/taxplan/

http://majoritywhip.house.gov/

http://democraticwhip.house.gov/

http://hillsource.house.gov/

http://dcaucusweb.house.gov/

http://policy.house.gov/


U.S. House of Representatives - House Party Organizations

U.S. House of RepresentativesHouse Organizations, Commissions, and Task Forces

House Organizations

● Chief Administrative Officer ❍ Office of Finance: Electronic Funds Transfer Enrollment and W-9 Forms ❍ Human Resources Vacancy Announcements ❍ Office of Procurement: Current Solicitations

● Clerk of the House ● Office of Inspector General

House Commissions

● Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission) ● National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service ● National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare ● Select Committee on Technology Transfer to the People's Republic of China





http://www.house.gov/house/Party_organizations.html [05/23/2002 10:10:14 AM]

http://www.house.gov/finance/

http://www.house.gov/cao-hr/

http://www.house.gov/cao-opp/

http://clerkweb.house.gov/

http://www.house.gov/IG/

http://www.house.gov/csce/

http://www.house.gov/natcommirs/main.htm

http://www.house.gov/htbin/leave_site?ln_url=http://medicare.commission.gov/medicare/index.html

http://www.house.gov/coxreport/


U.S. House of Representatives - Media Galleries

U.S. House of RepresentativesMedia Galleries

House Media Galleries

● Radio-Television Correspondents' Gallery Facilitates electronic media coverage of the House of Representatives. The Gallery provides facilities, information and services to broadcasters and Members of Congress.

● Daily Press Gallery Provides access and information to the daily (newspaper) press corps about proceedings of Congress; assists Congressional staff and Members with press related inquiries and events; main filing center and press release drop-off point for the daily print press.

● Periodical Press Gallery Serves Members of Congress, magazine, newsletter and online reporters as a press release distribution point, information source and work area. The Gallery issues credentials to reporters covering the daily sessions of Congress.





http://www.house.gov/house/mediagallery.htm [05/23/2002 10:10:15 AM]

http://www.house.gov/radiotv/index.htm

http://www.house.gov/daily/hpg.htm

http://www.house.gov/house/under_construction.html


U.S. House of Representatives - House Operations

The U.S. House of RepresentativesHouse Operations

House Rules 107th Congress (PDF)

These are the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 107th Congress adopted January 3, 2001, with the passage of H.RES.5

Rules of Conduct The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has jurisdiction over the rules and statutes

governing the conduct of Members while performing their official duties.





http://www.house.gov/house/Orgops.html [05/23/2002 10:10:16 AM]

http://www.house.gov/rules/house_rules_text.htm

http://www.house.gov/rules/107rules.pdf

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.RES.5.ATH:



U.S. House of Representatives - Educational Resources

The U.S. House Of Representatives

Educational Resources

This area provides access to documents related to the legislative process that are of interest to the public.

Available Educational Resources

Tying It All Together The legislative process is explained.

How Our Laws Are Made A detailed description of the legislative process. How Our Laws Are Made by Chapter

The above document, broken down into chapters. Enactment of a Law

The Declaration of Independence The full text of the Declaration of Independence.

Early Congressional Documents A list of Early Congressional Documents from the Constitutional Convention and the Continental Congress.

The Federalist Papers A list of titles of the 85 Federalist Papers.

The Constitution of the United States The full text of the U.S. Constitution. Foreword and Historical Notes.

Introductory information about the U.S. Constitution, written by the Hon. Jack Brooks. Bill of Rights

The full text of the Bill of Rights. Other Amendments to the Constitution

http://www.house.gov/house/Educat.html (1 of 2) [05/23/2002 10:10:30 AM]

http://www.house.gov/house/Tying_it_all.html

http://www.house.gov/house/HOLAM.TXT

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.toc.html

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/enactment/enactlawtoc.html

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/declar.html

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?const/bds:@field(FLD001+@range+00000000+99999999)

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fedpapers.html

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html

http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Foreword.html

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/bor.html

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/amend.html

U.S. House of Representatives - Educational Resources

The full text amendments 11 through 27 to the Constitution that have been ratified. Amendments Not Ratified

The full text of amendments to the Constitution that have been proposed but not ratified.

Historical Information From the Office of the Clerk of the House.

Historical Documents From the Library of Congress.


Member Offices | Committee Offices | Leadership Offices | Other House Organizations, Commissions, and Taskforces |Media Galleries



http://www.house.gov/house/Educat.html (2 of 2) [05/23/2002 10:10:30 AM]

http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Amendnotrat.html


http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/mdbquery.html


U.S. House of Representatives - Visitor Information

The U.S. House Of RepresentativesVisitor Information

This area provides visitors some useful information for enhancing their visit both to Capitol Hill and to the Washington, DC area.

NOTICE: Due to the tragic events of September 11, 2001, many tour services have been temporarily canceled. Please check with the individual institutions providing tours to determine their status.

Visitor Information

Around Capitol Hill

U.S. Capitol Home Page Information presented by the Architect of the Capitol for everyone who wants to learn more about the Capitol and what it means.

The House Chamber The Chamber of the United States House of Representatives.

Virtual Tour of Capitol Explore the Nation's Capitol.

The Hall of the House of Representatives This exhibition features the House of Representatives as it was during the half century it met in this chamber. The Old Hall of the House, now known as Statuary Hall, is one of the most historic spaces in the United States Capitol.

Map of Capitol GroundsThe Capitol, House and Senate office buildings are noted.

Capitol Tour Guide Services What Capitol tour services are available and how to arrange tours.

Around Washington, DC

http://www.house.gov/house/Visitor.html (1 of 2) [05/23/2002 10:10:45 AM]

http://www.house.gov/htbin/leave_site?ln_url=http://www.aoc.gov/&ln_desc=U.S.+Capitol+Home+Page

http://clerkweb.house.gov/histrecs/chamber/index.htm

http://www.senate.gov/vtour/index.html

http://clerkweb.house.gov/histrecs/halls/halls.htm

http://www.house.gov/house/Maps.html

http://www.house.gov/house/tour_services.html

U.S. House of Representatives - Visitor Information

Map of Washington, DC Metro System (Subway) A map of the Washington, DC transit system, showing subway lines andstations. Note, the Blue Subway Line, Capitol South station will take you the closest to House of Representatives office buildings.

Touring DC Information on tours and points of interest in the Washington, DC area.

White House Visitors Office Information on White House tours.

National Park Service Information on National Park Service units in the Nation's Capitol.

Maps of DC area Maps included for the Mall, the White House and surrounding area and a sightseeing map.Comments about our site?





http://www.house.gov/house/Visitor.html (2 of 2) [05/23/2002 10:10:45 AM]

http://www.house.gov/htbin/leave_site?ln_url=http://www.wmata.com/metrorail/systemmap.cfm

http://www.house.gov/house/tour_dc.html

http://www.house.gov/htbin/leave_site?ln_url= http://www.whitehouse.gov/tours/index.html&ln_desc=White+House+Visitors+Office

http://www.house.gov/htbin/leave_site?ln_url=http://www.nps.gov/parklists/dc.html&ln_desc=National+Park+Service

http://www.house.gov/house/DC_Maps.html


U.S. House Of Representatives - Other Government Sites

The U.S. House Of RepresentativesOther Government Information Resources

Legislative Branch

The U.S. Senate Government Printing Office (GPO) Library of Congress (LOC) The Architect of the Capitol The General Accounting Office Center for Legislative Archives, National Archives and Records Administration

The Center for Legislative Archives is the repository, reference center, and outreach facility for the historically valuable records of the U.S. Congress at the National Archives and Records Administration. The Center holds more than 142,000 cubic feet of records dating from the First Congress to modern Congresses.

Executive Branch

Executive Office of the President (White House)This site offers interesting content for everyone, including children, students, and adults. The Interactive Citizen's Handbook allows searching for government information by entering a question in plain English. The President's weekly Saturday radio addresses are available in audio format and are searchable by keyword, allowing you to immediately listen to the parts of the speech that addresses the topics of interest to you. In the Virtual Library and the Briefing Room you can browse and search the full text of White House documents and speeches, and subscribe to the publications mailing list to receive White House publications on a daily basis.

The President's Cabinet Departments of: Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs.

Independent Federal Agencies and CommissionsCentral Intelligence Agency, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Deposit Insurance Commission, Federal Emergency Management Agency, General Services Administration, National Aeronautic and

http://www.house.gov/house/govsites.html (1 of 2) [05/23/2002 10:10:47 AM]

http://www.house.gov/htbin/leave_site?ln_url=http://www.senate.gov/&ln_desc=The+U.S.+Senate&

http://www.house.gov/htbin/leave_site?ln_url=http://www.access.gpo.gov/&ln_desc=Government+Printing+Office+(GPO)&

http://www.house.gov/htbin/leave_site?ln_url=http://www.loc.gov/&ln_desc=Library+of+Congress+(LOC)

http://www.house.gov/htbin/leave_site?ln_url=http://www.aoc.gov/&ln_desc=Architect+of+the+Capitol&

http://www.house.gov/htbin/leave_site?ln_url=http://www.gao.gov/&ln_desc=General+Accounting+Office+(GAO)&

http://www.house.gov/htbin/leave_site?ln_url=http://www.nara.gov/nara/legislative/&ln_desc=Center+for+Legislative+Archives,+National+Archives+and+Records+Administration

http://www.house.gov/htbin/leave_site?ln_url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/&ln_desc=Executive+Office+of+the+President+(White+House)

http://www.house.gov/htbin/leave_site?ln_url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html&ln_desc=The+President's+Cabinet

http://www.house.gov/htbin/leave_site?ln_url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/independent-agencies.html&ln_desc=Independent+Federal+Agencies+and+Commissions

U.S. House Of Representatives - Other Government Sites

Space Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, National Performance Review, National Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, Small Business Administration, Smithsonian Institution, US-Israel Science and Technology Commission, United States Postal Service, and Voice of America.

The Federal Information Center (FIC)Have you ever tried to find an answer to a simple question about the U.S. Federal Government and ended up on a merry-go-round of referrals? Or have you ever had a question about the U.S. Federal Government that was so difficult that you didn't even know where to begin?The Federal Information Center can help you. It has specially trained its staff to answer your questions or to direct you to the person with the answer in the U.S. Federal Government.

FedWorld The National Technical Information Service (NTIS) introduced FedWorld in November 1992 to help with the challenge of accessing U.S. Government Information online.The goal of NTIS FedWorld is to provide a one-stop location for the public to locate, order and have delivered to them, U.S. Government information.Links to U.S. Government W3 servers and other U.S. government information sources are provided. Servers are sorted into subject categories -- the same subject categories that we sort the more than 700 new information products that NTIS receives each week -- so that you can quickly navigate to servers of interest.

Judicial Branch

The Federal Judicial Center (FJC)The U.S. Supreme Court

State/Local Governments

Links to State/Local Governments

Home | House Directory | Write Your RepresentativeThis Week on the House Floor | Currently on the House Floor | Committee Schedules




http://www.house.gov/house/govsites.html (2 of 2) [05/23/2002 10:10:47 AM]

http://www.house.gov/htbin/leave_site?ln_url=http://www.info.gov/&ln_desc=The+Federal+Information+Center+(FIC)

http://www.house.gov/htbin/leave_site?ln_url=http://www.fedworld.gov&ln_desc=FedWorld

http://www.house.gov/htbin/leave_site?ln_url=http://www.fjc.gov/&ln_desc=The+Federal+Judicial+Center+(FJC)

http://www.house.gov/htbin/leave_site?ln_url=http://www.supremecourtus.gov/&ln_desc=The+U.S.+Supreme+Court

http://lcweb.loc.gov/global/state/stategov.html
