[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 57 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H2821-H2826]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 701, CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT 
                              ACT OF 1999

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 497 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 497

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 701) to provide Outer Continental Shelf Impact 
     Assistance to State and local governments, to amend the Land 
     and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, the Urban Park and 
     Recreation Recovery Act of 1978, and the Federal Aid in 
     Wildlife Restoration Act (commonly referred to as the 
     Pittman-Robertson Act) to establish a fund to meet the 
     outdoor conservation and recreation needs of the American 
     people, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed 90 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Resources. After general debate 
     the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. In lieu of the amendment recommended by the 
     Committee on Resources now printed in the bill, it shall be 
     in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 4377. 
     That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules. Each amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the 
     amendments printed in the report are waived. The Chairman of 
     the Committee of the Whole may: (1)

[[Page H2822]]

     postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
     another electronic vote without intervening business, 
     provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 497 is a structured 
rule waiving all points of order against the consideration of H.R. 701, 
the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999.
  The rule provides 90 minutes of general debate, equally divided 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Resources. The rule makes in order the text of H.R. 4377 as an original 
bill for the purpose of amendment in lieu of the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute now printed in the bill, which shall be 
considered as read. All points of order against the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute are waived.
  The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the 
Committee on Rules report accompanying this resolution.
  The rule further provides that the amendments made in order may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by 
a Member designated in the report, and shall be considered as read, 
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided 
and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
order against the amendments printed in the report are waived.
  In addition, the rule permits the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce 
voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 
15-minute vote.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000 creates a 
mechanism by which the funds from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas 
leases are made available for offshore drilling mitigation, land 
purchases, historic preservation, wildlife conservation and endangered 
species recovery at the State, Federal and local levels.
  The Conservation and Reinvestment Act provides annual funding of $1 
billion to coastal States to mitigate the impacts of offshore drilling, 
$900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is its 
fully authorized level, $350 million through existing Pittman-Robertson 
and Dingell-Johnson programs for wildlife conservation, $125 million 
for urban parks; $100 million for historic preservation; $200 million 
for the restoration and improvement of Federal and tribal lands, $150 
million to protect farmland and promote the recovery of endangered 
species through the purchase of conservation easements; and it makes 
available up to $200 million in interest generated by these revenues to 
match appropriated funds for payments in lieu of taxes and refugee 
revenue sharing.
  While providing substantial funds for additional Federal land 
acquisition, the bill also requires for the first time that Congress 
specifically approve each new Federal land acquisition. The bill also 
includes a number of important new private property protections, 
including a requirement that all purchases, pursuant to the provisions 
of this act, be made from willing sellers.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will result 
in a $7.8 billion increase in direct spending through 2005. An 
additional $3.7 billion in discretionary spending is authorized over 
the same period, subject to appropriations.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule that makes in order 26 separate 
amendments in order that Members who have concerns about H.R. 701 might 
have an opportunity to improve it. Accordingly, I encourage my 
colleagues to support this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we have an extraordinary measure before 
us today. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act, CARA, H.R. 701, is the 
most sweeping commitment to the protection of America's public land, 
marine and wildlife resources in over a generation. Utilizing the 
proceeds from offshore oil and gas development, this measure will 
provide steady funding for the preservation of our natural resources 
for decades to come. These offshore revenues were promised for this 
objective 36 years ago, and this bill fulfills and builds on that 
commitment.
  Mr. Speaker, this has been a critical program for many areas of the 
country. In just a few years' time, from the late 1970s, early 1980, my 
district in Monroe County received over $2 million for recreational 
areas, neighborhood parks and historic preservation. Today, more than 
ever, our Nation's natural resources are under enormous pressure from 
development, congestion, pollution and competition. Communities like 
Rochester, New York, are fighting to preserve the open spaces that 
exist. I am delighted that my district will once again have the tools 
to preserve our community for future generations.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 701 provides Federal, State and local communities 
the ability to work cooperatively with private organizations and 
citizens to preserve these resources for the future. This legislation 
contains no incentives for additional offshore oil development. 
Supporters have built a nationwide coalition ranging from State and 
local officials, sporting organizations, environmental groups, wildlife 
and recreation organizations, historic preservationists, professional 
sports teams, police, and many, many more. Mr. Speaker, 316 Members of 
Congress, of the House, are sponsoring this measure, and I am proud to 
be one of them.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 701 includes many environmental goals my colleagues 
and I have worked towards for years, including full and permanent 
funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, increasing funding for 
State fish and wildlife programs, increased incentives to conserve 
endangered species by private landowners, and increased support for 
coastal conservation programs.
  The San Francisco Chronicle said it best when it urged Congress to 
``reclaim this opportunity to enhance the Nation's quality of life. It 
is past time for Washington to live up to the bargain with the American 
people and their natural resources that Congress made in 1964. The 
Miller-Young bill would do just that. The House would accept no 
substitutes or weakening amendments, and a deal is a deal, and the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund is a particularly good one.'' That is a 
quote from the San Francisco Chronicle, May 8, 2000.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is a structured rule, and while 
the rule makes in order numerous amendments, it still restricts full 
and open debate. An open rule would have allowed Members the 
opportunity to consider all germane amendments, but nevertheless, I 
will not oppose this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the

[[Page H2823]]

 chairman of the distinguished Subcommittee on Interior of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time. I am in opposition to the rule because I do not think this is the 
kind of legislation we should be considering for a number of reasons. 
First of all because it creates a new entitlement program.

                              {time}  1615

  We are elected by the people to make judgments. We are elected to 
take the revenues that are available to the Federal government and make 
priority judgments as to how best to use those revenues. An entitlement 
takes away the responsibility that is ours as elected representatives 
of the people.
  I recognize that the proponents have amended--changed--the bill 
because originally it waived the Budget Act. Now it does not. 
Nevertheless, it takes $2.825 billion and deposits into a new CARA 
fund. It does that regardless of any other needs we might have. It does 
this for a period of 15 years. This body would no longer be able to 
make priority decisions in terms of that particular amount of money for 
coastal protection, State and Federal land acquisition, urban park 
funding, historic preservation, and monitoring and protection of 
species under the Endangered Species Act.
  We have to decide whether we want to go down the path of continuing 
to create entitlements. We fund a number of these programs, but when we 
look at the Federal budget, we are only dealing now with about one-
third of it as discretionary funds. About half of that goes to defense. 
So we are left with one-sixth of the Federal budget to meet all these 
needs: to properly maintain and expand, when appropriate, our 379 
National Parks, our National Forests; our national wildlife refuges; 
our other lands, about one-third of the United States.
  That is just part of it. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is a 
responsibility of this body. The facilities, schools, hospitals are 
deteriorating. But we are going to take this money out of the budget of 
the Committee on the Interior and commit it to the States.
  Every State has a surplus. The State of California has a $3 billion 
surplus. The State of Alaska has a $3 billion surplus. In Ohio, there 
was a news story the other day that they are contemplating reducing 
taxes. The State of New York is enjoying a very substantial surplus. I 
could go on and on.
  Yet, by the testimony of Secretary Babbitt, by the testimony of the 
director, Bob Stanton, by the testimony of the Secretary of the 
Smithsonian and other agencies, we are faced with a bill for backlog 
maintenance of anywhere from $13 billion to $18 billion. That means we 
have neglected taking care of these properties. Yet, here we propose to 
create a new entitlement to reduce the amount of discretionary funds 
that we have.
  We have not neglected these programs in the Interior bill. We have 
put in $300 million to $400 million in Federal land acquisition, $40 
million in State land acquisition, and other programs, such as urban 
parks and endangered species. But with the amount of backlog that we 
are facing, I think it is not a good government matter to take $2.8 
billion and take it off-budget, in effect, by making an entitlement of 
it.
  Of this amount, about $2.4 billion of the CARA fund would go directly 
to the States. Let me point out something that is not well known. Under 
the present law, States receive about $1.7 billion of money that is 
generated by Federal leases, by Federal activities such as harvesting 
of forests, such as the various mining interests that take place on 
Federal lands and other activities. We already distribute to the States 
$1.7 billion, yet the CARA bill would give them an additional $2.4 
billion, while we sit with all this backlogged maintenance.
  The end result is to take the Congress out of the decision-making 
process for funding natural resources programs, and it would certainly 
create a lot of problems in the future.
  Most of all, I think the principle that is involved here is wrong. It 
is wrong to continue to expand entitlement programs. Next year it will 
be some other group that says, we should have a guaranteed revenue 
stream, and it goes on and on. Already we have a very limited amount of 
the Federal budget that we have available to meet the responsibilities 
that we are elected to meet in terms of the natural resources of this 
Nation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I, like the previous speaker, rise in 
strong opposition to the rule on the Conservation and Reinvestment Act 
of 1999 because it allows the continuation of the pattern of fiscally 
irresponsible legislation that will squander our opportunity to retire 
the national debt and deal with social security and Medicare.
  The legislation that this rule will allow is the latest in the series 
of bills that will drain the projected budget surplus drip by drip 
without regard for the consequences.
  In setting national priorities, Congress has the responsibility to 
carefully assess each program. Creating a new Conservation and 
Reinvestment Act fund with a mandatory spending stream will exempt 
these funds from the scrutiny that all other programs must endure. This 
would further erode the integrity of the budget as a tool for fiscal 
accountability and constrain the options of future policymakers by 
locking in an ever-increasing share of Federal spending.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 701 would increase 
mandatory spending by $7.8 billion over the next 5 years without 
offsets, as required by budget rules. As a result, the spending in this 
bill places yet another claim on the projected budget surplus before we 
have established a plan to pay off our debt and deal with the 
challenges facing social security and Medicare.
  Despite all this, the rule for this legislation casually waives the 
Budget Act to allow us to rush forward with fiscally irresponsible tax 
and spending legislation. Regardless of one's views of the merits of 
the provisions in the bill, all Members who care about fiscal 
responsibility should oppose this rule, oppose this legislation, vote 
no on the rule, and let us stay on track for protecting social 
security, paying down our national debt, and maintaining a fiscally 
sound direction for our country.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the 
Committee on Resources.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I have a well written statement 
here that will be submitted for the Record. But in light of the time, I 
would like to suggest that this is a fair and good rule. It allows 27 
amendments which will be adequately discussed and I am sure will be 
voted on.
  This is a great piece of legislation, bipartisanly supported by 316 
cosponsors. It is on budget, it is not off-budget, contrary to someone 
who just reported it is off budget. We have over 4,000 groups in this 
Nation of ours who support this legislation.
  The rule is fair. We are going to have a long night tonight and a 
long day tomorrow, but I would like to see us out of here in time for 
everybody to catch their planes back home. I am going to try my best as 
manager of the bill on this side of the aisle to make sure that does 
happen.
  I urge the adoption of the rule and adoption of this historic 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the House leadership 
for bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor. H.R. 701, the 
Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 (CARA) is a seven-title 
comprehensive conservation and recreation bill that has endured a long 
legislative life.
  CARA was first introduced in the House in the 105th Congress. Since 
CARA's reintroduction this Congress, the Resources Committee has had 
five days of legislative hearings on H.R. 701 and our consideration 
ended with a bipartisan vote of 37-12 to favorably report the bill out 
of Committee. Since then, two referrals have lapsed.
  The Agricultural Committee's referral resulted in substantial changes 
regarding what agency would administer the conservation

[[Page H2824]]

easement program created in Title Seven. In addition, due to several 
Budget Committee Member's concerns, we have removed the provisions that 
made CARA off-budget.
  In our opinion, an on-budget CARA allows the critical funding to 
occur on an annual basis, but allows for this important priority to be 
included as part of future budgets.
  The coalition of Members that support this initiative have always 
worked to find consensus and continue the bipartisan spirit upon which 
this bill was created. The changes we have made accommodate many 
Member's concerns and has resulted in the broadening of our support. 
The manager's amendment represents a fair compromise with Congressmen 
Boehlert, Markey, and Pallone that addresses some remaining concerns 
and put to rest the notion CARA would create incentives for new oil and 
gas drilling.
  However, with the consensus building and after more than two years of 
CARA's legislative development, we can only go so far. Today, we will 
discuss over twenty amendments. Most of these amendments are offered by 
well-intentioned Members, but many amendments are offered by those who 
choose not to understand this bill.
  I continue to feel a great deal of frustration at the fact that many 
of the arguments we are likely to hear today have little to no basis in 
fact and, quite frankly, many of these amendments are solutions in 
search of a problem. Members involved with the legislation and the 
Resources Committee have repeatedly negotiated on many of these topics 
and arrived at the consensus agreement under consideration today.
  I am confident that many of the authors of these amendments have no 
intention on voting for this historic bill, regardless of whether or 
not their amendments pass or fail. With that fact in mind, I ask all 
Members to vote with the coalition that support the House's approval of 
CARA and vote against these damaging amendments. If we allow damaging 
amendments today, it will be a great disservice to the communities who 
stand to benefit from the bill and those Members who have labored to 
produce this balance.
  The fact is the Conservation and Reinvestment Act is a great 
bipartisan bill that provides critical funding for local conservation 
and recreation projects. Whether you live in rural Oklahoma or urban 
New York, this bill provides substantial benefits. That is why you find 
support spread across the Nation with all our governors, a majority of 
county leaders and mayors joined by the U.S. Chamber, Realtors, and 
countless conservation organizations. With 316 cosponsors, a super-
majority of this House, a majority of both Republicans and Democrats 
support enactment of this legislation.
  These Members and the constituents they represent have read the bill 
carefully and have considered the provision within. With this broad 
coalition assembled, I ask that we not allow meritless amendments 
written only to divide this diverse National coalition. As the House 
considers these amendments Members need to be aware of the impressive 
local grassroots support this bill realizes. CARA is a historic 
opportunity to provide annual funding for important conservation and 
recreation programs.
  I again want to thank the House leadership, who have given us the 
opportunity to rally around this widely supported bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Resources, I rise today 
in support of the rule. I thank the Committee on Rules and the chairman 
of the committee for accepting my amendment in the spirit and 
understanding in which it is offered.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 701, the Conservation and 
Reinvestment Act. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act will 
dramatically increase funding for Federal, State, and local 
conservation efforts in all 50 States.
  In my home State of Wisconsin, a very proud and progressive history 
has been established regarding land stewardship. Land conservation 
programs and the protection of the environment are not a part-time 
casual interest in Wisconsin. Instead, bipartisan governmental leaders, 
from former Democratic Senator Gaylord Nelson, the father of Earth Day, 
to former Republican Governor Warren Knowles, have been national 
leaders in the environmental and conservation movement.
  Two of the great founders of the conservation movement, Aldo Leopold 
and John Muir, called Wisconsin their home. It was in Vernon County, in 
my congressional district, in an effort to preserve and protect 
precious topsoil on farms, that farmers initiated contour plowing, 
which provided a wonderful model across the Nation.
  Throughout our history, the citizens of Wisconsin have been 
responsible stewards who have sought to conserve and expand on our 
extensive investments and recreational and environmental resources. 
While I still hope that this legislation will ultimately provide 
Wisconsin and some of the other upper Midwest States with a more 
equitable share of the Title I funding, this bill nevertheless is a 
good start to help restore imperiled species, conserve wild places, 
maintain recreational access, and educate our children about the 
wonders of our natural world.
  I urge today support of the rule. Depending upon the amendment 
process as this legislation moves forward over the next couple of days, 
I also urge passage of H.R. 701.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule. As cochairman of 
the congressional Sportsman's Caucus, I am very supportive of the base 
text of this measure. I have testified before the Committee on 
Resources.
  I want to commend my friend, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), 
who I think has done a very admirable job of getting a consensus of 
people, both inside and outside the House, together on this very 
important piece of legislation that covers so many areas of the 
outdoors and is going to be so beneficial to so many people. The 
gentleman has just done a great job of this, and I commend him on that.
  As vice chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, honestly, 
though, I have some observations about the level of the mandatory 
spending that has been set on this bill. I have an amendment that is 
going to be coming up later tonight or tomorrow that will address that 
issue and I hope will receive broad-based support.
  As cochairman of the Congressional Sportsman's Caucus, I am very 
supportive of this bill. This bill is going to give our State fish and 
wildlife agencies the resources to adequately address their wildlife 
conservation funding problems.
  I am specifically talking about title III of the bill of the 
gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) which is the section that deals 
with wildlife conservation and restoration. Folks all around the 
country are going to benefit from this because it does provide a 
steady, dependable stream of revenue that is going to help fund both 
game and nongame wildlife conservation programs and, more importantly, 
or just as importantly, it is going to provide the States with the 
flexibility to tailor their programs to their particular needs.
  It is not going to make any difference whether one likes to hunt and 
fish, whether they hike or bike on trails, whether they bird watch, or 
whether they are concerned about the coastal regions of this country. 
This bill is going to provide our States with revenue and flexibility 
to make decisions, to tailor the needs of their States and the 
individuals in their States in those areas, as well as many other 
areas.
  One of the most exciting parts of this bill that I have been working 
on with the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) is the wildlife 
associated education portion of the bill. We need to ensure that our 
future generations are educated about wildlife, and recognize that 
hunting and fishing are valuable management tools.
  One of the great pleasures I get in life is hunting. I hunt with my 
son, and I hunt with my son-in-law. My grandson is 4 years old, and I 
hope one of these days that he is going to be able to enjoy the 
outdoors with me. We have to continue to educate people all across the 
country about the value of wildlife-associated education.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) incorporating some 
language that we asked to be incorporated that will protect wildlife 
education funds from being used by programs that oppose hunting and 
fishing. Helping replenish renewable sources with funds derived from 
nonrenewable resources is simply good policy. CARA accomplishes this 
without raising taxes by one single penny.

[[Page H2825]]

  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, as a person who came to Congress interested in support 
for the Federal government being a better partner to work to make 
communities more livable, I am exceedingly pleased that this bill is 
before us today. It is an important restatement, a recommitment, after 
35 years of partnership that is frayed lately, of the trust fund 
concept; for example, the lands and water conservation fund and UPAR, 
which have not been funded on the State side since 1995.
  It will have key impacts in Oregon, the State that I represent, and 
in communities around the Nation. It means creating long-term 
investments that will create value for generations to come.

                              {time}  1630

  I plan on speaking on the merits of this bill and a number of 
amendments as we proceed in the course of this debate. But I would like 
to make one brief comment because, as a Member here for the last 4 
years, it seems to me we have occasionally lost our ability to 
legislate, to work together, to cross party, regional, and ideological 
lines.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this is important legislation not just as a tool 
for livable communities, but it is one of the clearest signals I have 
seen that we can send to one another in Congress that we can play the 
historic important role of debating, of listening to one another, of 
compromising and making decisions. I hope it sets the tone for 
bipartisan cooperation and progress for the remainder of this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to supporting the rule and the 
legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage), who has worked diligently 
in her time in Congress on these issues.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 701. I will 
support the rule, but I want to make it very clear that I admire the 
ability of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) to work across party 
lines, and I think it is important to be able to agree with one another 
and work together, but not at the expense of our constituents out 
there, our private property owners. I am deeply concerned about our 
private property owners.
  Mr. Speaker, I have carefully read and studied this legislation, 
looking at not only its actual language but how it will be interpreted 
and implemented in the future by the Federal agencies. See, sad 
experience has proven that well-intentioned laws have had their 
purposes twisted and even tortured by a Federal Government that seems 
to be hungry for more power and control over the resources and lives of 
our citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge my colleagues, even those who have 
joined as cosponsors of this bill, to read and study very carefully 
this bill. Consider its real impacts not on this body, but on the 
people of this Nation. Consider what this legislation will do to our 
ability to control the pursestrings, our ability as a Congress, our 
sacred responsibility under the Constitution.
  It does leave only $1.6 billion on budget, but it does take $2 
billion off budget to become mandatory spending. $2 billion is a huge 
amount of money. So consider where this legislation will truly take us 
and what kinds of precedents it will set in terms of additional 
mandatory trust funds taken from general revenue streams. Consider what 
it will do to our fiscal priorities such as paying down our debt and 
shoring up Social Security, building up our national defense, and 
providing tax relief.
  Mr. Speaker, we are fully aware of the thousands of organizations and 
entities, including Federal, State and local bureaucracies and 
nongovernment groups and Indian tribes, who will monetarily benefit 
from this bill. Indeed, this legislation will establish a permanent 
revenue source for these entities, much of which will bypass the 
congressional budgeting process for years and years to come.
  So for that reason, legions of representatives and lobbyists have 
canvassed this Hill to promote this mandatory fund and, quite frankly, 
I do not blame them. CARA represents a pot of gold at the end of the 
rainbow for them.
  But, Mr. Speaker, along with the litany of well-represented special 
interest groups who support this legislation, somebody needs to 
represent the interests of the main target of this bill, and that is, 
the private property owner. I am reminded that next year, along with 
all of our constituents, I, too, will be a regular working person and 
property owner living under the laws of this Congress. I think that 
sometimes with all the lobbying, pressuring and inside games that go on 
here, we forget that the laws we pass truly affect the people we serve. 
One small provision passed in return for a political favor can destroy 
the life's work of many people.
  Our vote should reflect this possibility more than anything else. So 
the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the very foundation of our 
Nation was built from individual liberty derived in part from the 
ability to own and produce from one's own property.
  In contrast, the legacy and prosperity of this Nation was never 
created by the Federal, State or even local government, and this is why 
John Adams proclaimed very clearly that property must be sacred or that 
liberty cannot exist. He also said that there must be a form of law to 
protect private property.
  We are not only doing violation to that form of law that John Adams 
referred to, but violation to the rights of private property with this 
bill. That is what this debate is all about, Mr. Speaker.
  So when considering how to vote on CARA, Mr. Speaker, I ask my 
colleagues, please, consider the views of the average taxpayer who will 
end up paying for this bill.
  I would like to just share with my colleagues some of the results of 
a survey conducted in a poll just recently. When asked about land 
acquisition and park creation, it came out to be a very low priority, 
more land acquisition. Only 1 percent of the people really wanted to 
see this kind of bill. But by a margin of six to one, 80 percent to 12 
percent, voters wanted us to address our maintenance backlog of $5 
billion before acquiring additional lands.
  Once the American people learn that the Federal Government already 
owns in excess of one-third of the land in this Nation, or all of the 
government owns about 43 percent, they oppose additional land 
acquisition by a wide margin of 53 percent to 34 percent.
  Voters oppose any proposal that works to take money away from Social 
Security and debt reduction by a 72 percent margin to only 13 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, not only does the clear language in this bill threaten 
private property rights, but the American people really are not 
thinking in the same manner as this bill would represent.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the 
Committee on Rules for the rule that they have reported on this 
legislation. I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it will provide a fair and open debate on the 
Conservation and Reinvestment Act, H.R. 701, that is before us today.
  This legislation is really about redeeming a promise that the 
Congress of the United States made to the American people 36 years ago. 
We said as a trade-off for drilling offshore, for some of the 
environmental damage that occurred from time to time, we would take a 
portion of those royalties that this Nation receives from the offshore 
oil that belongs to all of the people of this Nation and we would 
reinvest them in America's irreplaceable resources. That would be the 
trade-off.
  We did that and we started to do that, and then little by little, 
little by little Congress started dipping into the fund. They started 
dipping into the fund for other reasons for whatever it

[[Page H2826]]

was, just as they were dipping into the Social Security Fund, just as 
they were dipping into the Highway Trust Fund. This is now about 
redeeming that fund and saying let us go back, not by raising taxes, 
but by recapturing that money that comes in year after year from 
offshore oil and use a portion of it to protect and conserve America's 
resources.
  That is why we have this kind of list of sponsors and cosponsors. 
Thousands of organizations from all across the country who support this 
legislation. Some will call them special interests, but if we read the 
list we will see our governors, our mayors. We will see our next door 
neighbors. We will see the soccer moms of the Soccer Federation. We 
will see the Pop Warner coaches and the people who play Pop Warner 
Football. We will see the Campfire Girls and the Boy Scouts; people who 
go out and recreate, who understand the pressure of the resources are 
under in this Nation.
  This is about our communities. This legislation is about building an 
environmental infrastructure so people can enjoy a quality of life as 
our country continues to grow, the pressures of suburbia, the pressures 
of new housing developments, the pressure of new growth and formation 
of families so that they can have bike trails and hiking trails, so 
they can explore the water fronts in our bays and rivers and on the 
oceans of this country.
  We know the backlog. We know the lost opportunities. This is about 
making sure that we do not lose those opportunities in the future.
  But we also make very sure that local communities are involved in 
these decisions, because they will have to match the money that is put 
up. And we also make very sure that we as elected representatives are 
involved in this decision, because this is designed so we do not have 
land acquisitions put in bills in the middle of the night that we do 
not know anything about and then just are sprung on the public. Because 
of the insistence of the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and 
others, there is notifications in here. There is a recommitment 
recognizing what a taking meanings and the implications of that and 
that they have to have the approval of the Congress. They cannot do 
those things that are not authorized by the Congress of the United 
States.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a balanced bill. It is an important bill. I 
think we have to understand that this is about making the Federal 
Government a better partner, and a reliable partner. We were supposed 
to be funding land and water conservation all of these years for our 
local communities. They have lost out on hundreds of millions and 
billions of dollars because one day we just stopped funding it, and 
took the money and did something else with it. That is not the promise 
we made to the people of this country.
  So I would hope as we listen to the debate, we will have many 
amendments that my colleagues will understand the kind of legislation 
that CARA represents, its bipartisan nature. It has the support of 50 
governors, the support of local government that we say we want involved 
in these organizations, and then thousands of citizen organizations 
that every year put up their own money and put up their own effort to 
clean up the beaches, to clean up the rivers, to build trails, to build 
ball fields, to provide recreational opportunity. This is to help them 
continue to do that.
  That is why the Police Athletic League supports it. That is why the 
Boys Clubs and Girls Clubs, the sporting goods manufacturers, many 
other business organizations support this effort. They recognize this 
is about our communities. This is about the quality of life for our 
families, so we will have a place to take our son or daughter fishing, 
so we have a place to take our son or daughter hunting, so those places 
will be preserved and also the habitat will be preserved so that we can 
continue to do that in perpetuity.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why organizations like BASS, the biggest 
organization of bass fishermen throughout this country, supports this 
effort, or Ducks Unlimited, because they know what it means if we can 
restore habitat, if we can provide good waterways, if we can provide 
refuges, that is the kind of organizations that are here surrounding 
this bill.
  I would hope that all of our Members, all 316 people and more who are 
cosponsoring this bill, would recognize the kind of commitment. Because 
we know from data taken from polling of the American people, some 80 
percent, over 80 percent of the people believe that America should be 
making these long-term investments in our physical heritage in the 
great environmental assets of this Nation.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this fair and 
balanced rule, which will ensure full debate on this bill. There was 
quite a bit of Member interest in this particular piece of legislation 
and the Rules Committee worked hard to ensure that Members had ample 
opportunity to debate a wide range of issues and offer amendments. The 
rule strikes a fair balance and I encourage its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 701, the ``CARA'' bill, provides dedicated funding 
for coastal impact assistance, land acquisition needs, wildlife 
conservation, urban parks, historic preservation and endangered 
species, all without providing incentives for future offshore oil 
drilling. H.R. 701 is one of the most significant conservation bills to 
come out of Congress in decades--and it represents the continued 
commitment of the current majority in Congress to responsible 
stewardship of our natural resources.
  Mr. Speaker, while I look forward to the amendment process, I do want 
to speak very quickly about an amendment offered by my friend, Chairman 
Regula. This amendment would prohibit funds in the bill from going to 
States that have moratoria on outer continental shelf (OCS) oil and gas 
leasing.
  For the last decade and a half, the Florida delegation has worked 
diligently and successfully to include annually in the Interior 
appropriations bill a moratorium on further oil and gas leases off the 
Florida coast. Just about everybody in Florida remains concerned about 
the effects of oil drilling on our sensitive marine environment. While 
the annual moratorium provides a stop-gap solution to this issue, it is 
far from ideal and actually shortchanges all parties involved. In fact, 
every Member of the Florida delegation has cosponsored bipartisan 
legislation introduced to impose a permanent policy for Florida 
offshore oil drilling. H.R. 33 would call for a ``time-out'' period, 
during which a joint State-Federal commission of scientists and other 
interested parties would work to craft a non-political, science-based 
decision as to which areas are appropriate for oil drilling under what 
conditions off the Florida coast.

  Even with the support of the entire Florida delegation, civic and 
business groups across Florida, and current Governor Jeb Bush and his 
predecessor, Governor Lawton, Chiles, we have been unable to get more 
than a few hearings on H.R. 33 in the Resources Committee. So, we are 
forced to continue advocating the stop-gap annual moratorium. Florida 
seeks merely to be a wise steward of its natural resoruces, ensuring 
that any activity off our coast does not adversely affect our unique 
environment.
  Chairman Regula's amendment would deny Florida funding under this 
bill because of that moratorium. I do agree with the basic premise of 
his argument--the moratorium which he carries for us each year on the 
Interior bill is not the best solution to this issue. But I do not 
believe that the solution is to lift the ban and move forward on oil 
activity off the Florida coast absent the kind of science based 
approach outlined in H.R. 33. Nor do I believe Florida should be 
punished for trying to be a good steward of its resources. That is 
counter initiative and counter productive. So I would encourage Mr. 
Regula to join us in support of H.R. 33. Indeed, I might even go so far 
as to suggest that my good friend could solve this issue once and for 
all by attaching H.R. 33 as a rider to the Interior appropriations 
bill--as a replacement for a moratorium he and I both find 
unsatisfactory. I look forward to the debate on the Regula amendment 
later today. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my 
colleagues to support both the rule and H.R. 701, but not the Regula 
amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________