Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 57 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)

[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.

____________________