[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 57 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H2894-H2903]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in

[[Page H2895]]

the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
further consideration of the bill, H.R. 701.

                              {time}  2333


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 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, with Mr. Pease (Chairman pro tempore) in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose 
earlier today, a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 12 
printed in House Report 106-612 by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings) had been postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 printed in House 
Report 106-612.


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Sweeney

  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Sweeney:
       Page 36, after line 13, insert:
       ``(D) No State political subdivision has transmitted to the 
     Secretary administering the acquisition a copy of a 
     resolution adopted by the governing body of such subdivision 
     disapproving of such acquisition within 90 days after 
     receiving notice of the proposed acquisition under 
     subparagraph (C)(iii).
       Page 41, line 8, after the period insert: ``The State shall 
     notify each affected political subdivision of each land 
     acquisition proposal included in the State action agenda. 
     Such notice shall include a citation of the statutory 
     authority for the acquisition, if such authority exists, and 
     an explanation of why the particular interest proposed to be 
     acquired was selected.''.
       Page 42, after line 9, insert:
       (c) Local Government Veto.--Section 6(f) (16 U.S.C. 460l-8) 
     is amended by adding the following at the end thereof:
       ``(9) No funds made available under this Act may be used by 
     a State to acquire any land or interest in land if the 
     political subdivision of the State in which the land or 
     interest in land is located has transmitted to the State 
     agency administering the proposed acquisition a copy of a 
     resolution adopted by the governing body of such subdivision 
     disapproving of such acquisition within 90 days after 
     receiving notice of the proposed acquisition under subsection 
     (d)(2).''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in partnership with the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), my neighbor to the north, to 
address the concerns of local government.
  The gentleman and I, Mr. Chairman, represent some of the best the 
Nation has to offer in terms of open space, recreational opportunities, 
and natural beauty in the form of the Adirondack Mountain region.
  There are concepts within the underlying bill here at work that I 
strongly believe in and I accept and I support; namely, strongly 
supporting conservation programs. I understand the value of protecting 
open space.
  However, I can only support open space initiatives that are 
accomplished in conjunction with meeting local concerns. I understand 
that the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), our distinguished chairman, 
and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and Members on the other 
side of the aisle have worked diligently to try to manage many of the 
complexities of this issue. I think this amendment is being offered in 
the hopes that we will strengthen the underlying bill.
  They knew, as they constructed this bill, that local governments hold 
the responsibility in this country for many land use decisions and do 
so effectively through local zoning laws. I believe that land 
acquisition decisions are essentially land use decisions.
  The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that once private land is purchased by the 
Government, it is no longer subject to local zoning laws or to local 
property taxes. That is why I believe our towns and counties ought to 
have a real say in such a decision.
  It is on this basis that I offer this amendment today with the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh). Our amendment provides local 
governments with the opportunity to object to projects listed under 
both State and Federal land acquisition plans under the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, LWCF.
  Our amendment first adds an additional requirement for States to 
notify the appropriate State political subdivision of government 
affected by each acquisition under the State Action Plan.
  I will note that, in the underlying legislation, the information to 
be provided by States is identical to that required of the Federal 
Government for its acquisitions. However, CARA does not currently 
require States to notify local governments as a condition of funding.
  Affected local governments, under our amendment, are given 90 days to 
submit a resolution of disapproval to the Secretary of Interior or to 
the governor, depending upon whether the listing is in the Federal or 
State plan.
  Mr. Chairman, let me note that most of the focus of tonight's debate 
over CARA is over direct Federal acquisitions in the West. State 
acquisitions are a major issue in States like New York and other 
places, and I believe we should be addressing both in this legislation.
  I do not object to giving our local government resources for 
preservation projects that they develop and support. I do object to 
this, what is seemingly a top-down approach. Without this amendment 
being approved, I think that that would be a great mistake.
  The CARA bill in its current form calls for public participation in 
the setting of land acquisition priorities. However, I feel that 
process needs to be strengthened. This amendment does so by ensuring 
that the people most affected at the local levels of government have a 
seat, a real seat at the table in the LWCF land acquisition decisions 
at both the State and Federal levels.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that the concept being applied in 
this amendment tonight is not without Federal precedent, as the 
affected political subdivisions in the State of New York must agree 
before they may be included in the Federal Forest Legacy Acquisition 
Program. This provision was advanced in October of 1991 in this body. I 
believe this language has protected private forest land in New York 
that otherwise would have been threatened by Federal acquisition.
  Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, this amendment does not undermine the 
CARA bill. It simply strengthens the process for local governments to 
ensure that they have a seat at the table and the approval of ultimate 
land use decisions transferring land into public ownership.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Sweeney-McHugh amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Udall) seek recognition?
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I wish to claim the 10 minutes 
in opposition, and I ask unanimous consent to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for purpose of control.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will give my friends, and I do mean they are my 
friends, great credit for being imaginative and making it very 
difficult for this chairman. This amendment does have merits. But I 
will say that I do believe CARA provides, very frankly, the local 
governments the notice. I understand his concern.
  The Federal Government, I think, is pretty much hamstrung on how any 
land will be purchased. If I am not mistaken, I think his amendment is 
really directed towards the purchase of land by the States.

[[Page H2896]]

                              {time}  2340

  I am not sure we have the authority to tell the States how to run 
their business and how and what lands they should buy, that is what 
concerns me a great deal.
  And the second thing is the way I read this amendment that under this 
amendment, a landowner who wants to sell their land or even a 
conservation easement on their land to the State government or to a 
Federal agent is prohibited from doing so without the permission of the 
local government, and that is the taking; that is the taking.
  I always thought that my good friends were always for the private 
property right owner in letting him make the decision on how he should 
dispose of his land if he wishes to do so. I am a little bit concerned. 
To me, the way that the amendment is drafted, it appears that it asks 
us to do two things; one is to interfere with a State. I want to 
believe in State's rights, and I hope everybody else does, too. I do 
not think we ought to be telling the state what to do and how they 
should or should not purchase the land and how they should be notified.
  The second one is, as I mentioned, I am a little bit concerned about 
if I own a piece of land and someone came to me, let us say it was a 
nonprofit, which was brought up before, and told me that we would buy 
my land as an easement, and I would have to go and get the occurrence 
from the local government, and I thought the people opposing the bill 
were against the concept under my bill, that is, saying we were taking 
land.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a little bit confused. I do say that I understand 
what the gentleman is trying to do, but the way that this bill is 
written, I think, it does raise some very serious questions.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to my distinguished colleague, let me say 
two things to his explanations: The first is that we in Congress have 
the absolute right of responsibility to direct and restrict the 
spending of Federal dollars. These are Federal dollars that are going 
to be appropriated to States for the use in this process and, 
therefore, it is very well within our powers and our authorities and 
our responsibilities to restrict and set limits on the expenditures 
thereof.
  This is indeed not a taking of private property, because it is my 
assumption that no willing seller essentially has a constitutionally 
insured right to have their property purchased with Federal money.
  Furthermore, I think the Constitution does not require that the 
Federal Government spend money to acquire a land necessarily. We are 
affording that opportunity here.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. McHugh).
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time and begin by thanking him for his very diligent work in this 
initiative, and to express my appreciation for the opportunity to have 
worked with him.
  Mr. Chairman, in sum, this very simple amendment is intended to do 
what virtually everyone through the development of this bill, the 
authors, the sponsors, the backers have set is their intent, and that 
is to involve local governments, to ensure their participation.
  We have even heard in the last 10 minutes here, Mr. Chairman, of the 
interest in the title of the bill, a bill to assist State and local 
governments. We heard a few moments earlier from the gentleman from 
Washington about the importance of union in the discussion and the 
development of this bill.
  We cannot have a union in the United States without meaningful 
participation of local governments. So contrary to the concern of the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), our intent was not to make it 
difficult for the gentleman, because, indeed, his leadership and his 
record on these kinds of issues is clear and something to which I, and 
I know many others look with great admiration, but rather to facilitate 
him and others in reaching the goal that they have proclaimed is such 
an important one in this particular bill.
  We have heard a great deal about how this is a western concern. And 
as my friend and neighbor and colleague, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Sweeney) so correctly noted, this is an issue that permeates 
through many regions of the States, certainly, in the northeast as 
well.
  The Adirondack Park, a great region, a wondrous region that the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and I share the honor of 
representing, currently has some 5.8 million acres in totality; of 
those 2.4 million acres within the park boundaries are held by the 
State government. The fact of the matter is, in eight out of the 10 
counties that I represent that have a piece of that great land, we have 
double digit unemployment, and I think it is absolutely essential that 
this Federal Government ensure through specific language, not just 
expressed intent, but specific language that local governments whom we 
come to this floor everyday and pretend, and I would like to think that 
we will actually take the steps to, in reality, defend their rights and 
participation.
  Let me add on to what my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Sweeney) said contrary to the distinguished chairman's concerns, this 
does not require that local property owners get the permission of local 
governments. What it does do in those, I would argue very rare 
occasions, when there is a local government concern, provide the local 
government with the opportunity to express its opposition, otherwise, 
no action, no consideration is involved.
  As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) said, there is no right, 
no explicit constitutional guarantee that Federal monies will be 
available to every property owner to have their land purchased and, 
indeed, in another effort to assuage the concerns of our friend, the 
chairman, we went to the Congressional Research Service, we went to the 
legislative council of the House, and queried about the possible 
constitutional problems, they pointed out to us what seemed at the time 
to be very obvious, that, indeed, time after time, this House has 
passed legislation after legislation that conditions the use of Federal 
money pursuant to some action or restriction or prohibition followed by 
local governments.
  Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to take that burden from the shoulders 
of the chairman; that is, indeed, not a concern, not just our opinion, 
but that of the Congressional Research Service and the legislative 
council for the House of Representatives.
  We are not precluding that the land be purchased, even if the local 
government denies the opportunity under the Federal acquisition monies, 
any State is still free to use other monies, as most do, including my 
State of New York, in purchasing this land.
  We are simply doing what, time and time again, the sponsors, the 
authors, the supporters have said is their intent, the local 
government's will have a meaningful voice; if that is not their intent, 
then this amendment will give them the opportunity to step to the 
podium to vote no and to declare a fraud upon what most have said is a 
primary pillar of this bill.
  Again, we are happy to be a constructive participant, and this 
amendment would make the bill pretty close to perfect. With that that 
I, again, thank my colleague from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for his 
initiative.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if I might ask a 
question to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) I do not quite 
understand. I am sure things are different in New York than they are in 
California. Generally on the Stateside of land and water conservation, 
communities have a project. They usually go out and they raise some 
local money or they raise private money or foundation, or individuals 
make contributions and then they try to get together and go to the 
State and ask whether they will use this or not, so if a park district 
does this or a city does this or a county, who gets the veto here? I do 
not understand.
  If the county wants to do this within their jurisdiction, can a city 
in the area say, we will not sign on to this?
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H2897]]

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from New 
York.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, the answer is no. It is the same language; 
that is, the State political subdivision is the same definition that is 
defined in the underlying bill as the local political jurisdiction 
immediately below the level of State government, including counties, 
parishes and boroughs.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, it is unclear, because 
that is the process by which local Stateside land and water 
conservation has done. Local people make applications to the State and 
say will you help us out, a partnership to purchase this or rehab this 
or restore it or whatever the local project would be.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from New 
York.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed an important point and why we 
work very closely with the legislative counsel to conform this to 
existing law and other provisions where there are, indeed, local review 
potential and options. The language provides for that local political 
jurisdiction that is immediately below the State level. It does vary 
from State to State. I cannot say what the local political jurisdiction 
is in the State of California. In most jurisdictions in the State of 
New York, it would be the county.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman 
if the local subdivision is a city, then it would be up to the city to 
veto this, not the county. If the local subdivision was a park system, 
it would be up to the park system.
  Is that what the gentleman is saying?
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
the park system is not a political subdivision under any law.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. In California it is. We have a park 
system that goes across 5 or 6 counties.
  Mr. McHUGH. If the gentleman's State law provides that, then, yes, 
the gentleman is correct in his understanding.

                              {time}  2350

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. So it would be up to the park?
  Mr. McHUGH. If that is the local political jurisdiction under the 
State law of the gentleman, the answer would be yes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, and then the same 
would be true if somebody wanted to sell the land to the Federal 
Government, the locals could veto that if some landowner wanted to sell 
their land for whatever reason?
  Mr. McHUGH. Using funds under this particular legislation, yes. 
However, that would not preclude the purchase, as I hope the gentleman 
understands. It would just preclude the purchase with these particular 
funds.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues as a State legislator and as 
a former county supervisor why this language is really bad language. 
Whether we look at it from the top down from a Federal level, this is 
bad precedent.
  What they say with this language is, oh, local governments, if we 
want to build a post office in their community, we have the right to 
veto it, which they do not have now. We extend this thinking. Or how 
about if we want to build a military base or expand that. No, local 
governments can come in and veto it. Or how about if when we want to 
build a water system or a highway system or a jail system, prison 
system. Local governments can veto it.
  These are the kind of things people do not want in their backyard. I 
think we find a lot of cities kind of vetoing these things. This logic 
of allowing local governments to veto Federal decisions is bad, bad 
precedent.
  Let us take it from the other side. Let us be a State legislator and 
say we are going to expand the State park system. But now, for the 
first time in history, the city or county can come in and say, State 
parks, we veto it.
  This is a whole change in structure. The gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller) is absolutely right in asking those questions 
because they have no idea about how the process works.
  Now, we have a way of allowing public information on all these 
actions, if that is what they want to get to, this sort of veto 
process. It is called an Environmental Impact Statement. In California 
it is called an Environmental Impact Report.
  They cannot make any decision relating to land in California, private 
or public, without doing an Environmental Impact Report, which is full 
disclosure of what is going to be done and allowing a public process 
and a public comment period.
  I will yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) to answer 
this question. I am reading the language from his legislation. It says, 
``No funds made available under this act may be used by a State to 
acquire any land or interest in land if the political subdivision of 
the State in which the land or interest of the land is located has 
transmitted to the State agency administering the proposed acquisition 
a copy of a resolution adopted by the governing body of such 
subdivision disapproving of such acquisition with 90 days.''
  My colleague gives local governments the total ability to veto any 
acquisition by a State for a State park purpose.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The only remaining time belongs 
to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) has raised some very interesting questions. I have been in the 
district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and part of the 
district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) and it is a 
gorgeous area. Not nearly as gorgeous as Alaska, but it is gorgeous.
  But I cannot quite yet figure out, if I am a city under the amendment 
of my colleague and I want to build a skating rink or a park, under the 
amendment, the borough could disallow that. Is that correct?
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, it is in the 
State of Alaska. First of all, I do not believe the funds under this 
could be used for construction of skating rinks, but I will defer to 
the gentleman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, yes, it can. 
That is the urban parks recreation areas.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, we 
are talking about land acquisition in our amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman, just land 
acquisition?
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
believe that is the text of the language. But it does not obviate the 
gentleman's point of the gentleman.
  If in the State of Alaska, wherever this project is occurring, the 
local political subdivision most immediately under the State is other 
than who is trying to construct it, then the answer would be yes.
  I would venture a guess, if their construct is anything like most 
other States, then the City of, say, Anchorage, they would be the 
political jurisdiction and would have the authority.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, in Fairbanks we have a city and a 
mayor and a council, but we have the Northstar borough which the city 
resides in, which is part of the borough.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, but the political jurisdiction in terms of 
the State hierarchy would be the city I believe. I cannot answer the 
question of the gentleman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, now my staff say it would be the 
borough. And if the borough can stop the city, and my colleague knows 
how local governments are, I do not object to local government, but I 
do not want local governments to have the leg up on any one of them 
when the city has--and by the way, we want to build hockey rinks. The 
borough, I am not sure they would do that. But if they said, no, they 
are not going to build any hockey rinks.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H2898]]

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, let me note that the provision in the 
amendment is applicable only to the land water conservation portion of 
this bill. Therefore, it only applies to the large land purchases that 
would not be applicable to those areas.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have not read the amendment of 
the gentleman. I apologize.
  Does it, in fact, specifically say only land acquisition?
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, it only 
applies to those funds under the land and water conservation portion, 
which I believe the bill of the gentleman only provides for land 
acquisition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time having expired, the question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 printed in House 
Report 106-612.


                Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Simpson

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Simpson:
       Page 36, strike the close quotation marks and the second 
     period at line 16, and after line 16 insert the following:
       ``(h) State Approval of Certain Land Acquisition 
     Required.--The Federal portion may not be used by the 
     Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to 
     acquire any interest in land located in a State in which 50 
     percent or more of the land in the State is owned by the 
     Federal Government if the acquisition would result in a net 
     increase in the total acreage in the State owned by the 
     Federal Government, unless the acquisition is specifically 
     approved by the law of the State.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Simpson-Walden amendment to H.R. 701 is a common 
sense amendment that addresses one of the major concerns that the 
constituents in my State have, that of giving the Federal Government 
$450 million annually to purchase land in States such as Idaho which 
already have a high percentage of Federal landownership, potentially 
little turning Idaho into a welfare state dependent upon the Federal 
Government.
  There are 52,960,000 acres in the State of Idaho. The Federal 
Government owns 34,519,000 of those acres. In other words, 65 percent 
of Idaho is owned and controlled by the Federal Government.
  There is more Federally owned land in Idaho than in the entire land 
mass of the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, 
New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and New Hampshire combined.
  Removing private land from local property tax roles and not fully 
funding the PILT payments severely impacts Idaho's counties and local 
governments. Moreover, when the Federal Government absorbs private land 
and that land ceases to be productive, local communities are severely 
affected by the loss of economic activity and become more, not less, 
dependent upon the Federal Government.
  For example, when a farm or a ranch land is purchased by the Federal 
Government and taken out of production, those operations cease to 
contribute to the local economy. Hired hands go unemployed. Local 
stores lose businesses. Trucks and tractors remain unsold on the local 
dealership lots.
  However, in spite of this concern, this amendment does not preclude, 
I repeat, does not preclude Federal land acquisition. It does not 
undermine CARA. It only requires that the Federal Government, when 
acquiring land in a State which is over 50 percent or more of the land 
in that State is owned by the Federal Government, to do one of two 
things, to either dispose of an equal amount of land or to obtain the 
approval of the State by State law before acquiring that land.
  This amendment provides the Federal Government with the flexibility 
to actually bypass the State if they so choose. The Federal Government 
does not have to seek State approval if they do not enter into a 
purchase that results in a net gain in Federal landownership within 
that State.
  My colleague the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and I are not 
asking for much, only the ability of our States to exercise some 
control over future Federal Government land acquisitions.

                              {time}  0000

  At present the majority of Idaho and other western States that this 
amendment would affect, Alaska, Oregon, Utah and Nevada, are owned and 
controlled by the Federal Government. In these States where the Federal 
Government already owns a majority of the total land, we should not 
fear allowing the State elected officials to participate in the 
decision as to how much more Federal land will be acquired by the 
Federal Government. It is these State officials that can best determine 
the impacts that these proposed Federal acquisitions will have on their 
local communities. If Members truly support States rights and local 
control as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) waxed so 
eloquently about earlier in the debate on the general debate on this 
legislation, then they will truly support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I claim the 10 minutes in 
opposition, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally 
divided between myself and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Alaska?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Again may I congratulate those that are offering these amendments. If 
we did not have this fragile house of cards put together, this would be 
very attractive because my State is owned right now 94 percent by the 
Federal Government. By the way, I do not think any land is being bought 
by the Federal Government, although there are some that do want to sell 
to the Federal Government. The money is not available. They are 
inholdings. Of course some of the inholdings very frankly do not want 
to sell and I am supporting them because I do not think the government 
ought to purchase those lands from an unwilling seller. But I do know I 
have those Members within some of our parks that were created by this 
Congress which I opposed and refuges that want to sell, and the 
appropriators do not appropriate the money to purchase the lands. I do 
not think that is fair because those people that own those inholdings 
do not have an opportunity to develop the lands, and they do not have 
the opportunity to really sell their lands, because nobody wants to buy 
them. I think we ought to appropriate the money and CARA would allow 
that.
  I am telling the gentleman that the amendment for my State might make 
sense. But as a whole I do not think we ought to be involved in setting 
up separate States that say that 50 percent, then there is no land that 
can be purchased under this bill because there are willing sellers 
within my State. I know other States that would like to at that time 
get rid of their land and the only money available is from the Federal 
Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  (Mr. WALDEN of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, our amendment is as simple as it 
is fair and logical. It simply says that if the Federal Government 
already owns more than one-half of our State, then before it can buy 
any more private land in that State, the State will

[[Page H2899]]

have an opportunity to simply have a say in the matter. In fact, the 
elected legislators and the governor will have a say as to whether or 
not the Federal Government will take even more land out of private 
property ownership and put it into Federal ownership.
  Why is this important? Because as we have heard over and over 
tonight, many of us represent districts that have enormous amounts of 
lands off the tax rolls already and under Federal control. The Federal 
Government controls more than 55 percent of Oregon, nearly 56 percent 
of my district.
  My district, pictured here, overlaid the East Coast to give Members a 
dramatic view of just how large it is, it is larger than 31 States. 
Larger than 31 States. And so to put that in perspective, I have 
created this map here. As we can see from New Jersey to Ohio it would 
stretch. Half of this is already under Federal control. Half of it is 
already under Federal control. In fact, the Federal Government controls 
34 million acres in the State of Oregon. To put that in perspective, in 
Maryland the Federal Government controls 131,000 acres. 34 million 
versus 131,000. I would wager we lose more in mapping errors in Oregon 
than Maryland has under Federal land. Think about it. Oregon already 
has 113 times as much Federal land as Maryland.
  I understand why people living in other States, especially those east 
of the Mississippi and in urban cities, favor more open spaces and 
additional Federal lands. I probably would if I lived there as well. 
But my concern comes from those of us who live in the West and about 
those who seek to lock up more land in the West. This legislation 
guarantees them a billion dollars a year for 15 years to move that 
marker up anytime they want to acquire more Federal lands.
  And so this is a simple amendment that just says, if that is going to 
happen, the State legislatures in those States that are already more 
than 50 percent controlled by the Federal Government have an 
opportunity to speak on that matter.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much 
the concerns of the authors of this amendment. I come from the West. 
Most people do not realize how much land in California is owned by the 
Federal Government but it obviously is a problem for the other States 
that do not have the size that we have. But to put a mathematical 
equation on this business if you cannot increase Federal ownership, we 
just went through a situation in Las Vegas where they wanted a very 
valuable small piece of Federal land, but to swap it out and get a deal 
for the Federal Government, they went out and bought some lands to add 
to their Federal holdings which would have helped the Federal 
Government but was not worth very much but rounded out the holdings and 
the net process is you ended up with increased Federal lands but the 
city of Las Vegas and the county and everybody else is ecstatic about 
what they have got. We go through this all the time. We have people in 
Colorado, in the ski areas that come to us, they want to buy a couple 
of acres of land that may be worth millions of dollars and they know 
that maybe down on the stream there is an area where we could get 
public access, they give it to us, and it is worth a few thousand 
dollars. We would not mind if all this land was valuable, but a lot of 
it is not necessarily valuable.
  So trying to put a mathematical equation, over the last few years, 
Federal ownership has been going down because I think one of the things 
the members of the minority have drilled into us on the committee is 
that people are concerned about the increase of this where it is not 
necessary, where it can be swapped out, where we can unify it, where we 
can rationalize the ownership and this committee has been doing that 
under the leadership of the chairman. But to put us in this position I 
think is to, if it does not average out, do we have to do it on a 
calendar year or a fiscal year? We do not have necessarily like assets. 
But we know, and we have tried to encourage the various land management 
agencies to be more attune to rationalizing patterns and ownerships. We 
went through a big swap in Utah.
  I would oppose this amendment. I like the spirit of it, but I just do 
not think you can say mathematically that is the situation.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to point out that this proposal does not preclude 
the purchase of more Federal land. I do not deny that there are 
purchases out there that may be appropriate for the Federal government 
to acquire, for habitat and other things. I do not have a problem with 
that. But what I am saying is that in a State like Idaho and those 
States that have currently over 50 percent Federal land, and in Idaho 
it is 65 percent, two out of every three acres is owned and controlled 
by the Federal Government. That leaves little private land as a tax 
base to support the services in the rest of that State. But in those 
States, if there is an appropriate purchase of Federal land or an 
appropriate acquisition by the Federal Government, they have two 
options under which they can acquire that land. One, they can decide 
that there is other land that they would rather sell off so that there 
is a no net gain, in which they can do it without the approval of the 
State; otherwise they can go to their State legislature and get it 
approved by State law. This brings the State government into the 
decision-making process. I do not know why we should fear having our 
State legislators, those people closest to the decision-making process 
and how this is going to affect them, be involved in that decision-
making process. I do not have a problem with that. I trust my State 
legislature. I come from the State legislature. They have the concerns 
of the State of Idaho and I am sure of the other States that they 
represent at heart. They will do the right thing.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I think those who are following this debate 
may find that it is curiouser and curiouser in the sense that those who 
historically have stood up for the rights of citizens to make decisions 
about their property have now brought an amendment that strikes right 
at the heart of what people in Idaho and Washington or anywhere else 
can do with their property.
  Let me give an example, and I am going to ask the gentleman from 
Idaho if that is correct when I am done. Mr. Jones is a rancher in the 
great State of Idaho. And it is a great State. I fly over it every 
week. It looks great from 30,000 feet. He has got 40 acres, he has not 
really ever ranched it, and there is really nothing too much to do with 
it. But it might make some good habitat for some species, some critter 
that might be in a difficult situation. So he goes to the Federal 
Government and says, Can you take this off my hands? Can you maybe give 
me a few dollars for it? I would like to sell it. He goes through the 
permutations with the Federal Government and he gets the Federal 
Government to offer to buy his land. He agrees. He makes a consensual 
decision as an American citizen to sell it to the Federal Government 
and the folks across the aisle tonight are telling him, You cannot do 
it. We realize it is your property, but we are not going to let you 
sell it to the Federal Government unless the State legislature has the 
veto power on your personal private decision what to do with your 
private land in a consensual arrangement with the Federal Government.

                              {time}  0010

  Now, frankly, I want to ask my colleague, is that not the correct 
situation, and if it is, how can we do anything but accept this as a 
gross violation of the people's right to sell their land. I mean, what 
next? Let me ask one more question. What next? Will the gentleman tell 
us that a person cannot sell it to the church? Is the next thing we 
will say is we cannot sell it to a church because that is going to 
reduce the local tax rolls and we are going to require the State 
legislature to do it?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have 
remaining?

[[Page H2900]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Idaho (Mr. 
Simpson) has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say this 
does not apply to Washington, so the gentleman's implication that it 
applies to Washington is inaccurate. It applies to 5 States: Alaska, 
Oregon, Idaho, Utah and Nevada.
  We are not talking about something extraordinary like churches or 
selling to somebody. In fact, they could donate it, they could have the 
State of Idaho buy it, they could have a private organization buy it, 
they could have somebody with private property buy it and use it in 
that respect.
  The issue here, though, is as these lands come off the tax rolls, 
they affect our schools, they affect our roads, they affect things 
going on in the community, and that ought to be recognized.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I rise as a former county supervisor remembering the debates about 
not wanting the Federal Government to leave to close bases, not wanting 
the Federal Government to abandon land. As a former State legislator, I 
have never seen a resolution by Idaho or any other State saying we 
really want you to join in petitioning us to get rid of Federal land.
  Do my colleagues know why? Because that Federal land employs people. 
That Federal land not only has Federal employees who pay taxes and 
their kids go to school, they pay those fees, the in lieu fees, but 
there are the recreational activities that come off of that land that 
supported private businesses.
  When I go down the Salmon River in Idaho, I see a lot of people 
making money off the boaters, staying in hotels, eating in the 
restaurants there before they go on the river and after they come out. 
Do we want to abandon that as an Idaho asset and say we cannot add to 
that without the permission of the State legislature? There is local 
control in the United States Congress. This is called the House of 
Representatives, because we represent small bodies of people and most 
of us are former State legislators.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) has 
2\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has the 
right to close.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to point out that this does not affect the State of 
California and it does not affect the State of Washington, but I 
appreciate the gentleman's input. What it does affect is those States 
that already have 50 percent Federal land.
  Really what we are saying is, how much is enough Federal land? I 
think 65 percent of the State of Idaho being controlled by the Federal 
Government is enough. The people of Idaho think it is enough. In fact, 
we have legislation now that we are trying to work on and we will try 
to get through Congress that will allow the State of Idaho to manage 
some of those Federal lands because we are fed up with the Federal 
Government's management of those Federal lands.
  Mr. Chairman, to tell the truth, all this does is, it does not say 
that one cannot buy the land, it just says that one has to have the 
approval of the State legislature or a no-net gain, and if somebody out 
there has 20 acres or 40 acres, as the gentleman from Washington 
suggested, is he trying to tell me that in the 34 million acres, 34 
million acres that the Federal Government currently owns in Idaho, they 
cannot say, well, here is 40 acres we can surrender to make this deal?
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I think the crux of the problem is, who 
really in America ought to make that decision of whether that next 40 
acres goes into a reserve or goes to something else. Let me suggest to 
my colleague that what I am saying tonight is that is not a decision 
for the gentleman from Idaho to make, it is not a decision for me to 
make. It is a decision for the property owner who should be given the 
right, on a willing and consensual basis, to sell it to whomever he 
wants, the YMCA, a church, Federal Government, the State. But that is a 
decision by the property owner.
  What I am trying to say is that the gentleman's amendment 
unfortunately strikes at that basic American principle for him to 
decide what happens to that 40 acres.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not believe that 
is what it does. That individual can sell that land to who he wants to. 
There are private conservation groups and other groups that can acquire 
that land. It is only if the Federal Government, the Federal 
Government, with our tax dollars, tax dollars that have been taken out 
of our pockets, tax dollars, and I do not know where it says that the 
Federal Government has the right to take tax dollars from the citizens 
of this country and go out and purchase private land with it.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I just have to make a comment as 
well about the concept of these Federal lands being so productive to 
employment.
  The gentleman who went to the university, as I recall, as apparently 
been a long time going back through eastern Oregon and seeing mill 
after mill close, unemployment rates in some counties like Grant County 
in Oregon hit upwards of 20 percent because of the way the forests are 
being mismanaged today.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has 
3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  In closing, I reluctantly oppose the amendment, but I understand why 
it should be defeated, and I urge the defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  The question was taken, and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. 
Simpson) will be postponed.
  The Chair understands that Amendment No. 15 will not be offered.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 16 printed in House 
report 106-612.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Regula

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Regula:
       Page 37, after line 11, insert the following: No amount may 
     be apportioned under this paragraph to any State (herein 
     referred to as an `unfunded State') that has not established 
     a dedicated State land acquisition fund that is funded 
     through the State's budget process. The amount that would 
     have been apportioned to any such unfunded State under this 
     paragraph shall be reapportioned to other States in 
     accordance with subparagraphs (A) and (B).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today to offer an amendment to title II requiring States to 
have their own State-funded land acquisition budgets in order to 
receive funding under the Stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  While the current State conservation grants program provides matching 
grants to States and through States to local units of government for 
the acquisition and development of public

[[Page H2901]]

outdoor recreation areas in and other projects, the States often do not 
match these funds with direct funding. In fact, few States actually use 
State revenues for land acquisition.
  According to a study by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, only 14 
States fund these programs in their State budgets by direct 
appropriation. Many have special bond funds, lottery revenues, or even 
in-kind contributions in providing their required match.
  This fact is especially disconcerting when we learn that every State 
in the Nation has a balanced budget and many actually have large budget 
surpluses, including California and Alaska, with $3 billion each as a 
surplus. The States stand to receive billions of dollars in Federal 
funding under the provisions of this bill for 15 years.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply requires that they match these 
State land acquisition funds with their own revenues. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Basically, it makes the State responsible. If they are going to 
receive the Federal funds, they should have a program to match it with 
State revenues. Of course, if the purpose of this bill is to protect 
the resources, as we have heard over and over tonight, to enhance the 
States' ability to acquire and protect the land resources in each of 
the respective States, they would want to have their own money. It 
seems to me they would want to have a plan. I think this is a very 
reasonable amendment and ensures that there will be good management of 
the Federal dollars that would be available.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote for this amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, am I correct in 
understanding that the purpose of the gentleman's amendment is to 
provide a means by which the State establishes where it is going to get 
the revenues from?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, that is essentially right, that they have a 
system, and only 14 do, whereby they know where they are going to have 
their matching fund. Because we find many States want to use in-kind 
and all kinds of other various devices.

                              {time}  0020

  If really our mission is to protect resources for the public, we 
would want to have an assurance that the States would have a plan 
before they received the Federal monies.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Could the States if they wanted to 
in their normal budget process budget $50 million for matching land and 
water conservation funds? Would that be sufficient?
  Mr. REGULA. I would not see any reason why they could not. They would 
have to have some kind of a plan, because they are going to get a 
check. We want to be sure that they will match that money with their 
own State funds. That of course doubles the amount that will be 
available.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If they said they wanted to set 
aside 10 percent of their lottery, that would not bother you, or set 
aside 5 percent of the general fund revenues, as long as they have a 
real dollar match, is what the gentleman is saying?
  Mr. REGULA. What we are really saying is that they have to have 
created some type of fund. They can get the money for that from 
whatever source they choose, but they have to have a fund with the cash 
to match it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. So it is real money?
  Mr. REGULA. Yes, real money they will get from the Federal 
Government. In effect, it doubles the impact of the money that comes 
from the Federal government.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Let me ask, that is an important 
point, that would not prohibit them from also using foundation money, 
if that was real money? In our case, we have some big foundations that 
are dedicated to land acquisition. If the State put up $10 million out 
of its acquisition fund that the gentleman talks about and that was 
going to matched with $10 million of local money, it would be all 
right?
  Mr. REGULA. How does the gentleman define that?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. A match from the State runs to the 
Federal government, but later if that money is used with foundation 
money, that is not a concern because the State put up real dollars to 
match the Federal share, is what you are after?
  Mr. REGULA. I guess it is a matter of how we define ``foundation''. 
Is the foundation money State revenues?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. No, no.
  Mr. REGULA. What is the source of that?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Fortunately, some people are wealthy 
enough that they have created foundations. In our case, it is the 
Packard family.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Ohio's time 
has expired.
  Who claims the time in opposition?
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition, and yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California is 
recognized.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is not 
specifying a specific mechanism by which the State does this. But what 
the gentleman is saying is, when it comes time to match the money, he 
expects the State to be there with real dollars, not funny dollars, 
someone else's dollars, so they place the same priority on this that we 
say we place on it?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. That is exactly right, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have just been following this 
conversation. I have an inquiry of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller). I would like him to take the mike again.
  If the gentleman's intent is, he objects to using land as to the 
matching of the Federal dollars?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. We object to in-kind.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Or some other form of dollar amount that is not 
dollars. What the gentleman is asking, I do not think he wants them to 
put up a fund, but he has to have the money to match the matching 
grants in real dollars.
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, we 
want to make sure that the State is putting in the same amount of cash 
that the Federal government is, so that we are doubling, in effect, the 
impact and preserving resources for the public.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from California 
help me out on this? It goes back to the question.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Yes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If there was a Ford Foundation that gave the 
State money for a recreational project or acquisition of land, that 
money could be counted against the Federal dollars?
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, it depends how 
it is earmarked. If that money was given and became part of the State's 
assets or Treasury, then money is money.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. In theory, the State could 
conceivably say, we are now going to create a pool of $10 million, and 
we are asking local governments or somebody else to put in $10 million. 
That is $20 million. They may be entitled under the State side for $10 
and they would have that match.
  The gentleman from Ohio is concerned, sometimes we get into these 
things and we go from real dollars to in-kind contributions to work 
efforts to sweat equity, and pretty soon what we really have is Federal 
dollars matching Federal dollars.

[[Page H2902]]

  I think he wants a clarification that the State match is really a 
product of the State. We could talk about this later, about if they get 
it from private sources or not, but that it is real money. I do not 
think I have a problem with that. He is right.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. This is what I am leading up to. If the 
gentleman will just relax a moment, and he is not being mischievous, I 
hope, because on the surface, I do not see anything wrong with the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) what we should do here.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I do not think I have a 
problem. I think there are some questions about the amendment, but what 
the gentleman has said, he is willing to work that out.
  Different States have different mechanisms. I think what the 
gentleman from Ohio is saying is that he wants to see real money.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Chairman, that is 
correct.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Are we going to say we accept the amendment, or 
are we against the amendment?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. . I think we should accept the 
amendment, but if the chairman would continue to work with us on this, 
obviously there are 50 different States with 50 different mechanisms.
  Some States will raise the bond issue and make all that available for 
this purpose. That is an honest mechanism which is real money.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Would that be agreeable with the chairman?
  Mr. REGULA. I think we can work it out. Of course, even with the 
money in the Interior subcommittee, we require a match. Sometimes it 
gets into, we will put up a tennis court to match what the Federal 
government does. We want real money.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. They go to another Federal program 
and get Federal dollars.
  Mr. REGULA. Exactly. We will get it worked out.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. We have a problem, because Alaska cannot do a 
dedicated fund. That is under our Constitution. That is why I want to 
have the gentleman's agreement. Otherwise I will strip it out. I want 
the gentleman to work with us to try to solve this problem.
  I am not in disagreement to what the gentleman is trying to do, but 
we do have that problem. Does the gentleman understand what I am 
saying?
  Mr. REGULA. The gentleman can appropriate money.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. We cannot have a dedicated fund, in our 
Constitution. But if the gentleman will help me fix that problem, is 
what I am saying.
  Mr. REGULA. I assume under the gentleman's bill he plans to have this 
money matched.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Not through a dedicated process, but through an 
appropriation process in the legislature.
  Mr. REGULA. How does the gentleman plan to do it?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Through the legislature. If they do not match 
it, we do not get it.
  Mr. REGULA. In other words, they would appropriate the money?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Yes.
  Mr. REGULA. I think we can agree on that.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. With that agreement, we will sit down and work 
this out. We will accept the amendment at this time with no vote, with 
that agreement.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Regula).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair understands that amendment No. 17 
will not be offered.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 printed in House 
Report 106-612.


                  Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Kind

  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

  Amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Kind:
       Page 42, line 14, strike ``and''.
       Page 42, line 18, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 42, after line 18, insert:
       (3) by adding the following new paragraph after paragraph 
     (2):
       ``(3) Monitoring and Data Collection.--For establishing a 
     sediment and nutrient monitoring network for the Upper 
     Mississippi River Basin for the purpose of reducing sediment 
     and nutrient loss, to be headquartered at the Upper Midwest 
     Environmental Sciences Center in La Crosse, Wisconsin. The 
     Secretary of the Interior shall establish guidelines for the 
     effective design of data collection activities regarding 
     sediment and nutrient monitoring, for the use of suitable and 
     consistent methods for data collection, and for consistent 
     reporting, data storage, and archiving practices. Data 
     resulting from sediment and nutrient monitoring in the Upper 
     Mississippi River Basin shall be released to the public using 
     generic station identifiers and location coordinates. In the 
     case of a monitoring station located on private lands, 
     information regarding the location of the station shall not 
     be disseminated without the landowner's permission. The 
     Secretary of the Interior shall establish the guidelines 
     under subsection (a) in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Agriculture and all entities known to be conducting sediment 
     and nutrient monitoring in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. 
     The non-Federal sponsors of the sediment and nutrient 
     monitoring network shall be responsible for not less than 25 
     percent of the costs of maintaining the network. Up to 80 
     percent of the non-Federal share may be provided through in-
     kind contributions.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I know the hour is late. I believe this is going to be the last 
amendment we will take up this evening. I will try to be quick. I hope 
a few people are up and listening concerning what I do for my labor of 
love for the Mississippi River.
  Mr. Chairman, I anticipate entering into a colloquy at the end of my 
statement with the chairman of the Committee on Resources, and based on 
an understanding and agreement that we have reached, I will be asking 
for unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.
  Let me first say that the CARA bill that is before us today and 
tomorrow is extremely important for the conservation future of our 
Nation. For this reason, I am a strong supporter of the bill and voted 
for its passage as a member of the Committee on Resources.
  CARA is a remarkable bill that will dramatically increase 
environmental and conservation efforts in all 50 States. The amendment 
that I am offering tonight addresses a very pressing conservation need 
regarding the upper Mississippi River Basin. The upper Mississippi 
River Basin is one of our Nation's great ecological and recreational 
treasures. Its rich wetlands and back woods serve as North America's 
largest migratory route. The region boasts tremendous diversity in 
animal and plant species.

                              {time}  0030

  Income from fishing hunting, boating and other recreational 
activities total roughly $1.2 billion annually and the area's tourist 
industries, much of which are centered on the river, contribute $6.6 
billion to the region's economy. It is also the primary drinking source 
for 22 million Americans and the upper Mississippi River Refuge has 
more visitors every year than Yellowstone National Park.
  Unfortunately, increasing soil erosion threatens this region and the 
wildlife habitat. For instance, soil erosion reduces the long-term 
sustainability and income of family farms and sediment is entering the 
river basin and costing the American taxpayers roughly $100 million 
each year in dredging costs alone.

[[Page H2903]]

  One of the best ways to reduce sediment and nutrient losses from the 
landscape is to protect sensitive riparian areas through voluntary 
program for land purchases, conservation easements, and the 
implementation of best management practices, all fundamental components 
of the CARA bill.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to assist conservation planning in 
the region through the development of a scientific sediment and 
nutrient monitoring network. The goal of the network is to enable 
States and other governmental and nongovernmental entities to make 
better decisions about where to direct resources and to determine which 
conservation measures are most appropriate in the Mississippi River 
Basin.
  The amendment I am proposing tonight is but a single component of a 
far larger basin initiative that I introduced earlier this year, H.R. 
4013, ``The Upper Mississippi River Basin Conservation Act''. We have 
over 18 cosponsors from eight States.
  H.R. 4013 establishes the monitoring network contained in my 
amendment here tonight, as well as a state-of-the-art computer modeling 
program to identify significant sources of sediments and nutrients. It 
provides grants and incentives to States and counties to implement best 
management practices and other innovative voluntary programs. It calls 
for increases in the USDA highly effective but underfunded land 
conservation programs. Finally, it contains data protection provisions 
designed to protect the privacy of individual landowners in the basin, 
which I know is very important to a lot of property rights advocates in 
this body.
  The legislation relies entirely on voluntary programs and creates no 
new regulations. I believe this approach to watershed management is the 
wave of the future. It is proactive rather than reactive, seeking to 
stop harmful nutrients and sediments before they make it into the river 
basin, rather than relying on expensive cleanup and mitigation efforts 
after the fact.
  The approach is basin wide rather than piecemeal, seeking to look at 
the entire ecosystem and develop management plans appropriate to a 
large-scale physical system. Finally, this approach relies on 
interagency and intergovernmental cooperation attempting to coordinate 
the diverse but sometimes fragmented conservation efforts of Federal, 
State, and local agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of H.R. 4013 and invite my colleagues to 
join me as a cosponsor of this important piece of legislation which 
will better protect ``America's river,'' the Mississippi River, and 
North America's largest migratory route.
  Mr. Chairman, at this moment I would like to engage in a colloquy 
with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of my 
Committee on Resources.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KIND. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to engage in a 
colloquy with the gentleman.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, I know as the gentleman 
understands, I introduced H.R. 4013. It was referred to our Committee 
on Resources. The legislation authorizes the U.S. Geological Survey, an 
agency under the jurisdiction of our committee, to oversee a monitoring 
network and the modeling program in the upper Mississippi River Basin. 
And I know the gentleman is familiar with the legislation already.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) has 
expired.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I again yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, I am familiar with the gentleman's legislation and look forward 
to working with him and his staff on this measure.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman knows, 
H.R. 4013 has bipartisan support. It has also received the endorsement 
of a number of national and regional conservation outdoor recreation 
groups, farm, and environmental groups. And I am willing, based on that 
understanding and discussion that I have had with the gentleman and his 
staff, to, with unanimous consent, withdraw my amendment here tonight 
and work with the gentleman to establish a hearing on this important 
legislation some time prior to the August recess.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I understand and appreciate the work that the 
gentleman has done on this measure and it is my intention that the 
appropriate subcommittee of the Committee on Resources will hold a 
public hearing on this prior to the August recess, especially this 
upcoming 2000 recess.
  I compliment the gentleman on his good work. He has talked to me 
before tonight and I appreciate the gentleman withdrawing the 
amendment.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, with that assurance, I will ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw the amendment, and would also like to commend the 
gentleman from Alaska, the chairman of the Committee on Resources, and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member, 
for the hard work and effort that they have put in bringing together 
this wide political coalition that exists, I believe, for the CARA 
bill. I am a proud supporter of the bill, and I conclude by urging my 
colleagues to support H.R. 701 in final passage tomorrow.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Regula) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pease, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had 
come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________