[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 61 (Wednesday, May 17, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E740]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


               CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. STENY H. HOYER

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 11, 2000

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union 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:

  Mr. HOYER Mr. Chairman, I regrettably oppose H.R. 701. I say 
regrettably, Mr. Chairman, because there is much in this measure that I 
strongly support. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, Wildlife 
Conservation, Urban Parks, Historic Preservation, and Conservation 
Easements are objectives that I have supported throughout my career.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 701 funds these measures by making approximately 
$2.8 billion in discretionary spending mandatory spending. As mandatory 
spending it is not subject to the annual appropriations process. I know 
that for some this is a positive thing but as a member of the 
Appropriations Committee, I simply cannot support this.
  In the past I have opposed similar efforts to make highway and 
aviation spending mandatory. Not necessarily because I opposed the 
objective, but because I disagreed with the precedent.
  My friends, since coming to Congress I have seen discretionary 
spending squeezed harder and harder every year as the mandatory 
spending components of the budget have grown. Thirty years ago 
discretionary spending accounted for 61.5% of the budget with the 
remaining 38.5% reserved for mandatory spending. By 1980 discretionary 
spending had declined to 46.7% of the budget. By 1990 this figure fell 
even further to 39.9% and this year the estimate is that discretionary 
spending will account for only 34.5% of the budget.
  The remaining 65% percent of the budget next year will be consumed by 
mandatory spending and interest on the national debt. And, we are here 
today taking about moving another $2.8 billion from discretionary 
spending over to the mandatory side.
  If we pass this bill, we are going to squeeze Head Start, student 
loans, cancer research, law enforcement, defense and every other 
discretionary spending priority you can think of even further.
  As I said at the beginning, I support the items contained in this 
legislation. What I cannot support is putting land acquisition and 
historic preservation ahead of defense, cancer research, and education. 
Governing is about making choices--sometimes difficult ones. This 
legislation is another step toward putting as county's spending 
decisions on autopilot. I urge all my colleagues to reject it.

                          ____________________