[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7526-7596]
[From the U.S. 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 the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 701.


                     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 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. Gillmor in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) will control 25 minutes, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) will control 20 minutes, and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) will control 45 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000 is an 
historic bill which comes to this floor today, as the result of the 
efforts of a number of my colleagues on the Committee on Resources. I 
want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), my 
ranking member, for his support and cooperation in achieving a workable 
compromise bill to achieve the goals that we both share: conservation 
of our wildlife and our resources for our children and their children. 
The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I have not often 
shared the same view on issues before our committee, but on this issue 
we stand together to make this investment in our Nation's future.
  I especially want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) 
for his untiring work to keep the Members talking to each other and 
pushing forward to bring this bill to the floor today. The gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has passionately spoken on behalf of his 
State and district to share his concern that our Nation recognize the 
contribution made by coastal Louisiana to our national energy security 
and to the extraordinary economic growth and prosperity that we enjoy 
today.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John), our 
newer Member, for his work to achieve a bipartisan effort on behalf of 
his constituency in Louisiana. Every meeting we had with the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller) and all the other Members, the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) was there. He was there constantly 
with cooperation and sound advice.
  I, again, want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), my 
old friend and dear colleague. There have been many battles over many, 
many years. Without his wise guidance and strong leadership, this bill 
would not have happened. There is no other Member of the House who, 
over the many years, demonstrated as much dedication and commitment to 
conservation as the gentleman from Michigan (John Dingell). He will 
leave a lasting legacy to our Nation of support for wildlife 
opportunities and recreation.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo). 
Although the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) may not support our 
bill today,

[[Page 7527]]

he nevertheless has been helpful to maintain a thoughtful and courteous 
dialogue among those of us who wish to achieve our goals in a different 
manner. He also attended all the conferences we had together and 
contributed to each one.
  He has been a valiant and constant supporter of the rights of private 
property owners, and I appreciate the zeal and determination he brings 
to that role. He and I share the same goals when it comes to protecting 
the rights of our property owners. They are America's foundation. I 
happen to agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) that our 
Federal Government needs to do more to show them the respect they 
deserve, and I believe that CARA moves in that direction. I believe 
CARA actually addresses the property rights problems and also addresses 
the purchase of lands.
  I believe that CARA achieves both conservation of our resources and, 
remember, I keep insisting on conservation, the word ``conservation,'' 
not ``preservation,'' and insures the protection of the rights of our 
private property owners. I would not support a bill that did not 
protect the rights of private property owners.
  Now, what does CARA achieve? First, it provides the stable and 
lasting source of funding to achieve the conservation of our natural 
resources. Our coastal States are our first line of defense in 
protecting our environment.
  They are impacted by many important economic activities in our 
coastal waters that benefit all of us, including the production of oil 
and gas for our energy and security. There are many other impacts as 
well, including shipping, fisheries, and recreation. They are on the 
receiving end of much of our polluted waters flowing from inland 
States. They have to deal with these problems and deserve our support.
  As our American population grows and our economy improves, we have 
greater needs for recreational opportunities and for opportunities to 
enjoy the beauty of our country. This bill provides funds for Federal 
land acquisition, yes, but, quite frankly, ensures a greater role for 
Congress in that process and provides greater protections for property 
rights.
  In the future, Congress can ensure that our Federal policies are 
fairer and provide more opportunities for those areas of the country 
which need and want additional Federal land acquisition.
  As a Republican, I believe the States should have a greater say in 
providing recreational and conservation opportunities for our citizens. 
This bill sends back to our States funds for ensuring that the States 
can provide these opportunities. We should get our government back as 
close as possible to the people so that they have a direct voice in how 
these types of decisions are made. Let local folks decide what to do 
with these conservation dollars, not inside-the-Beltway bureaucrats in 
Washington, D.C.
  This bill provides direct funding for wildlife conservation. It 
ensures that the funds are spent on projects that directly benefit 
wildlife. I, for one, am concerned that too much of our wildlife 
conservation dollars get spent on administration, bureaucracy, and not 
directly on wildlife, and this bill will ensure that the money be spent 
on wildlife.
  CARA will greatly increase funds for urban parks and recreation. At a 
time when crime and education are the top concerns for urban areas, 
this bill can help fight crime and keep our kids in school by providing 
more supervised recreation for urban kids.
  Increasingly as our economy grows, we are losing our history. It is 
important to remember and honor our past. If we do not know our past, 
we will never know our future. We must provide funds to preserve and 
protect our historic places, while protecting the rights of property 
owners. We ought to have the funds to reward those who help use their 
property to help us keep our links to our history. CARA will accomplish 
that goal.
  Protecting open space and protecting endangered species are goals 
that many Americans feel are extremely important. I have been a leader 
in bringing about common sense and balanced solutions to these 
problems.
  Again, we cannot accomplish these goals unless we work cooperatively 
with private landowners who are affected by these laws. Without these 
funds which CARA provides, these landowners are being asked to bear 
those costs alone. This is unfair, and I believe it will ultimately 
cause the laws to fail. CARA allows us to reward landowners who want to 
hang on to their family farms and protect endangered species.
  Again, CARA is not a regulatory approach to any of these problems. It 
does not force anyone to to anything. In fact, we have increased 
protections for private property owners and provide voluntary 
incentives to help landowners facing some very difficult issues.
  CARA will not harm our economy or our Federal budgetary process. It 
is a good and well-thought-out bill that will bring about some very 
reasonable process reforms while providing a steady and reliable source 
of funding so that we can insure that our responsibility to provide for 
our future generations.
  May I suggest CARA will be the future legacy for the future 
generations of this great Nation. We will have the opportunity of our 
young people and those that are here today to enjoy the open spaces, 
and private property owners will have their land, and our fish and 
wildlife will be available for those that we leave behind.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Before I start, I must say that I give much credit that is due to 
many Members that were involved in this negotiation. It has been 2 
years since we first met and came up with the idea of trying to move a 
piece of legislation of this magnitude through the Congress.
  I give the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), my friend 
and ranking member of the Committee on Resources, mountains of credit 
by keeping us together; of course the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young), my friend, the chairman of our Committee on Resources, for 
never letting the fire out in times that were very, very difficult 
through negotiations on a bill of this magnitude; also the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) that represents the other half of the State 
of Louisiana's coastline; and also the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell). These were the primary people that sat in a room over 2 years 
ago that decided that it was important for us to preserve what we have 
enjoyed in our days.
  I rise today, and I am very proud and excited about where we are 
going to go in the next 6 or 7 hours. I want to commend the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier) and the Committee on Rules for making a 
fair rule, a rule that has made in order 27 amendments. Most of these 
amendments were hammered out in the Member-only meetings. We deal in 
Congress a lot with staff members, and we do not get involved on a 
hands-on basis as we should sometimes.
  This bill, I counted every meeting, we spent 40 hours, over 40 hours 
of Member-only meetings trying to hammer out a compromise because this 
bill was so important, not only to just the people up here in 
Washington, but to all of the people of the United States.
  I can speak from personal experience. My district is bordered by 
Texas on the west, the Atchafalaya Basin on the east, the red clay 
hills and piney woods of Louisiana on the north, and to the south, the 
ever-changing 250 miles of coastline in southwest Louisiana.
  There is not a week that goes by that I do not wake up and I do not 
have a publication, as Louisiana Life, where the headlines says ``The 
Coast Is Near.'' My colleagues can imagine what that article is about. 
Or seeing maps that are, frankly, full of red of where our coastline is 
going.
  We lose 25 square miles of Louisiana's coastline a year, 25 square 
miles,

[[Page 7528]]

a football field a day. Looking at some of the amendments, there are 
some that say, let us wait 5 years before we implement this. I may not 
have a district in 5 years at the rate of the eroding coastline of 
Louisiana. So I suggest to my colleagues that now is the time that we 
do something.
  What does CARA do? It does what we do in Congress every day of the 
week. It puts money in priority programs that we want to see happen. 
Not only does it fund fully for the first time and keep our promise, as 
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) said with the 
authorized $900 million of the Land Water Conservation Fund, we are 
going to fund that, $1 billion for coastal restoration.
  I talked a little bit about Louisiana's coastline. But this bill is 
so much larger and bigger than just Louisiana. We have 35 States around 
the United States with coastlines with the same type of problem that we 
have. I think it is important that we prioritize some of these dollars.
  It has been a very, very bumpy road. There have been lots of 
differing opinions, ideologies, policies, but we have persevered 
because of the importance of this piece of legislation.
  So I look forward to the next several hours as we debate the merits 
of not only this bill, but of some ideology debates, some real serious 
issues that we will debate in here. But when it is all said and done, 
we have 316 people that have signed off on this bill.
  I would urge everyone to support this piece of legislation because I 
can think of no better legacy to leave, not only my twin sons, but also 
the future generations of this whole country, the outdoors that I have 
enjoyed living in south Louisiana, fishing in the estuaries that are so 
rich and plentiful with fish and ducks and shrimp and crawfish, but 
also the open spaces, the urban sprawl, making sure that we have those 
kinds of green spaces, because I have seen polls every day that say 
people want to be able to have that soccer field or that opportunity.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. Chairman, we had Terrell Davis, the MVP of the Super Bowl from 
the Denver Broncos, come here and testify on this bill and say that he 
would not have been the MVP if it would not have been for the football 
program in San Diego, California. Those are the kind of stories I want 
my kids and grandkids to be talking about.
  I look forward to the next few hours. And, again, I thank the 
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and 
also the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for keeping the 
fire going in times that were very, very difficult.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First off, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member. 
This has been a very long process to get to this point, and a very 
contentious process in trying to work out differences that existed with 
my point of view and the point of view of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller), but we were able to work out a lot of differences.
  I can tell my colleagues there are a lot of good parts to this bill. 
There are a lot of things that I got included in the bill that they 
accepted, that we worked out, and there are, quite frankly, some things 
in this bill that I think fix things that are wrong with current law. 
But before the rhetoric I think gets too hot on the legislation, I will 
have to also say that I do not believe that there is anything in this 
legislation that directly takes away people's property rights. I do not 
believe that the chairman of the committee would do that. I do not 
believe that it is in this legislation.
  But I can say this. I oppose this legislation because the system that 
we are force-feeding this money into is broken. It is severely broken. 
We have a system of land management in this country that is, at best, 
wasteful; at worst, fraudulent, and that does systematically take away 
people's private property rights. We have passed legislation within 
this Congress, whether it be the Clean Water Act, the Endangered 
Species Act, things that were done with good intention and that had the 
full support of this Congress, but through court decisions and 
bureaucratic decisions that were made, they have systematically taken 
away people's private property rights. Because of that, I believe that 
the current system is broken.
  We need to fix the current system. We need to step in and doing the 
tough work and fix the Clean Water Act, fix the Clean Air Act, fix the 
Endangered Species Act. But we have been unable to do that. For that 
reason I believe, at best, this legislation is premature because the 
system needs to be fixed before we begin to buy more land, before we 
begin to put more money into it.
  Now, we hear a lot of people that will come to the floor and talk 
about all the great things that are going to be done with this money. 
One of those is to increase the amount of land that people are going to 
have access to. And we will hear all the great flowery things about our 
national park system, the BLM, the Forest Service, and that is fine, 
but the truth of the matter is, under the current system, we are 
limiting people's access to that. We are continually limiting access 
into our public lands so that people do not have access to them. That 
has to be fixed before we go buy more land. This bill does not allow 
for that.
  I will have to tell my colleagues that I will oppose this bill 
because the system is broken, because I do not believe that the Federal 
Government should have more land. I do not believe that we should be 
putting more money into a system to give the Federal Government more 
land when they already own a third of this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, on November 10 the House Committee on Resources, under 
the leadership of our good chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young), approved the most important conservation legislation, I 
believe, in over a decade. I was proud to be a part of the 37 votes in 
support of this bipartisan, common sense, mainstream, well-negotiated 
legislation. And it was primarily because of the efforts of the 
chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), that we were 
able to get to this bipartisan position, which makes all the sense in 
the world to any mainstream Member of either party.
  CARA represents an historic opportunity for Congress to provide 
consistent and dedicated funding to States to conserve fish and 
wildlife, protect and restore coastal habitats and marine resources, 
and to meet the ever- increasing public need for outdoor recreational 
opportunities.
  CARA will provide $2.8 billion in permanent budget authority from the 
outer continental shelf oil and gas reserves for the protection and 
restoration of impacted coastal habitats, which is very important to 
constituents and residents in coastal areas. Coastal areas, I might 
add, like the most densely populated State in the country, where I 
happen to live, New Jersey.
  Second, fish and wildlife habitat conservation is an important 
objective. Third, the improvement of outdoor recreational 
opportunities, which is quickly becoming the most popular way Americans 
spend their leisure time will be fostered. And, four, urban park 
renewal and historic preservation will be enhanced.
  New Jersey continues to lose more open space to development and is 
now the most densely populated State in the Nation, as I said a minute 
ago. Funding under CARA would enable State and local governments to 
continue their efforts to preserve open space and conservation of 
natural resources while creating and restoring habitat for the 
diversity of species in New Jersey's wildlife management areas and 
wildlife management areas all across the country.
  Open spaces, conservation, wildlife enhancement are key words in 
describing this mainstream legislation. I urge

[[Page 7529]]

my colleagues to support the chairman and vote for this landmark 
legislation that will be an investment and endorsement to protect our 
natural resources for future generations to inherit.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Conservation and Reinvestment Act offered by the chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). I salute 
these two gentlemen as well as all the Members who have worked so hard 
to see this bill progress this far.
  As the only Member of the New York State delegation to be a member of 
the Committee on Resources, I was pleased to support this legislation, 
both in committee and here today on the floor of the House. There are 
so many great projects in this legislation, but I would like to 
specifically point out one in particular, that of urban parks.
  If this legislation is signed into law in the form we have it today, 
my home State will receive $11 million a year for the urban parks and 
recreation recovery program, which will allow New York to purchase and 
restore recreation areas and facilities throughout the State. This 
money will go a long way towards improving the quality of life for the 
residents of my Congressional District, the 7th Congressional District 
in Queens and the Bronx, and millions of other urban residents as well. 
These funds are badly needed.
  A report by a nonprofit organization in New York City released last 
year showed that the City of New York has a growing reliance on private 
philanthropy to fund urban parks. While I will always welcome community 
involvement in private philanthropy, the report went on to state that 
these private dollars overwhelmingly flow into those parks which are 
situated in wealthy neighborhoods, like Central Park and Madison Square 
Park in Manhattan. Urban green spaces in middle class neighborhoods 
like mine, like in the areas of Queens and the Bronx, that I represent, 
are simply ignored.
  There is very little public assistance to remediate or create new 
open spaces in these neighborhoods, and there is little private sector 
dollars flowing into those communities. CARA will address this 
troubling situation. There is no reason that hard-working Americans 
should be deprived of open green fields, deprived of places for their 
children to engage in after-school sports, or be deprived of safe 
shaded places to stroll. In my opinion, every American community should 
have its own version of Central Park.
  That is why I am a strong supporter of this legislation, and, again, 
I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska, and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for 
all their hard work, and every Member who worked hard in seeing that 
this bill came before the House today.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to CARA. Its 
goals are worthy, conservation, farmland protection, the recovery and 
preservation of endangered species, et cetera, but I simply ask my 
colleagues to consider this question: At what cost are we willing to 
achieve the goals of this legislation?
  This measure makes CARA spending mandatory on budget, which means it 
is the first money spent and competes and has preference over veterans 
benefits, education, defense, and medical research at NIH, including 
research for cancer and other illnesses.
  When we increase government holdings of land, it comes at the dual 
expense of private property owners. For the owner of the land taken, 
there is the ugly condemnation issue. And for all other landowners, 
they will pay higher taxes on their lands to compensate for lands taken 
off their tax rolls. The Federal Government already owns one-third of 
all the land in the U.S. When the government controls the land, 
government makes the decision for the use or nonuse of that land. CARA 
expands the power of the Federal Government to acquire even more land.
  This bill increases Federal control. I hope that all of the 
localities and States that have interest in this big pot of money that 
CARA promises will take time to consider the ramifications of this 
bill. The same goes for anyone who believes that zoning and planning 
matters should be strictly a local concern. CARA leaves important 
decisions about land use to be determined by the Secretary of the 
Interior. Under present law, if Federal money is used to purchase or 
improve lands under LWCF or UPARR, the Secretary of Interior has great 
authority to approve or disapprove of any proposed modified or 
alternative use of the property.
  However, under CARA, the State and local governments cede even more 
power to the Federal Government, because CARA increases the role of the 
Secretary in this decision and raises even higher the standard to 
change any use required by the State or local government to demonstrate 
that no ``prudent or feasible alternative'' to the proposed use change 
exists.
  This enhanced power under CARA, coupled with the powerful club of 
over $1 billion per year, will lead to the centralization of State and 
local planning and zoning decisions in the hands of the Secretary of 
the Interior, who will be a de facto national planning and zoning czar 
to the deprivation of State and local governmental units.
  To my colleagues who are concerned about such things as abuse, fraud, 
favoritism, and campaign finance reform, they should be very concerned 
about putting that much power into the office of the executive branch. 
Once power is given away, it is very hard to get back. That applies to 
all government institutions at every level, Congress, States and local 
governments.
  To my Republican colleagues who ran for Congress with a value to rein 
in the power of the Federal Government, who vowed to return decision-
making to the local governments, who say they want less bureaucracy, 
then they should vote against CARA. It brings increased government 
power at the Federal level because it increases the power of Federal 
holdings.
  Mr. Chairman, almost six years ago, ``the Era of Big Government'' 
ended--or so it was claimed. With the Republican landslide elections in 
1994, we came into the Nation's Capital with the desire to limit 
government spending wherever possible and to scale back the 
intrusiveness of the federal bureaucracy. These are laudable goals. 
These are honorable goals, These are worthy goals. They were worthy 
then, and they are still worthy today.
  These are the reasons, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that I must rise in 
opposition to the Conservation and Reinvestment Act--H.R. 701. The 
goals of this Act are worthy--conservation, farmland protection, the 
recovery and preservation of endangered species, and maintenance, among 
other things. I do not question that the authors of this measure have 
noble intentions to protect our environment. But, I simply ask my 
colleagues to consider the question, ``At what cost are we willing to 
achieve the goals of this measure?''


                          the expense of cara

  This measure makes CARA spending ``mandatory'' on budget, which means 
it is the ``first money'' spent and completes and has preference over 
veterans benefits, education, defense and medical research at NIH, 
including research for cancer and other illnesses.


          congress gives more power to bureaucrats under CARA

  To those concerned about increasing the size of the government, this 
bill increases the size and power of all governments--federal, state 
and local. This bill without a doubt provide the tools to increase land 
holdings at every level of government. When we increase government 
holdings of land, it comes at the dual expense of private property 
owners: for the owner of the land taken, there is the ugly condemnation 
issue, and for all other landowners, they will pay higher taxes on 
their lands to compensate for lands taken off the tax rolls.
  Intrusive government is a big concern, especially absent a mechanism 
to check its action. Sure, we in Congress can hold oversight hearings. 
But why under this bill do we provide for state and local government to 
lose control over their planning and zoning?
  The federal government already owns one-third of all the land in the 
United States, the

[[Page 7530]]

equivalent of all U.S. land east of the Mississippi River. In Congress, 
we are constantly battling those interests who do not want mining or 
logging of public lands, motorized recreation in national parks or even 
hunting or fishing on public lands. These are all taxpayers who want 
access to our public lands. These are the elderly who cannot get around 
as they once could, but who still want to enjoy the outdoors. The point 
here is that when government controls the land, government makes the 
decisions for the use--or non-use--of that land, CARA expands the power 
of the federal government to acquire even more land.


            cara usurps state and local control over zoning

  This bill increases federal control--plain and simple. I hope that 
all of the localities and states that have interests in this big pot of 
money that CARA promises take time to consider the ramifications of 
this bill. The same goes for anyone who believes that zoning matters 
should be strictly a local concern. CARA leaves important decisions 
about land use to be determined by the Secretary of the Interior.
  Under present law, if federal money is used to purchase or improve 
land under the Land and Water Conservation Fund, LWCF (Title II of 
CARA) or the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act (Title IV of CARA), 
the Secretary of Interior has great authority to approve or disapprove 
of any proposed modified or alternative use of the property. However, 
under CARA, the state and local governments cede even more power to the 
federal government because CARA increases the role of the Secretary of 
the Interior in this decision and raises even higher the standard to 
change use by requiring the state or local government to demonstrate 
that no ``prudent or feasible alternative'' to the proposed use change 
exists.
  Thus, this enhanced power (or even the existing power of the 
Secretary of Interior) under CARA, coupled with the dolling out of over 
one billion dollars per year under LCWF or UPRRA, will lead to the 
centralization of state and local planning and zoning decisions in the 
hands of the Secretary of Interior, who will be the Land and Zoning 
Czar, to the deprivation of state and local zoning and planning boards.
  To my colleagues who are concerned about such things as abuse, fraud, 
favoritism, and Campaign Finance Reform--you should be very concerned 
about putting that much power into one office in the executive branch. 
I am not suggesting that all Interior secretaries will take such 
control and abuse it. What I am saying is that we should be very 
cautious about putting into one office this kind of unchecked power. 
Once it is given away, it is very hard to get back. That applies to all 
government institutions at every level--the Congress, the state 
governors, the local mayors and town managers--anyone who could be 
affected by lands bought with any portion of the state LWCF and UPARR. 
We should all be concerned.
  To my Republican colleagues who ran for Congress with a vow to rein-
in the federal government, who vowed to return decision-making to the 
states and localities, who say they want less bureaucracy, consider 
what CARA brings. It brings increased government power at the federal 
level, it will increase the size of government land holdings and it 
will centralize decision making power with the federal government.
  To those interesting in curbing the powers of the federal government, 
to those who want to prioritize spending choices and be fiscally 
responsible, I implore you: vote against CARA.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), one of the instigators of this great piece 
of legislation, and I am proud to say one that will support and 
actively chair this meeting tomorrow for a short period of time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Let me first acknowledge, as so many of my colleagues have already, 
the extraordinary process that brought the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) together 
on this historic piece of legislation.

                              {time}  1715

  There are many things that happen in this House to prevent things 
from happening. There are many ways to stop good legislation from 
happening. There are many ways in which we, unfortunately, block each 
other in our attempts to do what we think is right for this country.
  Rarely do we see people with so diverse views come together so 
mightily as this group has come behind this CARA bill to present this 
Nation with this historic opportunity.
  In short, it is as though the stars have aligned to make this happen 
this year. And the stars are numerous. They include, of course, my good 
friend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who has been such a 
vibrant part of these negotiations, and my good friend the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. John). He has acknowledged me. Let me acknowledge 
him for the incredible work that he has done in these negotiations.
  But let me also acknowledge my friend the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Pombo), because he and I sat side by side trying to make a case 
throughout this bill of balance, to make sure that as the bill was 
creating new environmental initiatives to protect and enhance wildlife 
and land management areas in the country, that we simultaneously 
included in the bill new protections for property owners.
  I think it is important to answer a few questions about this bill 
that I have been asked on this floor and throughout the last few days 
with reference to how this bill came to be.
  It is, first of all, important to know that this bill is divided into 
several titles. The first title has to do with coastal impact revenue 
sharing. I was asked by a number of Members why is it in there, what is 
that all about?
  Well, for many, many years the interior States of our country have 
enjoyed the protection of a Federal law that says for all Federal 
production of minerals on Federal lands within that State, the State 
gets 50 percent of the revenues. That is a pretty good chunk of change 
for many States.
  In fact, just to give my colleagues some numbers on it, in the past 
years of production since this law has been in effect, the State of 
Wyoming has collected $7.4 billion of income from Federal lands' 
production of minerals located in that State. The State of New Mexico 
has collected $5.3 billion from income produced from royalties from oil 
and gas and mineral production on Federal lands in the State.
  The one problem has always been that Federal offshore lands, the 
lands located right offshore of the coastal States, were not covered by 
that law.
  Now, we might have had a chance to get it covered back in the Truman 
administration. There was an offer by the Truman administration to do 
just that but, unfortunately, it was not accepted.
  But the bottom line is that, over all the years of offshore mineral 
production, the coastal States, which bear a rather significant burden 
in the production of those resources, have never shared in the revenues 
that are derived.
  Just to give my colleagues an idea what happened since then, this 
Government, our taxpaying public, has benefitted from the benefits of 
oil and gas production offshore to the tune of $122 billion, 80 percent 
of which was derived off my own State of Louisiana, right off of the 
coastal district of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) and myself, 
80 percent of which was derived off that coastal area, which 
simultaneously produces nearly a third of America's seafood.
  The bounty of this Nation's catch in fish and crab and shrimp come, 
basically, from our coastal areas; and our two districts produce nearly 
a third of this country's bounty.
  At the same time that that occurs, we have opened up the gate of our 
coastal areas to offshore production; and the Government and the people 
of our country have benefitted to the tune of $122 billion. We receive 
no share, no compensation, for what occurs on our coastline.
  The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) told us the story, but let me 
repeat it. If a colleague was losing 25 square miles, some States are 
losing 35 square miles, of their district along their coastline every 
day, I suspect the National Guard would have been alerted, we would 
have had a national emergency declared. Yet, it happens every day in 
coastal Louisiana.
  Immeasurably to the human eye, the land is washing away, it is 
eroding to all the pipeline canals and all the salt water intrusion 
that is occurring along our coast. We are literally losing this

[[Page 7531]]

incredible national resource, with no money to deal with it.
  Title I gives coastal States a chance to deal with it. There is only 
going to be one amendment to Title I. It is going to be an amendment to 
give Louisiana a bigger share, and I am going to vote against it. It is 
going to be an amendment to say only the States with coastal production 
ought to share in that.
  I am going to vote against it, because the formula in title I did not 
come from Louisiana. It did not come from the Congress. It came from a 
study done by Mineral Management. It is designed to make sure that 
every coastal State with similar problems gets help in dealing with 
their problems. And we are prepared to join in that formula.
  Secondly, I have been asked, well, what about the fact that this bill 
creates an entitlement, that it puts the money ahead of the programs we 
heard mentioned before?
  Let me tell my colleagues, if they have not noticed it, we created 
two mandated funding programs just recently, one for highways and one 
for airports. This bill provides a mandated program for land and water 
conservation.
  When a poll was done in America to put those three programs side by 
side, do my colleagues know which one won out handily? As popular as 
airports are, as popular as highways are, land and water conservation 
came out way on top, 45 to 35 to 7. Forty-five percent of Americans 
said that is where we ought to be working hard, to recover and restore 
America's land and water resources.
  Finally, I have been asked by many people, ``Billy Tauzin, you were 
the author of the first private property bill of rights in this 
Congress. Why on earth are you supporting this bill when these private 
property rights organizations are against it in America?''
  I will tell my colleagues why they are against it. It is not because 
this bill diminishes property rights. It enhances property rights. They 
are against it for the reason my friend the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Pombo) talked about, the fact that in many States of our country 
the Federal Government owns 70, 80, 90 percent of the land mass and 
they do not want the Government buying any more land.
  I understand that. I am very much in sympathy with States that are 
put in that position. But we are going to acquire land with or without 
these protections.
  This Government in Washington has been appropriating money to 
purchase more lands every year, many years in excess of what is 
provided in this bill. But this bill balances it off and says we are 
going to put in some private property protections, we are going to make 
sure nobody's land is taken anymore who does not want to sell unless 
Congress specifically authorizes the acquisition of a single piece of 
land.
  We are going to provide additional improvements in the cause of 
property rights protection to make sure that notices go out to people 
when land is going to be acquired on the local level, local officials, 
local politicians, Congressmen, all of us know; and we are going to 
provide protections to make sure that no regulations apply to property 
that is not yet titled to the Government.
  There are some beautiful new programs in here to consolidate the 
patchwork of Government holdings out West and to incentivize land swaps 
and for the Government to sell off land it does not work before it buys 
more land. There is an awful lot of good stuff in here.
  The improvements in private property rights in this bill are one in 
balance to the dedication of money to land and water conservation. This 
is the kind of balance that works.
  If I were to offer the bill with all the property rights improvements 
that are in this bill as a stand-alone bill, I doubt if we could get it 
anywhere in this House.
  In balance with the environmental protections, the historic 
preservation, parks and recreation, land and water conservation, we 
have won a delicately achieved balance.
  I urge my colleagues, in the context of the amendments that are going 
to come forward in the next several days, to remember that historic 
balance. This is a great bill. It is great for America. And it is time 
it happens.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of CARA. I so appreciate 
the hard work of the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member, that 
they put into this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I was proud to be an early cosponsor of their effort, 
because I knew if they could get together, it had to be a good bill. 
And it is.
  For my constituents in Marin and Sonoma Counties, CARA will be one of 
the most significant environmental bills this Congress will consider. 
It provides for full and dedicated funding of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. It gives States and local conservation and 
environmental entities a reliable partner to preserve and restore 
coastal and marine habitat and to save our wildlife.
  Particularly important to my district, however, and to my 
constituents is CARA's priority to preserve and acquire open space and 
to protect farmland.
  For example, in my district, which is just north of the Golden Gate 
Bridge, very close to a very, very concentrated urban area, CARA has a 
funding mechanism for the purchase of conservation easements on 
farmlands, farmlands that are currently under threat from development 
because of their location so close to the Bay Area.
  While CARA will not supply all the money needed to preserve the 
threatened lands across our country, I am truly encouraged by this good 
start and look forward to building on this principle.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 701 and know that it is a 
carefully crafted piece of legislation by the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) that, 
and I will say it again, if they agree, it has to be good.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately and regrettably, with great 
respect to the chairman of the committee and all due respect for my 
friend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), I have to rise in 
opposition to H.R. 701.
  Since this bill was introduced, I have been approached by a large 
number, literally hundreds, of my constituents expressing their 
opposition to this legislation, and their concerns are important to me.
  While I understand the important goals of this bill and I applaud the 
chairman for his protection of wildlife and his great conservation 
efforts, I would like to offer him that unique perspective that my 
friend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) talked about, the 
perspective of the State of Nevada, many of my colleagues who on the 
East Coast do not understand.
  Nevada is a State which is already nearly 90 percent owned by the 
Federal Government. That is 90 percent. Many of our counties are in 
very dire financial situations because the principal revenue they 
generate to pay for the services that they are required to provide by 
law, such as police and fire protection, schools, education, health 
care, roads, water and sewer infrastructure, are generated by private 
property taxes.
  One county, just one county, Lincoln County in Nevada, a county of 
10,000 square miles, larger than many of the northeastern States 
combined, is 98.5 percent owned by the Federal Government, leaving only 
a small part for the tax base of 1\1/2\ percent to provide that 
critical and important infrastructure.
  Lincoln County generates only $1 million per year to pay for its 
mandatory infrastructure and services, and I still wonder how they 
continue to survive today even though they are on the verge of going 
bankrupt.
  Therefore, any monies that are added to the Land and Water 
Conservation

[[Page 7532]]

Fund that do not adequately protect private property rights is 
literally a death sentence for these poor counties in the State of 
Nevada. When they purchase environmentally sensitive land, they 
purchase private property that is used for this tax base.
  I cannot in good conscience, without necessary private property 
protection, even entertain the idea of spending almost a billion 
dollars a year.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this piece of legislation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), my good friend.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
also thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on 
Resources for pulling together all the people that were necessary to 
craft this legislation so carefully and in such a way that it balances 
the conservation of our resources and, I might add, the strong 
constitutional provisions of property rights.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a couple of points. I hope my 
colleagues here in Washington are listening to this debate. This is the 
kind of debate that brings out good information, is bipartisan, is 
something that the American public can feel good about; and, in the 
end, everybody will benefit.
  This is a great Nation. We have been a great Nation for over 200 
years. The Nation was built as a result of democracy, character, and 
endless frontier that provided expanse to move in, and an abundance of 
natural resources. But over 200 years after the founding of this 
country, our resources are diminishing as the population increases. Our 
frontier is virtually gone, if not entirely gone.
  All we have left is democracy and character to pull together our 
intellectual capacity to understand the nature of how we now manage 
those limited resources for unseen future generations to come.
  This is a big step in understanding how to manage those limited 
resources, how to manage our forests, how to manage our prairies, how 
to manage our agriculture, how to manage our fisheries, how to manage 
the water hydrologic cycle which provides us with sustenance.

                              {time}  1730

  This bill will bring together the Nation's intellectual capacity to 
fund the money that is necessary to sustain the resources. And I urge 
my colleagues to vote for the bill.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 701, the Conservation 
and Reinvestment Act. I am proud to have been one of the 30 original 
cosponsors of this bill which now has over 300 cosponsors. Throughout 
my time in Congress, I have always tried to be a strong supporter of 
conservation efforts. This has included authoring several conservation 
laws to protect Michigan wilderness, wild and scenic rivers and 
creation of the Grand Island Recreation Area. Passage of CARA will 
ensure that these types of important conservation actions will continue 
to be funded appropriately.
  I am pleased that CARA includes funding for urban parklands as well. 
It is easy to forget that many urban dwellers do not have the means to 
travel to green spaces, city parks are their only opportunity for 
recreation and enjoyment of the outdoors.
  For too long, we have neglected the opportunity to ensure grant 
funding for worthy open spaces in cities. CARA responds to this need. I 
want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller) for their efforts in making Native 
American tribes and Alaska Native corporations eligible to receive 
funding under certain titles of this bills. For example, Title II 
dealing with Land and Water Conservation Fund revitalization would make 
all Federally recognized tribes and Alaska Native corporations eligible 
to receive funds under competitive grand basis.
  Title VI on Federal and Indian lands restoration would make 10 
percent of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund transferred to 
the Secretary of Interior available to Indian tribes on a competitive 
basis.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that Title III, which deals with wildlife 
conservation and restoration, encourages the State fish and wildlife 
agencies to work with Alaska Native corporations and Indian tribes. 
However, I hope that as we go to conference, the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) will 
continue to work with me in that conference to strengthen this language 
to allow Indian tribes and Alaska Native corporations to share in the 
new subaccount created in Title III. They have been very cooperative, 
and I really appreciate their close cooperation.
  Once again, I want to thank my colleagues for all of their hard work, 
and I think we have a wonderful bill before us.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the decision we have today is whether we want 
to put the government on automatic pilot. Are we going to have more 
entitlement programs? When do we stop? That is what really is at issue 
here.
  We give this money to the States, about $2.4 billion. There are no 
restrictions. My colleagues keep talking about how we are going to save 
resources; the resource may be a swimming pool or a tennis court. There 
is no guarantee as to how it will be used. We, in our positions of 
responsibility, make those decisions. We are going to abdicate that 
responsibility to the others for $2.4 billion worth of funding, in the 
face of $15 billion, plus or minus, of backlog maintenance, in the face 
of the fact that we already give the States $1.7 billion out of the 
Federal resources that are generated from leases on public lands, some 
that comes already from drilling, in the face of the fact that every 
state in the Nation has a balanced budget.
  Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the House, I think that we have 
a responsibility to set the priorities for this government, for the 
people of this Nation, to take care of the 379 parks that are in the 
portfolio, to take care of the millions of acres of national forests, 
of the many U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service facilities, and the lands 
that are under our jurisdiction, as well as the responsibility to the 
Indian tribes, the responsibility for the cultural institutions in this 
city, the Smithsonian, the Kennedy Center, the National Gallery of Art, 
and the Holocaust Museum. They all, too, have great needs.
  The States should take their responsibility. We should take ours. I 
think to create a new entitlement could just be the beginning of many 
more of these. This bill is certainly a case of abdicating 
responsibility that we are elected to make, in terms of priority 
decisions and the allocation of this Nation's resources.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on each 
side?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller) has 32\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Boehlert). s
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, CARA is landmark legislation, moderate 
legislation, sensible legislation that responds to a clear and growing 
public demand; namely, that we do more to conserve open space and 
protect our ecological resources. That public demand is evidenced by 
the hundreds of successful State and local referenda that have set 
aside funds for

[[Page 7533]]

these purposes. And that public demand is evidenced in every poll, and 
the demand shows up in every region, every age group, every flavor of 
partisanship and ideology.
  The Federal Government has an essential role to play in this area, 
because it can set national priorities and distribute funds that are 
beyond the States' capacity to raise. And this bill takes on that 
legitimate Federal role in the right way by plowing back some, not all, 
but some of those revenues that the Federal Government gains from 
exploiting our national resources into preserving our national 
resources.
  That is not a new idea. It has been part of the idea behind the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund for decades, but CARA expands on that idea 
at this critical time when social and economic changes have caused more 
of our land to be under threat than ever before.
  CARA is the right bill at the right time.
  Now many people today will complain that the bill is not perfect; 
that it needs further changes. I happen to be one of those people, and 
I will elaborate on my concerns in a moment. But the main point to keep 
in mind today is that now, right now, today is the time to move this 
bill forward.
  This bill is ready for passage by the House; further changes must 
occur later in the process, and we all know there is plenty of process 
left. The comforting fact about CARA is that it has continually 
improved as it has moved through the process. This is a bill that is 
getting better all the time.
  With that in mind, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment the 
gentleman from Alaska will offer, which incorporates changes we have 
worked out that will help ensure that the bill does true environmental 
good and no environmental harm. I urge passage of the Young amendment 
and opposition to all other amendments today because all the others 
will prevent the bill from moving forward.
  I do hope this bill will continue to be improved as it moves forward. 
Significant issues remain to be addressed, issues that were addressed 
in an amendment I crafted along with the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone). We will 
not be offering this amendment, but I will be submitting it for the 
Record at this point, along with the letters of support it garnered, 
because I think the amendment indicates where this bill has to end up 
in the not so distant future in order to be signed into law.
  But my remaining concerns are for tomorrow, not for today. Today we 
should rally behind this bill which reflects so many months of 
thoughtful work and compromise by such a broad group of people inside 
and outside the Congress.
  Let us answer the public demand for effective legislating, for 
protecting open space, for improving quality of life by passing CARA by 
an overwhelming vote this week.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 701, The Conservation and 
Reinvestment Act of 1999 (CARA), and I commend Mr. Young and Mr. Miller 
for their leadership. CARA will create an unprecedented federal 
commitment to our nation's wildlife, coastal areas, open spaces and 
urban parks.
  Thirty-five years ago, President John F. Kennedy wrote to Congress 
that ``Actions deferred are all too often opportunities lost, 
especially when it comes to safeguarding our natural resources.'' Now 
more than ever we need to invest in our open spaces. There have already 
been too many missed opportunities. In my home state of Massachusetts, 
we lose two acres every hour to sprawling, ravenous development. In the 
few hours we spend debating this bill, another family farm will be 
turned into a housing development; another vacant urban space will be 
paved over; another playground will remain unbuilt.
  The time for action has come and CARA's mandate is clear. Voters and 
legislatures in our states and localities have continued to approve 
open space funding initiatives at record levels. They have approved 
over $10 billion since 1998. Congress needs to follow suit.
  I am particularly pleased with Title II of this bill. As my 
colleagues know, in 1965 Congress set aside money from offshore 
drilling receipts in a trust designed to preserve our open spaces. 
Nevertheless, funding for this Land & Water Conservation Fund has been 
sporadic. Last year I offered an amendment, which passed the House, to 
the Interior Appropriations bill to put $30 million back into the 
state-side LWCF account. Before that, the state-side account had gotten 
no funding since 1995. CARA's Title II puts the ``trust'' back in the 
trust fund by fully funding the state-side LWCF to its authorized level 
of $450 million per year for the next 15 years.
  I also urge my colleagues to reject any amendments that would weaken 
or upset the compromise embodied in this bill. As all of you know, 
getting 315 Members of Congress to agree on anything is an amazing 
accomplishment. CARA has 315 co-sponsors as a result of thoughtful and 
meticulous negotiation. Compromise and bi-partisanship are the key to 
making CARA work, and this bill is too important to be sacrificed.
  Finally, for the record, although I think CARA is an impressive bill 
and support it in its current form, I believe there are ways that the 
bill could be improved. I support a fully-funded $100 million a year 
state-side ``flexible funding'' grant program to assist states in 
undertaking large conservation projects. I believe that we must 
guarantee that Congress actually expends the full level of federal-side 
LWCF funding set aside each year. I also believe that ``Coastal Impact 
Assistance'' funding must not be used to harm the environment. As we 
continue to work with the Senate and the Administration, I hope that we 
can find room to make some of these improvements.
  Today we have an opportunity to make a real difference. Today we have 
a chance to save thousands of acres, preserve a healthy habitat for our 
wildlife and leave our children a natural legacy we can be proud of. I 
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, in section 101(b) the bill provides for the 
allocation of Title I funds on the basis of a formula that includes 
consideration of the proximity of OCS leases. In order to eliminate any 
argument that the application of the formula could provide an incentive 
to increase OCS activities which we are trying to mitigate through this 
bill, we are amending the formula to, one, consider only leased tracts 
which meet the criteria in the bill as of the date of enactment; and, 
two, prevent a recalculation of the formula at a later date, thereby 
excluding from the formula tracts leased after the date of enactment; 
is that correct?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. MARKEY. Now, in section 101(c), the bill provides that an 
analogous formula shall be used where funds are distributed directly to 
political subdivisions smaller than a State. Consistent with our shared 
purpose to eliminate any unintended incentive to increase OCS 
activities, would the gentleman agree that the use of the term 
analogous in section 101(c) means that the payments under this 
subsection will include only those leased tracts which meet the 
criteria in subsection (b) on the date of enactment, and that there 
will be no recalculation of this formula at a later date?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If the gentleman will yield further, 
the gentleman is correct. Tracts leased after the date of enactment are 
not relevant to the operation of the allocation formula in either 
section 101(b) or 101(c).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from California. Would that also be 
the understanding of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young)?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the gentleman will yield, yes, the gentleman 
has correctly stated my interpretation of these provisions.
  Mr. MARKEY. Would the gentleman be able to assure me that this 
interpretation will be restated in the appropriate place in any 
subsequent report language accompanying the bill?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The gentleman can rest assured that that will be 
done.

[[Page 7534]]


  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to address some of the environmental 
provisions that I think should be included in this bill to make it a 
completely positive environmental bill. They are changes that I believe 
will only improve the bill by ensuring that CARA allocates oil and gas 
lease revenues for programs that are environmentally beneficial.
  Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Pallone and I crafted an amendment to address these 
environmental concerns. As part of a compromise negotiated with Mr. 
Young and Mr. Miller, some of these issues will be included in the 
Manager's amendment.
  In particular, I am pleased that Mr. Young and Mr. Miller agreed to 
remove the potential incentives to increase the number of oil and gas 
in the compromise. We accomplish this change by simply calculating a 
State's allocation of coastal funds once. We take a snapshot of the 
relevant leases on the date of enactment of the bill. Then we frame it 
and hang it on the wall for the life of the bill. That way it is clear 
which leases are relevant to the distribution of CARA coastal 
assistance funds.
  The remaining improvements focus on three specific aspects of the 
bill:
  The consequences of the coastal assistance fund,
  Unused funds in the Land and Water Conservation program, and
  Improvements to wildlife conservation programs.
  According to the allocation formula for coastal assistance funds in 
the CARA, a single state receives close to \1/3\ of the coastal 
assistance fund. It's like this coastal fund is a giant birthday cake. 
You all know that when you cut the first piece of cake, you get two 
pieces--the small one you cut and the rest of the cake. What has 
happened here is that the larger piece has been given away first, 
leaving the small piece to be distributed among the other coastal 
states.
  I believe the offshore oil and gas revenues should be distributed 
more equitably to all coastal states.
  In the amendment we developed a new formula that would have benefited 
almost every state. The new formula also would have freed up $100 
million for new the competitive grant program for lands of regional or 
national interest.
  In addition, we would like to see changes to the allowed uses for the 
coastal funds to ensure that this money would be used to improve the 
environment and limit the amount that could be used for harmful 
infrastructure projects.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund faces a different situation. In 
recent years, the federal portion of the fund has not received the 
fully authorized amount in the appropriations process. to improve this 
situation our amendment would have allowed the President to allocate 
any unused money to previously specified land acquisitions. But no 
funds could have been expended until 4 months after the President made 
clear the intent to do this.
  Finally, our amendment would have ensured that states develop a 
strategy for the wildlife conservation funds they receive under CARA. 
This change would have ensured States use sound science and coordinate 
their activities with other agencies to make the best use of the 
wildlife funds. This amendment has widespread support among wildlife 
conservation groups and I am confident it can be adopted as the process 
moves forward.
  I want to reiterate that I fully support CARA with the Manager's 
amendment. In addition, I oppose all other amendments, particularly 
those amendments that weaken the bill. I believe that the changes I 
have suggested will improve the bill and I encourage my colleagues to 
consider these issues as the process moves forward.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with reservations regarding 
the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, CARA, in its current form. 
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this bill as it presently 
exists. I have concerns about the lack of property rights protection in 
this legislation. I will offer a condemnation amendment to address the 
fundamental flaw in this bill.
  My amendment will ensure that landowners are not forced to sell their 
property and are treated fairly in the process. CARA provides for $900 
million to be appropriated annually for the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund for the purposes of purchasing land, including private property, 
farms and ranches. Private landowners are understandably nervous that 
with such huge sums of money available, their land may be easily 
condemned for public use.
  CARA contains no private property rights protection for LWCF funds 
provided to State and local governments and very minimal protection 
with Federal funds. It comes down to the basic right that government 
should not be able to force taxpaying citizens off their land, land 
that has sometimes been owned for generations by families. I do not 
think anyone believes this should take place. My amendment goes a long 
way in preventing this from happening. I agree that money for parks and 
recreation, historic preservation and wildlife restoration are worthy 
endeavors. However, I cannot support a bill which forgoes the rights of 
American citizens. Mr. Chairman, I hope that my colleagues will support 
my amendment which will significantly improve this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saluting the chairman of 
the Committee on Resources as well as the ranking member for their 
leadership in demonstrating that Republicans and Democrats can work 
together on important environmental legislation. This legislation is 
clearly in the spirit of that great conservation President, Teddy 
Roosevelt, legislation that will further our investment in open space, 
our investment in conservation and wildlife habitat, farmland 
preservation and the protection of wetlands.
  I have had the privilege over the last 6 years of representing the 
south side of Chicago and the south suburbs. One thing I have seen 
every day that I drive through the district I represent, that is, the 
south suburbs keep growing south. Clearly the need to protect land for 
open space and conservation must be a priority. This legislation 
nicknamed CARA is a step in the right direction. I believe it is 
probably the most important environmental vote that I will have an 
opportunity to make in the 6 years that I have been here. I think of 
Illinois and the home State that I represent, and Illinois historically 
has not done very well in acquiring Federal dollars for conservation 
and for open space and wildlife habitat, but this legislation will turn 
that around.
  In fact, my home State of Illinois will benefit to the tune of almost 
$56 million in funds that will come back to Illinois to match the 
initiatives for open space that Governor Ryan has initiated on his ``40 
over 4'' program to set aside land for open space in Illinois, and from 
a local level, the Will County forest reserve which through the 
initiative of the taxpayers last year, initiated an $80 billion bond 
authorization. They will receive matching funds for open space and 
conservation. It will also help support our efforts to save and 
preserve the Kankakee River, one of Illinois' historically cleanest 
rivers through conservation easements as well as wetlands preservation.
  And last, I would note as a representative of the city of Chicago 
that the city of Chicago ranks 18th out of 20 in parks and lands set 
aside for recreation and conservation, that these funds will help the 
city of Chicago, not only establish new parks and green space but 
reestablish the Lake Michigan shoreline in the city of Chicago.

                              {time}  1745

  This legislation, CARA, is good for the environment, it is good for 
conservation, it is good for Illinois' future, it is good for America's 
future. I salute the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.

[[Page 7535]]

Young) for his leadership, and I urge an aye vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my strong support of H.R. 701, 
the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. The Conservation and 
Reinvestment Act will greatly benefit our nation and the residents of 
the State of Illinois, providing $56 million annually to Illinois for 
conservation.
  The Conservation and Reinvestment Act is a landmark in our nation's 
conservation heritage. H.R. 701 is the most significant piece of 
environmental legislation in a generation, and I am pleased to be a 
supporter of it. The accomplishments of this bill are many, including 
providing open space preservation, fish and wildlife conservation, 
urban park restoration, and historic renovation.
  Mr. Chairman, my home State of Illinois will see tremendous benefits 
from this legislation. Illinois currently receives far less federal 
dollars than most other states for open space preservation. This is 
wrong when we know that our open space is disappearing rapidly, 
especially in the South Suburbs which I represent. Governor George Ryan 
has crafted a successful program in Illinois known as the Open Land 
Trust, providing $40 million annually over four years to protect and 
preserve open space. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act will provide 
matching funds for this program, making this an ideal time to pass the 
Act for Illinois.
  In the 11th District which I represent there are several open space 
needs which will be met with the passage of the Conservation and 
Reinvestment Act. Will County recently passed a $70 million bond 
authorization for the protection of open space. The Land and Water 
Conservation Fund portion of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act 
could leverage these local dollars by 50 percent. Further, the Illinois 
Department of Natural Resources has identified $30 million in land 
acquisition needs in the Kankakee, Grundy, LaSalle areas. Land and 
Water conservation funds could provide an additional $15 million to 
meet these needs. Finally, the City of Chicago currently ranks 18th of 
the 20 largest cities in open space preservation to population; the 
Conservation and Reinvestment Act will help to solve this problem.
  In addition to open space benefits, Illinois will receive support for 
the conservation of fish and wildlife. Under the auspices of the 
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Fund, Illinois will receive 
approximately $14 million annually for the preservation and support of 
fish and wildlife. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources has 
identified a $41 million annual need for the conservation of fish and 
wildlife preservation, education, and recreation. The Land and Water 
Conservation Fund would leverage state dollars by 75 percent. This 
portion of the legislation is vitally important not only for the health 
of our environment, plants and animals, but also for sportsmen and 
sportswomen. The legislation also provides shoreline protection funds 
through Title I provisions. These funds will help to protect Lake 
Michigan shoreline, Illinois Beach State Park, and endangered and 
threatened species. In addition, funds for historic preservation are 
also provided.
  Mr. Chairman, this is good bipartisan legislation and it should be 
passed today. I commend the leadership of Representative Don Young and 
Speaker Hastert in bringing the Conservation and Reinvestment Act to 
the floor and I urge my colleagues to support this bill and defeat any 
weakening amendments.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo).
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act and to congratulate the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) of the Committee on Resources and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for 
putting together this landmark piece of legislation and, particularly, 
for putting aside all of the parochial interests and putting aside all 
of the partisan interests and putting together this extraordinary bill.
  Mr. Chairman, today we will have the opportunity to stand up for our 
environment and to vote in favor of the most important resource 
protection and management bill that has come before this body in a 
generation. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Parks and 
Public Lands, I cannot stress enough the importance and impact that the 
Conservation and Reinvestment Act will have over the preservation of 
our natural resources for future generations.
  As a sole, nonvoting representative of 4 million American citizens in 
Puerto Rico, I will not be allowed to cast my vote in favor of this 
legislation supported by my constituents. It is for that reason that I 
come before my colleagues today and urge them to support H.R. 701 and 
oppose any amendments that will upset the balance achieved through very 
long bipartisan negotiations.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 701 is a carefully drafted consensus bill with 
over 300 cosponsors and the support of 50 governors, many State and 
local legislators, dozens of newspaper endorsements, and many business, 
environmental and wildlife groups. H.R. 701 fulfills the promise made 
by this body 36 years ago to dedicate a portion of the revenue stream 
from offshore oil production into preservation of our Nation's natural 
resources. We cannot delay the realization of this promise any longer. 
Our parks are under pressure from development, our recreational 
programs are insufficient, our wildlife is stressed, our coasts are in 
peril.
  Mr. Chairman, we will fail the American people and future generations 
if we do not pass this legislation and support our Nation's natural 
resources. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 701.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gary Miller).
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I find myself on the 
opposite side of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and I have 
tremendous respect for the chairman of the Committee on Resources.
  This bill sets up a mandatory funding mechanism of 2.8 billion 
annually. Currently, California and the Federal Government owns over 50 
percent of the land. By removing $2.8 billion annually from the budget 
for 15 years, it is a total of $42 billion.
  Since the budget resolution adopted by Congress last month allocates 
all of the surplus to either public debt reduction or tax relief for 
working families, passage of this bill would require Congress to either 
dip into the Social Security Trust Fund, cut the amount set aside for 
reducing the debt, or reducing the amount set aside for tax cuts for 
working people.
  The fiscal year 2001 budget resolution provides $50 billion over 5 
years for tax reduction or paying down the debt. Instead, CARA will use 
up $14 billion over that 5-year period.
  No one is talking about the fact that this will likely trigger 
significant increases in discretionary spending in the form of new 
bureaucracies and personnel needed to implement the programs created by 
CARA. This new demand would likely, or inevitably, squeeze out programs 
such as discretionary spending on defense and education. How many 
bureaucracies will come up in the next 15 years to ask for more staff 
to help them spend $2.8 billion per year.
  The discretionary spending will also increase for the maintenance of 
newly acquired lands. According to the Clinton-Gore administration's 
own estimates, our national parks and Federal lands have up to $15 
billion in necessary maintenance backlogs. We are purchasing land at 
such a high rate that we cannot even keep up with the maintenance of 
these lands. How can that be considered good land stewardship?
  Discretionary spending will also increase if CARA is passed for the 
purpose of having to compensate local jurisdictions for the loss of 
economic development. This is money that can be used for saving Social 
Security, paying down debt, and providing tax cuts for Americans.
  Furthermore, Federal and State land acquisition negatively impacts 
local communities by reducing tax revenues for education and crime 
prevention and other services. Some of my colleagues argue that this 
bill addresses the issue by securing funds to deal with these impacts, 
but this money is not guaranteed unless Congress appropriates money for 
this purpose. More discretionary spending that is directed away from 
more important issues like health care, research and public safety.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), a

[[Page 7536]]

good friend. I wish I had more time, but I understand I cannot get it.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for their 
cooperation and dedication in bringing this measure to the floor. It is 
a unique opportunity for our Congress to address the conservation and 
preservation needs of our Nation's communities. It has been carefully 
crafted to meet a wide diversity of public land needs, and it is a 
measure that will provide funding for vital conservation programs and 
the needs in our own area in New York State.
  Mr. Chairman, permit me to take this opportunity to commend the 
distinguished gentleman from Alaska, Chairman Young and the ranking 
minority member the gentleman from California, Mr. Miller, for their 
cooperation and dedication in bringing H.R. 701, the Conservation and 
Reinvestment Act (CARA) to the floor at this time. This measure is a 
unique opportunity for the 106th Congress to address the conservation 
and preservation needs or our Nation's communities.
  H.R. 701 has been carefully crafted to meet a wide diversity of 
public needs. This measure would provide funding for vital conservation 
programs, urban park needs, agricultural and forestry easement 
programs, historic preservation, wildlife enhancement, and other 
important environmental initiatives.
  Designed to protect our Nation's natural heritage, the Conservation 
and Reinvestment Act reinvigorates the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
(LWCF). This vital program has saved thousands of acres of forest, 
miles of river, and many of America's mountain ranges. Fully funding 
this program will provide outdoor recreation opportunities that will 
improve the quality of life for all Americans.
  Futhermore, this proposal sets up a competitive grants program, run 
by the Interior Department, to enable States to purchase lands of 
easement. This is a critical component to regions of the country that 
have compelling national interests but cannot access adequate Federal 
or State LWCF funding.
  In the New York-New Jersey Highlands, the largest, wild, forested 
area in the metropolitan New York City area, vast areas of open space 
are threatened with sprawl development. These lands represent critical 
economic, ecological and recreational resources, and protect the water 
supply for millions of people in our region.
  Our struggle to acquire Sterling Forest is just one example of why 
this competitive grant program is so important. With $17 million from 
the LWCF and matching funds from the States of New York, New Jersey and 
the private sector, we were able to purchase thousands of acres of 
pristine open space.
  The proposed competitive grants program would continue to provide 
funds for areas like Sterling Forest, the Adirondacks and the 
Everglades, that will need a Federal and State partnership to be 
preserved. I commend my colleagues for including this program and hope 
we will be able to work with the Senate to fully fund this provision.
  Over the past year, in cooperation with local environmental groups 
and the State of New York, we have fought with inadequate Federal 
support to preserve vital open spaces, such as Clausland Mountain, in 
our Hudson Valley. The passage of H.R. 701 would bring new hope for our 
regions, allowing communities to fight urban sprawl, reserve natural 
and historic sites, protect wildlife and support wetlands conservation.
  This important legislation draws its support from a bipartisan 
delegation of over 300 cosponsors, Governors, mayors, and a wide range 
of organizations in all 50 States and the District of Columbia, 
including park and recreation associations, conservation and smart 
growth groups, land trusts, the recreation industry, and chambers of 
commerce.
  In closing, on August 31, 1910, Theodore Roosevelt stated: ``I 
recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the 
natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to 
waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after 
us.''
  H.R. 701 offers our future generations the opportunity to enjoy our 
Nation's most precious resources. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to 
join me and thousands of Americans in support of this measure.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), a member of the committee.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, this truly is a great day for the House 
where common sense and bipartisan thirst for progress is really going 
to trump ideology.
  I want to tell my colleagues why I think it is such a great day. I 
spent 4 days last summer eyeballing the need for this bill by kayak in 
my district. I spent 4 days in a kayak going all across the waterways 
in my district. I want to tell my colleagues, I came away impressed 
with one thing: it is about time that the U.S. Congress makes this 
commitment.
  Let me tell my colleagues about a couple of things I saw. I went up 
the Sammamish River, stopped at the soccer fields where I saw hundred 
of kids playing soccer with hundreds of kids literally on the sidelines 
who did not have fields to play on. We need to build new soccer fields. 
Not one of those kids playing soccer was stealing hubcaps. This is a 
juvenile crime issue as well.
  I kept going up the Sammamish River, got to where Little Bear Creek 
and Big Bear Creek flow in. I talked to some residents there who told 
me, we have to buy these conservation easements to protect the 
headlands so that we can prevent the extension of salmon runs in Bear 
Creek.
  I kept paddling down Lake Washington with a guy named Bill Nye. My 
colleagues may have heard of Bill Nye, the science guy, who told all of 
the people on our kayak tour about the importance of water quality and 
wetlands and preserving wetlands for salmon.
  I kept going to Karakeek Park and Puget Sound where I grew up, where 
I grew up with salmon, and these salmon are now, they were gone from 
Piper's Creek for 2 decades and they are coming back, partly because of 
the efforts we have made to preserve those habitat.
  I am just here to say, Mr. Chairman, this may be the best day in this 
Congress when we are going to put aside partisanship, we are going to 
do what the American people are demanding us to do and make a real 
investment in the future of our kids.
  Mr. POMBO. May I inquire of the Chairman as to the time remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has 15 seconds 
remaining; the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has 26\1/
2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) has 6 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my colleague from 
California to use some of his time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), a member of the committee.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. I want to 
commend our chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and our 
ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  I was pleased to work on the task force that came up with most of the 
provisions that are in this bill. It is a good product. Frankly, this 
is going to take us from standing still over the past decade really in 
terms of trying to deal with land use questions and landscapes and the 
preservation of them in this country, and to fulfill the responsibility 
to the States and to the Federal land management agencies.
  The fact of the matter is a lot of bogus arguments have been thrown 
around here today. One of them is we have this vast, extended, 
expanding Federal Government in terms of the purchase of land. Well, 
the facts are quite different. In fact, we have been losing and giving 
away some of that land, rightfully so, I am not objecting to it, but 
even when we add in the Department of Defense and others, we have not 
been expanding that land base.
  Secondly, we have 45 to 50 million acres of land that is public land 
that we have no access to. In other words, the only way we can get 
access to that land is to buy the easement to cross private land. We 
have major problems in terms of dealing with funding of the promises 
that we are making. Most of us get up and vote for a park, we vote for 
a monument, we vote for some other activity, but the fact of the matter 
is, within the boundaries of those parks and those monuments and 
forests that we have, they are private inholdings, and they cause us a 
great difficulty in terms of trying to administer these lands.

[[Page 7537]]

  That means we need to put some dollars into the tank here to, in 
fact, fund the purchase of those easements so that we can use our 
public lands. We need to put dollars into the program so that we can 
buy the inholdings that are within parks that people want us to buy on 
a voluntary basis. We need to deal with buying some of the areas that 
are the riparian areas that are essential to the management of a unit. 
We have streams on many of the lands that have been selected by private 
individuals that perhaps will be purchased are lands that are essential 
to managing an entire unit. It might be a stream, it might be other 
factors.
  So the issue here is that we have to keep the promises. It is nice to 
have the good intentions of our appropriators and others present on the 
floor and represented here today. I appreciate their good intentions. 
But what we really need is we need the dollars to fund the program and 
the promises that we made from the National Park System to the Forest 
Service, to the Fish and Wildlife Service, and to many others. After 
all, these are dollars that we have committed over 30-some years ago.
  We said, when we use up a finite resource in terms of gas or oil 
revenues on the Outer Continental Shelf, we are going to bring some of 
those dollars back in and fund some programs that will help and be the 
legacy of future generation of our children. In the process, we are 
going to preserve these areas, we are going to conserve them, and we 
are going to provide the restoration. What could be more elemental in 
terms of fairness than providing the States that are enduring the 
problems of gas and oil development and the damage from that to correct 
that?
  Mr. Chairman, that is what this bill does. It is a well-balanced 
bill. It is a bill that we should enthusiastically vote for and vote 
against the amendments that will unbraid the agreement that has been 
made here today, the mischievous amendments. Vote against the bogus 
arguments. Stand up for what our constituents want. I would bet that 
this is one of the more popular bills in terms of our constituents, in 
terms of dealing with parks, one of the best ideas America ever had.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 701, the Conservation 
and Reinvestment Act (CARA), which would protect America's natural 
legacy today for tomorrow.
  First, I would like to thank Chairman Young and Representative Miller 
for working together on this landmark legislation, which is one of the 
most sweeping environmental protection initiatives in twenty years. I 
would also like to acknowledge the broad base support of this bill 
including over 300 bipartisan cosponsors, all 50 Governors, states and 
local communities, leading parks, sporting, environmental, recreation 
and conservation organizations. This unusual consensus clearly 
demonstrates and punctuates the importance of this measure, which seeks 
to provide substantial, reliable, and necessary funding for our 
nation's resources.
  H.R. 701 is the culmination of over several months of intensive 
negotiations involving myself and other members of the Resources 
Committee to develop a bill that will aid every state in its quest for 
resource and wildlife protection. I would like to point out to Members 
that in an effort to keep the bill together, we agreed to sound 
compromise language just this week before floor consideration. 
Specifically, moving the bill back to being on-budget and addressing 
statute language that could have potentially encouraged states to boost 
offshore oil production. The result today is legislation that empowers 
local communities to help fulfill the growing demand for park and 
recreation resources close to home. Whether it is the need for new 
soccer fields, wildlife refuges or picnic areas, this important funding 
will be there to help protect our outstanding national forests and 
lands. I am particularly pleased that this legislation could provide 
more than $38 million for Minnesota communities for new parks and 
recreation programs.
  The concept that guides this measure is clear and workable, as the 
federal government leases off shore areas for oil and gas development 
using a finite natural resource that we invest a good portion of the 
revenues earned from such leases in the conservation preservation and 
restoration of our lands as a legacy for future generations. Today, by 
contrast, notwithstanding good intentions, we are losing our natural 
lands legacy. The best protection for existing landscape preservation 
is the fund to purchase such lands outright or the easement that will 
insure such conservation.
  Specifically, this bill would provide a permanent annual fund to 
expand parks and recreation, preserve open space and farmland, protect 
wildlife and preserve historic buildings--our children's natural 
legacy. This dedicated funding would come from existing offshore oil 
and gas royalties and provide necessary dollars to environmental 
programs such as the Land Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
  Working for full funding of the LWCF and the other elements in CARA 
is critical in the government's role to aid in the preservation, 
conservation and restoration of landscapes surrounding our national 
parks and other conservation areas throughout the nation, and in 
protecting ecologically significant lands that are being lost to 
development each and every day. Unfortunately, funding for these 
programs have continually eroded to a point where the state portion of 
the LWCF has not received funds since 1995. So much for good 
intentions. H.R. 701 will fund the LWCF at its authorized level of $900 
million, in addition to providing $125 million annually for urban parks 
and $150 million annually for conservation easements.
  Moreover, this legislation will also disperse money to coastal states 
to offset the effects of offshore oil drilling and to restoration of 
landscapes and degraded coastal ecosystems activity.
  Mr. Speaker, the constituents that we represent would place a very 
high priority upon the national, state and local landscapes embraced by 
this legislation. I dare say for many, the highest priority. The 
conservation of our landscapes and the development of parks for people 
is a uniquely American idea. This Congress and this generation of 
Americans must do our part to fulfill this vision and pass this bill 
and save our children's legacy.
  I would strongly urge all Members to support H.R. 701 and oppose any 
reckless amendments that could potentially alter the face of this 
carefully constructed bill and threaten our efforts in protecting the 
crown jewels--our pristine natural resources. H.R. 701 is a real 
commitment to future generations, funding and preserving their natural 
and historical inheritance.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 701, the Conservation and 
Reinvestment Act. This is truly a historic moment, for this Congress, 
all of us, have a unique and singular opportunity to restore and 
safeguard our country's natural legacy. I also must first applaud the 
chief architects of the bill, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). Not always of like minds, 
they came together on this measure because they both recognize the 
significant need for providing substantial and reliable funding for our 
Nation's resources.
  I can also safely say that it is not often that the committee 
presents strong bipartisan support for a conservation bill, as we have 
in this case. H.R. 701 enjoys wide support also from all 54 governors, 
and it has been cosponsored by a majority of Republicans and Democrats.
  Of course, any good bill must also have its opponents, and there are 
also disparate groups, such as the Sierra Club and anti-conservation 
groups, that have become strange bedfellows in their opposition. But 
most importantly, the people of this country, including those in my 
district, want this bill.
  Two years ago, both our committee, as well as its Senate counterpart, 
held oversight hearings on the lack of funding since fiscal year 1995 
for State grants. In my district, despite our local government's best 
efforts with limited resources, our local parks continue to be in very 
serious disrepair and our young people lack adequate recreational 
space.
  As a strong believer in recreational programs as a way to channel the 
youth of our country into positive activities and in safe and well-kept 
parks as a way to bring communities together, I am especially pleased, 
therefore, that this bill would dramatically increase Federal spending 
on outdoor recreation facilities through the Urban Parks and Recreation 
Recovery Program.

[[Page 7538]]

  Today, we can change the years of neglect, preserve important natural 
resources, and utilize them to improve the fitness and uplift the 
spirit of our people and revive the village that is America.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very hopeful about the prospects of this bill 
before us today, and I urge all of my colleagues to support its 
passage.
  We have been disappointed that over the past several years no funds 
have been appropriated for the UPARR program.
  Two years ago, both this committee as well as its Senate counterpart, 
held oversight hearings on the lack of funding, since fiscal year 1995, 
for state grants. In my district, despite our local government's best 
efforts with limited resources, our local parks continue to be in very 
serious disrepair and our young people lack adequate recreational 
space.
  As a strong believer in recreation programs as a way to channel the 
youth of our country into positive, healthy, constructive and nurturing 
activities, and in safe and well kept parks as a way to bring 
communities together, I am especially pleased, therefore, that H.R. 701 
would dramatically increase federal spending on outdoor-recreation 
facilities through the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program 
(UPARR).
  Today we can change the years of neglect, preserve important natural 
resources and utilize them to improve the fitness and uplifts the 
spirit of our constituents and revive the village that is America.
  I am very hopeful about the prospects of the bill before us today and 
I urge all my colleagues to support its passage.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong and 
enthusiastic support of this historic measure. I believe it deserves 
the favorable vote of every Member of the House.
  I want to also extend my gratitude to the chairman of the committee, 
the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for their leadership, 
creativity and persistence in shaping this bill.
  This bill is a reflection of the promise of one of the wisest and 
most farsighted conservation measures ever, the Land and Water 
Conservation Act. The promise of that Act was that the Federal 
government, as it sold Federal nonrenewable resources such as oil and 
gas from the Outer Continental Shelf, that a major portion of those 
proceeds would be invested in conserving our lands and waters, and 
helping our local communities make similar investments.
  Unfortunately, because of the problems over the last years with our 
budget deficits, we have been unable to meet those obligations. But now 
the budget situation is different, and we have a chance to make up for 
the shortfalls of the past and invest in our future.
  There is much that this bill will help us accomplish. It will help 
communities respond to the challenges of growth and sprawl. It will 
help Colorado's ranchers and farmers, and those of other States, to 
keep their lands and agriculture through conservation easements and 
similar measures. It will help provide more resources to historic 
preservation all throughout our great country.
  By bolstering the PILT program, we can help counties and local 
governments in areas where the Federal government is a major landowner, 
and we can do it the right way, by providing those funds are not tied 
to extractive or other uses of Federal lands.
  Mr. Chairman, when we consider all that this bill will do for this 
country, I am convinced, as many of the previous speakers are, that 
this is one of the most important measures that we can undertake, not 
only this year but in any year. I strongly urge its passage. It 
reflects the spirit of the old saying, that we do not inherit the Earth 
from our parents; in fact, we borrow the Earth from our children.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong and enthusiastic support of this 
historic measure. It deserves the favorable vote of every Member of the 
House.
  All of us are indebted to our Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska, 
and our ranking Member, Mr. George Miller of California. Thanks to 
their leadership, creativity, and persistence in shaping this bill, we 
today have an opportunity to take a giant step toward fulfilling the 
promise of one of the wisest and most far-sighted conservation measures 
ever--the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.
  The promise of that Act was that as the federal government sold non-
renewable resources, particularly the oil and gas from the outer 
continental shelf, it would invest a major part of the proceeds in 
conserving our lands and waters and in helping our local communities to 
make similar investments.
  Unfortunately, because of the budget problems of the past, for too 
long the Congress feel short of fulfilling that promise. But now our 
budget situation is different and we have a chance to make up for some 
of the shortfalls of the past and in fact to expand the benefits for 
our country.
  By passing this bill, we can help our communities respond to the 
problems of growth and sprawl and to provide much-needed places for 
sports and outdoor recreation. We can help preserve our open spaces by 
acquiring inholdings in our parks and forest from people who want to 
sell. We can help protect threatened by endangered species, and can 
assist our state wildlife agencies to manage the fish and wildlife 
resources that are so important to Colorado and the rest of the nation.
  We can help Colorado's ranchers and farmers--and those of other 
states as well--to keep their lands in agriculture through conservation 
easements and similar measures that enable them to reap some of the 
benefits of increased land values without having to sell them to 
developers.
  By greatly increasing the resources of the Historic Preservation Fund 
we can help preserve the irreplaceable historic legacy of Colorado and 
our nation--saving historic landmarks, attracting private investment, 
and helping bring economic vitality to historic sites Gilpin, Clear 
Creek, Adams, and Jefferson Countries and to neighborhoods in Boulder, 
Arvada, and countless other communities in Colorado and across the 
continent.
  And by bolstering the PILT program, we can help the counties and 
other local governments in areas where the federal government is a 
major landowner and we can do it the right way, by providing funds that 
aren't tied to timber sales or other uses of the federal lands and 
without making the local communities hostages to the debates over 
timber harvests or other extractive uses.
  Mr. Chairman, I recognize that some Members have concerns about the 
bill. I am sure that we will hear more about that during the course of 
the debate on the bill and amendments that may be offered. And, after 
all, there is no perfect legislation.
  When you consider all that this bill would do for our country I am 
convinced that it is one of the most important measures not just of 
this year but of many years to come. I strongly urge its passage. It 
reflects through action the spirit of the saying we don't inherit the 
earth from our parents. we borrow it from our children and I attach 
letters of support from the Executive Director of the Colorado 
Department of Natural Resources and the Chairman of the Colorado 
Wildlife Commission.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following documents:

                                                State of Colorado,
                                          Denver, CO, May 5, 2000.
     Hon. Mark Udall,
     House of Representatives, Cannon HOBT, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Udall: I want to thank you for prior 
     support of HR 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act 
     (CARA), and I urge you to support its final passage. 
     Enactment of CARA is the single most effective step Congress 
     can take to minimize the need to list declining species under 
     the Endangered Species Act. HR 701 offers the diverse 
     interests of our states and communities the non-regulatory 
     tools they need to collaboratively conserve fish and 
     wildlife, and the habitat the species depend upon, before the 
     restorations of the Act force desperate and far more costly 
     attempts to reverse their decline.
       HR 701 invests in wildlife conservation; PILT payments; 
     open space; farmland and historic preservation; recreation; 
     federal, state and local parks; endangered species recovery; 
     and landowner incentives. At the same time, HR 710 provides 
     private property owners protection that do not now exit when 
     Congress and federal agencies set priorities for the federal 
     side of the Land was Water Conservation Fund, and brings 
     balance to the federal and state side of the program.
       For the reasons, Governor Bill Owens has endorsed the 
     passage of CARA. He and I would appreciate your continued 
     support of this historic legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Greg Walcher,
                                             Executive Director.  

[[Page 7539]]

                                  ____
                                  
                                                State of Colorado,


                              Department of Natural Resources,

                                              Division of Wildlife

                Colorado Wildlife Commission Resolution


                   conservation and reinvestment act

       Wheras, Colorado's population growth and land use changes 
     are having a tremendous impact on Colorado's game and non-
     game wildlife populations, and
       Wheras, Colorado faces increasing challenges in maintaining 
     high-quality wildlife recreational opportunities throughout 
     the state, including habitat loss, mule deer decline, 
     whirling disease and other factors, and
       Wheras, Colorado currently lists twenty species as 
     endangered, twelve as threatened, and 41 under special 
     concern, and
       Wheras, the Colorado Division of Wildlife has been at the 
     forefront of efforts to prevent the decline of wildlife 
     species, thereby avoiding expensive, crisis-oriented 
     management of Threatened and Endangered Species, and
       Wheras, license buying hunters and anglers have provided 
     the vast majority of financial support for the DOW's wildlife 
     programs, including game and non-game programs, and
       Wheras, the DOW and the Wildlife Commission have recognized 
     the importance of developing additional alternative sources 
     of funding for the broad array of programs demanded by the 
     public, and
       Wheras, the House Resources Committee has reported H.R. 701 
     to the United States House of Representatives for action, and
       Wheras, the proposed legislation, if enacted, would provide 
     a significant and much-needed boost in funding for Colorado's 
     wildlife programs, and
       Wheras, H.R. 701 is the product of extensive negotiations 
     and includes critical new funding for wildlife programs, the 
     operation and maintenance of federal lands, conservation 
     easements and endangered species recovery efforts, and
       Wheras, H.R. 701 also includes important provisions to 
     provide private landowners with a higher level of protection 
     than they receive under current federal law, and
       Whereas, Governor Bill Owens, Department of Natural 
     Resources Director Greg Walcher, along with sportsmen and 
     conservation groups such as the Colorado Bowhunters 
     Association, Colorado Wildlife Federation, and local chapters 
     of Trout Unlimited, the Audubon Society and the Wildlife 
     Society are among the 3000 organizations nationwide that 
     support federal legislation--H.R. 701--known as the 
     Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA);
       Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Colorado Wildlife 
     Commission endorses the proposed federal legislation and 
     urges the 106th Congress to pass H.R. 701 at the earliest 
     opportunity, and
       Be It Further Resolved that the Colorado Wildlife 
     Commission commends Governor Owens, DNR Executive Director 
     Greg Walcher, the outdoor recreation and conservation groups 
     who have endorsed CARA, and the members of Colorado's 
     congressional delegation who have actively supported H.R. 
     701, and
       Be It Further Resolved that the Colorado Wildlife 
     Commission urges all members of Colorado's congressional 
     delegation to support, cosponsor and help pass legislation to 
     establish the critical wildlife, habitat protection and 
     outdoor recreation funding programs called for in CARA, and
       Be It Further Resolved that copies of this resolution shall 
     be sent to members of Colorado's congressional delegation and 
     wildlife conservation groups throughout the state.
       Adopted by the Colorado Wildlife Commission on May 5, 2000, 
     Sterling, Colorado.
                                                    Bernard Black,
                           Chairman, Colorado Wildlife Commission.

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to 
me.
  I hate to say is this, but listen to this quote. This is from the co-
founder of Earth First. This is what he says: ``It is not enough to 
preserve the roadless, undeveloped country remaining. We must recreate 
wilderness in large regions, move out the cars and the civilized 
people, dismantle roads and dams, reclaim the plowed lands, clearcuts, 
and reintroduce the extirpated species.''
  They want to get rid of the people, get rid of cars, bring back the 
species, get rid of everything. In short, as humans, we do not even 
have a right to this land. Now the CARA bill is simply making their 
work easier.
  We can come on the floor and say this is a great bill, but frankly, 
we are not at the point where we can authorize more money because we 
are not even taking care of the land we now have. That is embarrassing. 
Almost one-third of the land in America is owned by the Federal 
government. If we add local and State government lands together, that 
percentage reaches 42 percent. Should half of us move?
  The CARA bill will not only fund the LWCF trust fund, the key vehicle 
for land acquisition, at $900 million, but most of the trust funds 
created by the other titles can also be used for land acquisition. That 
totals almost $2 billion. That means that State and local governments 
will have unprecedented amounts of Federal money to buy more private 
land. We can couple this with the Clinton-Gore acquisition plan, right?
  The second reason I am against this is because this bill allows the 
government to circumvent our existing programs, conservation needs. 
Both the National Park Service and Forest Service have reported 
billions of dollars in backlogged maintenance requests. So why are we 
adding more money when we have this huge backlog of maintenance 
requests?
  Mr. Chairman, as summer approaches, our parks will again swell with 
families and individuals enjoying our parks. But look closer and we 
will see crumbling facilities, deteriorating paths, families being 
turned away because the parks are unable to handle them.
  I encourage my colleagues, let us use some common sense here. Vote 
against this bill.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), a member of the 
committee.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of 
H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. I want to commend our 
chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and our ranking member, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for the time they 
spent personally working on the really difficult issues which needed to 
be resolved in bringing this bill to the floor.
  I certainly also want to commend and credit our colleagues, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. John), the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), 
and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), for all the time they have 
devoted in working out the details of this bipartisan legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill encourages the continuation of State and 
local funding for conservation programs. Generally, the State 
governments will have to continue local funding at existing levels to 
be eligible for Federal funding. This ensures that there is substantial 
local support for these programs.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill also provides funding for Federal and Indian 
land restoration and for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program. Again, 
the additional funding for the PILT program is done to assist local 
governments who have lost some of their tax base through the increase 
of Federal lands.
  While I would have liked to see more than $20 million per year go to 
the restoration of American Indian lands, I am very appreciative that 
we are recognizing this need. Grants will be awarded by the Department 
of the Interior on a competitive basis, and no single tribe can receive 
more than 10 percent of the allocation in each fiscal year.
  Mr. Chairman, I can understand and appreciate the concerns of the 
members of the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on 
Appropriations subcommittees, and their desire to allocate our funds 
each year. But given the 315 cosponsors of this legislation and the 
support garnered by the transportation bills, I can only suggest that, 
as a body, we are really ready to address certain needs more 
proactively.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 701, the 
Conservation and Reinvestment Act, and I want to commend Chairman Don 
Young and Congressman George Miller for their leadership and the 
enormous time they spent personally working on the really difficult 
issues which needed to be resolved to bring this bill to the floor. I 
also want to credit our colleagues Mr. Dingell, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Vento, 
Mr. John and Mr. Tom and Mark Udall for all the time they devoted to 
working out their details on this bill.

[[Page 7540]]

  For decades Congress has been struggling to balance our nation's 
desire to preserve the natural beauty of our country, against our 
desire to develop and expand our economy, and provide for our growing 
population. Many of us would like to see additional land set aside for 
the public as we are concerned that if we don't take steps now to 
preserve the land available, there won't be much left to preserve, and 
the land that will be available will be prohibitively expensive to 
acquire. This legislation puts us in a position to set lands aside for 
parks, forests, agriculture and other public uses.
  It is my understanding that the Department of Commerce is concerned 
with certain provisions of Title I of this bill because of certain 
existing authority of the Department would be effectively transferred 
to another federal agency. I do not believe it is the intent of this 
legislation to alter any existing authority regarding the management of 
our commercial fishery resources and I hope this intent is clarified 
either in the Senate or in Conference Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 701 is opposed on both the left and the right. One 
environmental group, for example, opposes the bill because it threatens 
our coastal environment with incentives for new offshore oil and gas 
leasing in some sensitive coastal areas. Even with the proposed 
managers' amendment to address this issue, they have concerns.
  On the other side, the bill is opposed by the so called ``budget 
hawks'' because it will earmark money every year for the acquisition 
and maintenance of public areas. This will not be all for federal land, 
mind you, as a sizable portion of the funding will be available for 
state and local governments to preserve important lands.
  In response to these arguments, I can only say that I often hear the 
statement that we need to send funding and control of that funding to 
the state and local governments. This bill does that, yet the same 
people who generally support state's rights are now saying that we 
can't trust state and local governments to use wisely the money that 
Congress provides. I also know that there are others who say we can't 
trust the state and local governments, but it's for just the opposite 
reason. This bill strikes a delicate balance--federal agencies will get 
some of the money, as will state and local governments. No one is going 
to force any government to spend the money. If any local government 
believes it is better off leaving private lands private so it can 
continue to collect property taxes on those parcels, no new land will 
be acquired.
  Additionally, no one is going to be forced to sell private land to 
any level of government. The bill balances this also so there will only 
be willing sellers. But I don't want to dwell on land acquisition, as 
the bill does so much more.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill encourages the continuation of state and 
local funding for conservation programs. Generally, a state or local 
government will have to continue local funding at existing levels to be 
eligible for the federal funding. This ensures that there is 
substantial local support for these programs.
  The bill limits the amount of funding which can be used for 
administrative purposes to no more than two percent, thereby ensuring 
that the money is used for the purposes intended.
  The bill establishes a Coastal Impact Assistance and Conservation 
Fund to help coastal states mitigate the various impacts of offshore 
drilling and other OCS activities, and provides for the conservation of 
coastal ecosystems. Given the number of Americans that live close to 
our coasts, the number of people who continue to move to these areas, 
and the number who travel there for vacations, we need to do a better 
job of preserving our coastal areas, or they will lose those qualities 
which we now find so attractive.
  Most of us, I think, support the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 
and even though it is authorized at $900 million per year, 
appropriations have averaged only one-third of that. This lack of 
funding is not the fault of the Appropriations Committee, for it is we 
as a body who set the funding levels with which they must operate. This 
bill is our chance to fully fund this popular program.
  H.R. 701 also provides additional funding for wildlife conservation 
and restoration. There will be $350 million dedicated to the ``Pittman-
Robertson'' wildlife conservation and restoration program, which 
provides for the conservation of all animals.
  The bill also balances benefits to urban and rural areas. To ensure 
our urban areas benefit, funding is dedicated through the Urban Parks 
and Recreation program to be administered by the Department of the 
Interior.
  The Historic Preservation Fund is another popular program which 
benefits all our districts. We are not now adequately funding this 
program, and even with the $100 million per year dedicated from the 
CARA fund under this bill, it is still not enough, but it is a good 
start.
  For those concerned about our loss of farm land, this bill provides 
$100 million per year from the CARA fund for the protection of prime 
farm, ranch and forest lands by limiting the non-agricultural uses to 
which these lands could be put. There is money in this fund to provide 
incentives for private landowners to aid in the recovery of endangered 
and threatened species. This should be welcomed by those who believe 
the Endangered Species Act is too protective of every species but the 
human species.
  The bill also provides funding for federal and Indian land 
restoration and for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program. Again, the 
additional funding for the PILT program is done to assist local 
governments who have lost some of their tax base through the increase 
of federal lands.
  While I would like to see more than $20 million per year go to the 
restoration of American Indian lands, I am very appreciative that we 
are recognizing this need. Grants will be awarded by the Department of 
the Interior on a competitive basis, and no single tribe can receive 
more than 10% of the allocation in any fiscal year.
  Mr. Chairman, I can understand and appreciate the concerns of the 
Members of the Budget and Appropriations Committees and their desire to 
allocate funds each year. Perhaps in theory we should not have to enact 
legislation like this bill and recent major transportation 
authorization bills. But, given the 315 cosponsors this bill has, and 
the support garnered by the transportation bills, I can only suggest 
that as a body we are ready to address certain needs more proactively.
  Perhaps several years down the road, we will want to adjust the 
priorities we are setting today. Perhaps as our economy changes we will 
want to use our OCS money differently. But for today, I believe this 
compromise bill will set the standard not only for our country, but for 
other countries too. For if we expect other countries, most of which 
are not in as good an economic position as we are, to preserve their 
forests and other natural areas, we should be taking the lead.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Lazio) is recognized for 15 seconds.
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this terrific 
legislation.
  Let me ask my colleagues for three things: First, let us not destroy 
the good in the name of perfection; second, let us look at the strong 
protections within this bill; finally and most importantly, let us 
consider our children. Let us leave them something of which we can be 
proud. Let us make sure we can demonstrate that the spirit of Teddy 
Roosevelt lives on in this body today.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of CARA. I applaud Chairman 
Young and ranking member Miller for crafting this historic piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand here today with my two young daughters in mind. 
As a result of our vote today, they and thousands like them will be 
able to enjoy the great American outdoors long into the future.
  They can expect to enroll their children in little league and find a 
field available. They can expect to take their kids for a walk in the 
woods and see the joy on their kids' faces as they spot one of nature's 
creatures.
  I find it fitting that 100 years after my fellow Long Islander, Teddy 
Roosevelt, put in place the basic elements of our nation's conservation 
program, today we are continuing the tradition. In TR's time, we 
declared the frontier closed. Today, we declare it open and available 
for the enjoyment of our future generations.
  My district provides compelling examples of the dire environmental 
problems that this funding is intended to address. I represent a 
coastal district. With the funding afforded by Title I, we look forward 
to working with New York State to clean up the South Shore Estuary.
  This enjoys widespread support on Long Island. Cleaning this body of 
water would be a fitting tribute to the conservation goals of this 
bill. But for us to realize our goals, we need to respect the delicate 
balance of the issues this bill addresses.
  As we consider this legislation, I ask three things. First, let us 
not destroy the good in the name of perfection. Second, let us look at 
the protections within this bill.
  Finally and most importantly, let us consider our children. Let us 
leave something to our future generations which we can be proud. Let

[[Page 7541]]

us demonstrate that the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt lives on in this body 
today.
  Let us support CARA and let us not support amendments designed to 
undercut this important legislation. Again, I thank the chairman for 
bringing this monumental bill forward for consideration.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), without whose cooperation 
and reputation the meetings by which this bill emerged probably would 
never have happened. I thank him for that.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California for his kind words.
  I want to pay tribute to him for his fine leadership in this matter. 
This has been a team effort.
  I also want to pay a particularly friendly tribute to my old friend, 
the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the committee. He 
and I have worked together on conservation matters for about 40 years. 
He has never been found wanting where there was an important, a wise, 
and a necessary action in the field of conservation.
  This body and the Nation owe him a great debt for his wisdom, his 
balance, his judgment, his courage, and his integrity. I am an admirer 
of his, and I salute him for what he has done on this matter.
  I also want to pay tribute to my good friends, the gentlemen from 
Louisiana, Mr. Tauzin and Mr. John, who have done a great deal of work 
to bring us to where we are.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) is not always in agreement 
with us on this bill, but I want to say that he has done a great deal 
to improve it from the standpoint of the property owners. It is a 
better piece of legislation from their standpoint by reason of the 
enactment of this legislation and by reason of the fact that we have 
worked together.
  I want to say a word of tribute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Udall), who is the other among us who worked so hard to bring us to 
where we are.
  We have here a good bill. It is a bipartisan bill. It is perhaps the 
most bipartisan piece of legislation that we will see in this Congress. 
It is one on which a lot of people have worked together to iron out 
differences to come forward with a piece of legislation upon which they 
could agree.
  Is it perfect? No. No piece of legislation is. Is it good? Yes. It is 
better than that, it is very, very good.
  I would call the attention of my colleagues to a fact. In 100 years 
this Nation, at the end of this century, will have 370 million people. 
We are going to be crowded out at the seams. It is going to be a 
terrible place if we do not do something to begin to save open spaces, 
to preserve places where people can recreate and enjoy, and where we 
can actually say that this generation, who are the conservators of the 
land for the future and who are the people who are borrowing this land 
from those who will follow us, have done the job that we needed to do 
and we should have done to provide for the quality of life which all of 
us have known as we have grown up and as we have lived here. This is an 
enormous challenge, but this legislation provides the money in all 
areas.
  I have heard some talk and some complaints about what this is going 
to do to the West. I do want my colleagues to know that the Western 
Governors have come out and said something. I want Members to hear it, 
because they are not people who are not sensitive to the needs and 
concerns of the people they serve.
  Here is what they said at the Western Governors Association, Benjamin 
Cayetano and Dirk Kempthorne from Idaho, a former colleague of ours in 
the Senate:
  ``CARA makes good economic, ecological and political sense. On behalf 
of the WGA, we urge you to vote in favor of H.R. 701,'' and a similar 
statement on behalf of all of the Governors.
  I urge my colleagues to endorse this legislation. It is important, it 
is good, it is in the public interest, and future generations will 
thank us.
  Mr. Chairman, today is landmark day in the history of American 
natural resource protection.
  Today, we have before us H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment 
Act, or ``CARA''. It is the product of bipartisan cooperation, 
compromise, and just plain hard work. Writing major legislation is 
never easy, and I am not aware of any significant environmental bill 
that passed without rigorous debate. However, I consider it a privilege 
to stand before you today in the company of my colleagues who have 
contributed to much of this effort.
  Chairman Young deserves our credit and thanks for the courage, 
strength and leadership he has demonstrated time and again during the 
past two years. His Ranking Member, George Miller, came to the table 
and found a way to seal and hold the deal. It wasn't so long ago that 
people said such a deal could never be done. But now that folks on both 
sides of the environmental movement are finished scratching their 
heads, they've rallied around CARA because it's needed, it's sound, 
it's bipartisan, and it's affordable. Don and George have done a 
masterful job of holding together the CARA coalition. Their work 
deserves the support of every member of this body.
  I also want to thank the other Members who devoted scores of hours to 
creating CARA, including Rep. Billy Tauzin, Rep. Chris John, Rep. Bruce 
Vento, Rep. Tom Udall and more than 300 colleagues who have ratified 
our work with their cosponsorship. I also want to thank the many 
organizations who have endorsed CARA, sent us letters and cards, made 
phone calls, and made sure that citizens' voices were heard throughout 
this process. In particular, I would like to recognize for their 
activist leadership Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation, the 
Trust for Public Lands, The Nature Conservancy, the International 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the National Recreation and 
Park Association, the Izaak Walton League, the Sporting Goods 
Manufacturers Association, The National Wildlife Federation, the 
Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America, the Wilderness Society, Ducks 
Unlimited, and the Coastal States Organization for their hard work and 
dedication throughout this process.
  Mr. Chairman, some people will assert that this bill is some sort of 
``huge federal land grab'', that it ``breaks the Federal Treasury''; 
that it ``removes local control.'' Such contentions are nonsense. We do 
not pretend to have crafted the perfect bill. And I'm certain that 
there will be good changes made before it is signed into law. My hope 
is that we resist the temptation to hastily make a good bill perfect, 
and instead allow the legislative process to do its job.
  What does CARA mean for the Nation? It means a renewal and extension 
of a commitment made by Congress more than a generation ago to reinvest 
federal revenues from outer continental shelf oil and gas production in 
our public lands, their maintenance and care. It also means meeting our 
standing commitment to historic preservation, while making new 
investments in coastal protection, wildlife, urban and suburban parks, 
and other modest programs which make will make a real difference when 
combined with state and local efforts to make our towns and cities more 
livable places. Every state benefits greatly by the passage of this 
legislation. I expect that by the time this legislation is enacted, 
some states may benefit even more.
  CARA is widely backed by thousands of organizations--large and 
small--and by individuals who care about access to green space and 
recreation in places near and far from home. Today's Detroit Free 
Press, representing the views of many positive newspaper editorials 
around the country, said it best: ``For folks who may rarely or never 
see a monumental piece of national land, it will be like bringing a 
monument home.'' To my colleagues who haven't read their hometown 
papers yet today, I urge you to look carefully. You'll probably find 
similar sentiments from your own editorial boards which know how much 
our hikers, bikers, little league players, and their mothers and 
fathers value the resources CARA will provide.
  In my own state of Michigan, we can expect an investment of $59.9 
million each year during the life of CARA (2001-2015). This includes 
$19 million for our coasts, $16 million for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, $11 million for wildlife, $5 million for urban and 
suburban parks, $2 million for maintaining our public lands, and more 
than $5 million to make sure local governments with federal land are 
helped with any revenue loss through the PILT and Refuge Revenue 
Sharing programs.
  Michigan received 208 acquisition applications totaling $123 million 
for the years 1995-1999. Only half of those projects could be funded. 
For development projects, the record is even worse, with only $41 
million dollars

[[Page 7542]]

available for $306 million worth of requests. The Mayor of my largest 
city, Mayor Michael Guido of Dearborn, made a strong and succinct case 
in a recent letter to me: ``With your leadership, America can begin the 
21st Century--as it began the last--in the spirit of President Theodore 
Roosevelt, with a permanent investment in our nation's parks and 
natural heritage.''
  These same sentiments have been expressed by thousands of other 
mayors, almost all our Governors, our counties, the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce. We should pass this bipartisan bill with a resounding vote, 
send it immediately to the Senate, and let's finish the 20th Century 
with as strong an action for conservation as that taken by Teddy 
Roosevelt 100 years ago.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the news release and letter 
from the Western Governors Association:

                              National Governors' Association,

                                                      May 9, 2000.

     Governors Urge Strong Congressional Support for Conservation 
                              Legislation

       Washington, D.C.--The nation's Governors today called on 
     the U.S. House of Representatives to overwhelming support 
     landmark conservation legislation, H.R. 701, the Conservation 
     and Reinvestment Act (CARA) of 1999. This bill would invest 
     approximately $3 billion annually in state, federal, and 
     local conservation programs such as coastal impact assistance 
     and conservation, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 
     wildlife conservation and restoration, and the Urban Park and 
     Recreation Recovery Program.
       ``This legislation is one of the Governors' top 
     priorities,'' said NGA Chairman Utah Governor Michael O. 
     Leavitt. ``Its passage will provide us with a stable, long-
     term source of funding for vital conservation efforts. More 
     important, it will strengthen Governors' efforts to protect 
     our natural treasurers, for our children and for future 
     generators. We urge the House to strongly support CARA and 
     send it to the Senate for quick action.''
       On May 8, the nation's Governors sent a letter to all House 
     Members urging them to vote for this bipartisan bill, saying: 
     ``The Governors are united in our belief that when 
     nonrenewable resources belonging to all Americans are 
     liquidated, some of the proceeds should be reinvested in 
     assets of lasting value.''
       More than $4 billion in royalties from oil and gas leases 
     on the outer continental shelf (OCS) are paid into the 
     federal treasury every year. CARA would use a portion of 
     those funds for their intended purpose: to invest in state 
     conservation activities. Congress has not appropriated funds 
     from OCS revenues to the states for many years. In 
     particular, CARA includes $450 million per year for the 
     statewide Land and Water Conservation Fund.
       H.R. 701 would provide funding for the following programs, 
     on an annual basis:
       Coastal Impact Assistance--$1 billion;
       Land and Water Conservation Fund--$900 million;
       State Wildlife--$350 million;
       Urban Parks--$125 million;
       Historic Preservation--$100 million;
       Federal and Indian Lands Restoration--$200 million;
       Conservation Easements and Endangered and Threatened 
     Species Recovery--$150 million.
                                  ____



                               Western Governors' Association,

                                                      May 9, 2000.
       Dear Western House Member: We urge you to support passage 
     of HR 701, The Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA), when 
     the full House of Representatives considers the bill this 
     week. The bill takes a long step toward fulfilling many of 
     the Western Governors' Association's longest held policies, 
     and, therefore, is one of the most important bills to come 
     before the second session of the 106th Congress.
       Enactment of CARA is the single most effective step 
     Congress can take to stem the growing need to list declining 
     species under the Endangered Species Act. HR 701 offers the 
     diverse interests of our states and communities the non-
     regulatory tools they need to collaboratively conserve fish 
     and wildlife and the habitat the species depend upon before 
     the restrictions of the ESA force desperate and far more 
     costly attempts to reverse their decline. The governors have 
     noted since 1992 that insufficient funding has prevented 
     effective implementation of the ESA. Title VII enables 
     landowners to be effective stewards even when the 
     agricultural economy is in a downturn. And, Title III will 
     finally enable the federal government to help states 
     implement the pro-active conservation strategies that they 
     have been carrying out, for the most part, on their own.
       CARA invests in conservation by permanently appropriating a 
     portion of the wealth the nation derives from its depletion 
     of nonrenewable resources. HR 701 invests in coastal 
     conservation and impact assistance, which the WGA has 
     advocated since the last 1980s. The bill also directs these 
     revenues to county payments-in-lieu-of-taxes; open space; 
     farm, forest and ranch land; historic preservation; 
     recreation; and federal, state, and local parks. These 
     permanent appropriations should be offset in a manner that 
     follows sound public policy and not with reductions in other 
     vital state interests, public service and environmental 
     protection.
       Of particular note, the bill brings the state and federal 
     side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) into 
     balance, following years of neglect of the 50 percent 
     matching grants program. Western governors have sought this 
     change since 1991. As the same time, Title II would provide 
     private property owners with protections that do not now 
     exist when Congress and federal agencies set priorities each 
     year for the federal side of the LWCF. The title also 
     requires federal agencies to consider eastments and land 
     exchanges as an alternative to acquisition. It protects state 
     water rights and places priority on addressing he needs of 
     inholders.
       CARA makes good economic, ecological and political sense. 
     On behalf of the WGA, we urge you to vote in favor of HR 701.
           Sincerely,
     Benjamin J. Cayetano,
       Governor of Hawaii, Chairman.
     Dirk Kempthorne,
       Governor of Idaho, Vice Chairman.

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just summarize what I have in my prepared 
statement today. I think the Congress has an historic opportunity today 
to pass this superb piece of legislation. I think that when we do, that 
it will be placed right next to the import of the Clean Air Act and the 
Clean Water Act in terms of its effect for our great Nation.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund has done many great things for 
our country, but Congress really gave up on its promise. This is a 
renewal today of what we promised a long time ago. We will have the 
funds to protect, to preserve, and even the naysayers will be able to 
take their children and their grandchildren to the open spaces, to the 
parks, and to the lands that are going to be set aside for the 
betterment of humankind in our country.
  I think this is an enormous step that the Congress is taking today. I 
urge my colleagues to support it. Every part of this bill really speaks 
to the values that the people that I represent hold.
  I want to pay special tribute both to the chairman of the full 
committee and to the individual that we like to call our golden bear 
with a heart, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). We 
thank them for their superb work. I urge Members to support the 
legislation.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have profound regard for our chairman and for all the 
members of our Committee on Resources, but give me a break. We already 
have one-third of the entire land base in the country owned by the 
Federal government. Now they are asking us to appropriate $900 million 
or more annually to buy more of it.
  We are not good managers in the Federal government of the land we 
already have. There is a $12 billion backlog in maintenance already. I 
ask Members to visit their National Parks and check out the condition 
of some of the facilities. Whenever we raise this with the Park Service 
bureaucrats, the answer we get back is, oh, gee, we do not have enough 
money. Now we are going to give even more money to buy more land.
  This bill does put some money in for maintenance, that is true, but 
it puts nearly three times as much money into new land acquisition. 
Once that land is acquired, it has to be maintained. We are doing a 
terrible job of that as a Federal government.
  One illustration, the General Accounting Office said that there are 
39 million acres of Forest Service land that are at extreme risk of 
catastrophic forest fire. That is because that land is not being 
managed properly. Now we are going to add to the general burden all of 
this new land that we are bringing into it.
  We used to talk about the idea that we ought to have no net gain in 
acquisition of land. If we are going to acquire some sensitive land, 
then we

[[Page 7543]]

ought to divest ourselves of other lands of equal value. Instead, we 
are setting up a system that is biased in favor of more land 
acquisition, and instead of being one-third of the land mass, we are 
going to see this amount steadily creep up.
  I think we are going in the wrong direction. For that reason, I am 
going to have to oppose this bill, and urge my colleagues to do 
likewise.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy 
in yielding time to me.
  Unlike my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), the 
public sets a very high priority on the protection and public 
maintenance of our green infrastructure.

                              {time}  1815

  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) had it right. We are losing 
the battle and we do not have to wait until the turn the century and 
the doubling of our population. Between 1992 and 1997, we lost 16 
million acres, an area approximately the size of West Virginia, to 
development. The public is starting to move at the State and local 
level. They passed 379 initiatives for over $8 billion in the last 2 
years. It is time for the Federal Government to do its part being a 
better partner in that process.
  The funding of CARA is a good start with historic preservation of 
urban parks, Native American land and allocating $150 million to 
conservation easement and species recovery. These long-term investments 
will add valuable to our communities. They are, in fact, financed on 
just the interest on the $13 billion in the trust fund right now.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time for the Federal Government to be a better 
partner for liveability. The passage of this bill is a good start.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) who has been waiting so 
patiently.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding 
me the 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young), chairman of the committee, for crafting such a fine piece of 
legislation and for working with the ranking member and the other 
people here in the Congress, because this certainly is landmark 
legislation.
  I am very pleased to support this. I am very pleased to cosponsor 
this. This is going to make a tremendous impact in Maine. We have been 
looking at this legislation and, given Maine's heritage of outdoor 
recreation, its efforts of resource conservation and its belief in 
property rights, I have carefully reviewed this legislation to ensure 
that it meets the needs of the State and its people.
  Mr. Chairman, as a good friend of mine, George Smith, who heads up 
the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine said and observed that, ``This could 
fund conservation easements that keep our lands intact, undeveloped and 
available for hunting, fishing and other recreational uses while still 
productive, in private hands, and on the tax rolls. That's a win-win 
situation for everyone.''
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young) for his hard work and working with the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller), our ranking member, and others to craft this 
landmark legislation.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a proud cosponsor of 
H.R. 701. This bill will improve funding for conservation programs by 
purchasing and protecting environmentally sensitive lands as well as 
other conservation and recreational programs.
  This bill will provide $141 million annually to the State of Florida 
and many of the funding initiatives in this bill, such as the park 
acquisition and maintenance and urban recreation, will have a great 
impact on Florida and my district. This is extremely important to 
Florida's environment and is critical for preserving places like the 
Timucuan Preserve in Jacksonville, which is a legend of the work by my 
predecessor, Charlie Bennett.
  Mr. Chairman, I know there are critics out there, but this bill is 
necessary for places like Florida that have precious ecosystems that 
need to be preserved in a period of extreme urban growth. Our local and 
State governments in Florida have made a great effort toward preserving 
our sensitive land, and this bill will be an enormous benefit for all 
of us. These monies will also allow us to promote assets such as urban 
fishing to serve ethnic and minority populations that would not have 
the resources to reach out in the past.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an important bill and I urge my colleagues to 
vote for it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 701. I have the privilege in 
the House of serving as the cochair of the Congressional Sportsman 
Caucus, and one of the things that we do is we watch out for 
conservation and hunting and fishing legislation in this Congress.
  This is a bill that is a good bill, and I commend the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) and all of the others for the hard work in putting this 
together.
  In Minnesota, before I was in the Congress, I had the opportunity of 
serving on a similar committee in Minnesota. We have a permanent source 
of funding in Minnesota similar to what we are doing here today. It 
works, and we are known in the country as one of the places where we 
have great conservation and hunting and fishing. This is going to do 
the same thing all over the country.
  This is the right thing to do. It is not perfect. All of us would 
like to see other things in it, but it is a great piece of legislation 
and our kids are going to thank us for it. I ask everyone to support 
H.R. 701, and I commend everyone for working on the legislation.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Conservation and 
Reinvestment Act. I compliment the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) 
and the gentleman from California, the ranking member, for their 
leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been said that if we restore a river, we restore 
the community. I believe it is also true if we save open space, we save 
the soul of a community. We save the quality of life of that community.
  It is happening around this country. It is happening in a bipartisan 
fashion. My predecessor in this job, John Fox, and I served together, 
before either one of us were Congressmen, as county commissioners in 
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. We started an Open Space Program that 
is still going strong in Montgomery County. The capital budget in my 
county this year, 25 percent of it is dedicated to buy open space. In 
Montgomery County, there is a Schuylkill River Greenway Association 
trying to restore the Schuylkill River to create recreational paths, 
greenways, to create parkland along the river, and to encourage retail 
and residential use of the river.
  These are appropriate and important things for us to do, and this 
bill continues our dedication to environmental protection.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if I might inquire as 
to the time remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has 
8\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) has 
2 minutes remaining.

[[Page 7544]]


  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the committee.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller) for yielding me this time, and I too want to add my 
applause to the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member, for 
putting together such an important piece of legislation.
  Across this great Nation, sprawl is crowding our streets, destroying 
our open spaces, polluting the air we breathe and the water we drink. 
Almost all of America is experiencing remarkably similar patterns of 
growth, a rapid conversion of farmland and open space to a dizzying 
array of housing subdivisions, shopping centers and office parks.
  In New Jersey, the State and most of the towns in my district have 
made a commitment of tax dollars to acquiring open spaces. In New 
Jersey we have 8 million people living in just 8,000 square miles. 
Conversion of farmland and open space to development has doubled in 
recent years.
  Mr. Chairman, it is clear that now is the time to make open space 
preservation a national priority to protect the American ideal of wide-
open spaces. The need to preserve goes beyond the supply of State and 
local funds, and that is why we need to pass the Conservation and 
Reinvestment Act, the most sweeping commitment to the protection of 
America's public land, marine and wildlife sources in over a 
generation. This is important legislation. We need it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller) for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition 
to H.R. 701.
  Mr. Chairman, all members who care about fiscal responsibility should 
oppose this legislation on budget grounds alone. It continues the 
dangerous trend of putting more and more spending on automatic pilot 
outside the regular appropriations process.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 701 would increase 
mandatory spending by $7.8 billion over the next five years without 
offsets as required by our budget rules. 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.
  While I commend the gentleman from Alaska and California for doing 
something about the lack of resources for things like coastal 
restoration and preservation of our historic treasures, I am also 
disappointed by the way they're gone about providing funding for these 
areas. By providing a mandatory spending stream outside of the 
appropriations process, we're shortchanging important conservation 
work, not to mention other priorities such as prescription drug 
coverage, veterans' healthcare or rural development funding.
  For those of you who want more acreage in the Conservation Reserve 
Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program, you're made that even harder 
by taking this money out of the normal appropriations process and 
ensuring that the programs funded by H.R. 701 receive a higher priority 
than CRP or WRP.
  You've also ensured that the 1500 small watershed projects needing 
nearly $1.5 billion in funding will continue to wait. Not to mention 
diminishing the chance of providing discretionary funding for the 
needed $500 million in rehabilitation work on existing PL-566 
structures.
  For those of you who've sent letters to your constituents telling 
them that you'll be working for more funds for the Environmental 
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), you'll have to change that response 
if you support H.R. 701. The agriculture subcommittee once again 
limited the amount of funding available in EQIP to provide spending for 
other agriculture programs as they struggle with unrealistic spending 
allocations.
  I appreciate that the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Resources 
Committee were able to accommodate the Agriculture Committee's concerns 
about establishing a new conservation easement program at the 
Department of the Interior instead of utilizing the existing Farmland 
Protection Program. The Farmland Protection Program operated by the 
Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service and 
provides funding to state programs designed to protect cropland, 
pastureland, rangeland and forestland from conversion.
  I remain concerned however that we could not convince the Resources 
Committee to provide assistance to the Wildlife Habitat Incentives 
Program (WHIP), another existing program within the Department of 
Agriculture that has exhausted its funding. I remain skeptical about 
the potential landowner interest in the new ``Endangered and Threatened 
Species Recovery'' program created in title seven of H.R. 701.
  As I said earlier, I applaud the gentlemen from the effort they've 
made to address some serious unmet needs--needs that have not been 
discussed and prioritized because of a lack of leadership in putting 
our fiscal house in order. However, I cannot condone the means they 
have used to address the funding challenges facing us.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a member of the committee.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, until tonight, Congress, for more than a decade, has 
diverted much of the money that should have been spent on land and 
water conservation purposes from offshore oil royalties into virtually 
every other function of the Federal Government. Tonight that all 
changes.
  This is a new commitment by this Congress in a grand bipartisan way 
to concerns that many of us share about our precious environment, the 
protection of open spaces, and the extraordinary resources that we have 
in this country.
  The administrative costs are unbelievably low. We will hear a lot of 
distorted things about that later. Less than 2 percent. That is great. 
And there will be no taking of property without just compensation. We 
will hear more about that later from those who will allege otherwise.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a great bill for the States, for the country, 
for my State, which will get more than $50 million a year to help us 
take care of our endangered species problems with salmon, salmon 
restoration, and other preservation of open spaces in a rapidly growing 
State.
  This is a great night for the United States Congress and one of those 
rare nights where I am especially proud to serve here.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, throughout the history of our Nation, our 
elected officials have recognized when it is time to set aside specific 
philosophical differences and act in the best interests of the public 
with regard to our precious natural resources. Whether we have been 
inspired by conservationists such as John Muir or led by visionaries 
such as Theodore Roosevelt, we have always managed to meet the next 
step in the challenge to protect our land and to ensure that our 
children can enjoy a clean and healthy environment.
  And now, another one of those landmark moments is upon us, and I am 
glad to see that the House is responding with the Conservation and 
Reinvestment Act of 2000. Many of my colleagues have already, and will 
continue to talk about the provisions in the bill that will benefit 
generation after generation of Americans. My home State of 
Massachusetts will receive millions of needed dollars for vital Land 
and Water Conservation Fund projects as well as urban parks and 
recreation programs.
  Upon final action by the Congress on this legislation, we will 
finally support with a meaningful commitment a significant increase in 
efforts to restore and protect precious coastal habitats and wetlands. 
Certain refinements may be necessary as this bill continues through the 
legislative process, but I am sure we will do that by making sure that 
the Department of Commerce is included as a participant in the 
management of the funds.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend both the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman

[[Page 7545]]

Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the 
ranking member, for the fine work they have done, and I urge passage.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I gratefully rise today on behalf of my 
constituents in the 9th Congressional District of Illinois in strong 
support of H.R. 701.
  Anyone who has spent even one day in Chicago when the weather is 
decent, and it is often, cannot help but notice how much we enjoy every 
square inch of parkland, beaches, and green space. CARA will enable the 
Chicago Park District to do even more to improve the quality of life in 
Chicago.
  For example, the Chicago Park District possesses over 200 field 
houses. Many of these buildings are large structures of great historic 
significance. CARA funds would help preserve many of these structures 
and make them more accessible.
  Chicago's park system also provides employment opportunities, youth 
recreation-as-prevention initiatives and after-school programs for the 
city's children. Under CARA, Illinois will receive over $55 million in 
total funding annually, which, when matched and leveraged, equates to 
increased funding many times over.
  Mr. Chairman, the time is now to advance this bill and reinvest in 
our quality of life for generations to come. I commend the sponsors of 
this legislation and urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, could the chair inform 
me how much time we have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has 
4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) has 
2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, a further inquiry, if 
I might. Could the chair tell us, my plan is to yield myself 2\1/2\ 
minutes, yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and 
then the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) has 2 minutes, I 
believe. Is that right? So how do we go in order here?
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the question directed to closing statements?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Yes, thank you.
  The CHAIRMAN. The order will be the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Pombo), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and the 
remaining time to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). Is the 
gentleman yielding some of his time?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) to use as he chooses, and he can 
close.
  The CHAIRMAN. Then, without objection, the time has been transferred 
to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo) can begin his closing statements.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage)
  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo) for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard much said on this House floor about all 
the protections of private property rights. Let me just read from the 
bill exactly what is going on with our private property rights.
  Yes, there is a savings clause that says that if property is going to 
be taken, it must be condemned. But it also goes on to say that no 
regulation may be applied on any lands until the lands or water or 
interests therein is acquired, comma, unless authorized to do so by 
another Act of Congress.

                              {time}  1830

  So we are funding these other acts of Congress for acquisition. 
Acquisition. The word ``acquisition'' appears 20 times in this bill. In 
addition, there is $100 million to start with set aside every single 
year to buy up farmland. Indeed, that money does not go directly to pay 
farmers for their farm. Actually, the Secretary provides this money in 
matching grants to eligible entities to facilitate their purchase of 
some other guy's farm or permanent easements on those farms. It is just 
the plain wording in the bill.
  Do not tell me it protects private property. It does not. In addition 
to that, eligible entities can be the following, State or local 
governments, Indian tribes, or any organization that is organized for 
conservation purposes under 501(c)(3) or any entity that is controlled 
by one of these 501(c)(3)s. These are the guys that can get the money 
to buy one's farm.
  Now, the last thing we need to do in America is take more farmland 
out of production.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The time of the gentlewoman 
from Idaho has expired.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for one 
more minute.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Pombo) has expired. The gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-
Hage) has no time remaining.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank all of the Members who have participated in 
this general debate. I think what is evolving is a picture of maybe 
legislation that speaks to the best of this Congress. The gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young) has said it, a number of other people have 
talked about it in terms of conservation, this is about the 
conservation of our fish and wildlife, of our wild areas in this 
country, of open space in our suburban communities, of farmland.
  Interestingly, this also takes care of some of the values that we 
have heard about on this floor now for a number of years. Remember the 
discussion about devolution. The fact of the matter is, in title 3 of 
this legislation, the State and local agencies has spent that money. 
The Pittman-Robertson money is spent by State and local agencies. The 
State side Pittman-Robertson is spent by State and local agencies. The 
UPARR is spent by cities and counties. Coastal impact is by States, 
cities, and counties. The farmland Pittman-Robertson is by States and 
local.
  The fact of the matter is what this bill is about is giving local 
communities the resources and the ability to deal with the problems 
they confront because of the tremendous growth in this country. In my 
area and the area of the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), we have 
cities that are springing up in dramatic rates, and they are crowding 
up against farmland.
  Farmers who want to continue to farm want to keep their orchards, 
want to keep grazing cattle. Maybe now we can allow them to stay in 
business if the local cities and counties and organizations want to 
provide them Pittman-Robertson for the easements to do that, the 
development rights so they can continue to farm, they can continue 
their orchards, they can continue their cattle.
  That is what this legislation is about. It is about the great 
heritage of this country. People from all over the world, people from 
all over the world come to see the great assets, the environmental 
assets, the Grand Canyons, the Tetons, the Everglades, Glacier National 
Park, the shorelines in California and in New York and Long Island.
  These are great attractions, but they are under pressure, and 
legislation is designed to deal with that. The vast amount of this 
Pittman-Robertson is to empower communities and local organizations to 
improve the quality of life for their citizens.
  We should support this legislation. It is a bipartisan effort in the 
biggest sense of the word. When one looks at the various viewpoints of 
the Members who are supporting this legislation, when one looks at our 
history, when one looks at our ideology, the fact that we can come 
together and understand how to do this right, how to enhance the 
protections for private property, how to enhance the roles for local 
government, how to enhance the roles for

[[Page 7546]]

private organization to participate where the Federal Government just 
irritates people, but local organizations and community groups are able 
to talk to those individuals about the futures of those communities.
  So I would hope that Members would support this legislation. Again, I 
want to thank all of the Members who participated in this debate on 
both sides.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of a carefully crafted, 
bipartisan, consensus bill that will redeem America's promise to 
protect its public lands, coastlines, marine and wildlife resources and 
recreation opportunities for generations to come.
  CARA is, without question, the most important resource protection and 
management bill to come before the Congress in a generation. I salute 
the chairman of the Resources Committee, Don Young, for his leadership 
and his fortitude in developing this legislation, often in the face of 
fierce--and unjustified--criticism within his own party and from 
traditional supporters.
  This is not just an ``environmental'' bill; it is a bill that has 
earned the cosponsorship of 316 Members of the House, 50 Governors, and 
scores of State and local legislatures, and the enthusiastic backing of 
a national grassroots coalition that encompasses the Conference of 
Mayors, the National Governors' Association, the Western Governors' 
Association, the National Association of Counties, National League of 
Cities, and the Environmental Council of the States. In short, everyone 
from the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association to the American Canoe 
Association, American Farmland Trust, Americans for Our Heritage and 
Recreation, the National Association for African American Heritage 
Preservation, the National Soccer Coaches Association, the Rails-to-
Trails Conservancy, police organizations, and wildlife and hunting 
groups.
  The list of endorsements, in fact, fills volumes.
  Those diverse interests do not often agree on a piece of legislation. 
For that matter, Don Young and I do not often agree on legislation. But 
we agree on the urgency of the CARA bill. And here is why.
  Time is running out for many of America's resources. Whether farmland 
or national parks, our coasts or our recreational sites, our wildlife 
or marine creatures--we simply have not accorded them the priority they 
deserve or that the American people support. In polls conducted by the 
respected Frank Luntz firm, majorities of 80 to 90 percent support full 
funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and other resource 
priorities--East, West, North, and South; conservative and liberal 
alike.
  That support is reflected in the broad endorsement of this bill in 
the national press. Here are just a few recent examples:

       Congress has habitually reneged on fully appropriating the 
     money, though it has long been intended for environmental 
     concerns.--Atlanta Constitution, May 9, 2000.
       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 should accept no substitutes or 
     weakening amendments. A deal is a deal--and the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund is a particularly good one.--San 
     Francisco Chronicle, May 8, 2000.
       The Conservation and Reinvestment Act . . . would benefit 
     Americans ranging from soccer players to farmers threatened 
     by development.--USA Today, May 8, 2000.
       A bill that could dramatically strengthen the protection of 
     America's natural resources.--New York Times, January 10, 
     2000.
       CARA will ``dramatically increase federal spending on 
     outdoor-recreation facilities and safeguarding the 
     environment--Christian Science Monitor, May 9, 2000.

  Additional editorials have appeared just this week across the 
country--the Atlanta Constitution, the Oregonian, the San Jose Mercury, 
the Providence Journal, and the Mobile Register--endorsing this 
historic legislation.
  We know our parks are under development pressure, our after-school 
recreational programs insufficient, our wildlife stressed, our coasts 
in peril: the American people want Congress to act, and act decisively.
  But Congress has failed to act, and the cost of that failure is the 
degraded heritage we might pass on to future generations of Americans 
if we do not pass CARA. That is a price too high to pay.
  Thirty six years ago, the Congress promised the American people that 
we would share the revenues generated from offshore oil development 
with the resources onshore. We created the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, and we promised it $900 million a year from OCS revenues. But we 
reneged on that promise and instead of investment, we have a $13 
billion deficit in the LWCF account. The OCS revenues continue to roll 
in; but they bypass our resources, and they betray the promise.
  CARA gives this Congress the opportunity, on a rare bipartisan basis, 
to honor the pledge made over three decades ago. Is it expensive? Yes. 
But not as expensive as losing the land, water, recreation, wildlife 
and coastal resources of our nation which will be permanently and 
irreparably lost if CARA is not enacted.
  If you merely took the $13 billion LWCF was promised by the Congress 
but never received, adjust for inflation and interest, the debt due our 
resources is far more than what CARA proposes to expend. Our goal is to 
provide that money, with certainty, so that federal, state and local 
planners, together with private citizens, foundations and grassroots 
organizations, can make those investments without fear for the second-
class treatment we have devoted to our resources in recent years.
  And I would add: we do not allocate this money by raising or by 
charging fees to those who use these parks and other public resources. 
The money comes from where it has always been intended to come from: 
offshore development.
  Now, as Chairman Young has noted, this bill was very carefully 
constructed by a bipartisan team to reflect a balanced program. No one 
got everything they wanted; and we remained united in the Resources 
Committee against those who sought to upset that careful balance. As a 
result, the bill before you today reflects a measured, but decisive, 
initiative that deserves the support of the House.
  The manager's substitute that Chairman Young will offer on behalf of 
the bill authors makes a number of changes to the bill as passed by the 
Resources Committee, many of them technical in nature, that were 
discussed with the Interior Department and other portions of the 
Executive Branch. We also agreed to delete a section that placed this 
bill ``off budget.''
  In addition, we have successfully developed an amendment with 
Congressmen Boehlert, Markey, and Pallone that remedies some remaining 
concerns about incentive for offshore oil development, uses of title I 
impact funds, and authorizes a competitive grant program to address 
multistate conservation concerns. I appreciate the hard work of those 
Members in resolving these issues satisfactorily, and am grateful for 
their support for the bill.
  It is my hope that the bill will be approved by the House as 
supported by the bipartisan coalition that crafted this compromise and 
by hundreds of organizations located in every congressional district in 
the nation. This surely is, as the League of Conservation Voters 
recently stated, ``arguably the most important piece of environmental 
legislation this session of Congress.'' It enjoys massive support in 
virtually every Congressional district in the Nation. Your constituents 
want this bill passed, but they want more than just your vote on final 
passage.
  There are going to be many efforts to amend this bill. Some are 
sincere efforts to improve the legislation; some are ``poison pills'' 
designed to destroy it. While I could support some of these amendments, 
I am not going to do so if it fractures the massive coalition inside 
the Congress and across this country that has labored and sweated and 
battled for years to get this bill passed. This bill is more important 
than any amendment; and some of these amendments, make no mistake, are 
designed to destroy the bill or make it completely ineffectual.
  So I ask my colleagues today to honor the years of work, the hundreds 
of thousands of hours of effort that have gone into the careful 
crafting of this legislation, and oppose amendments. Trust your 
constituents on this one. Resist the rhetoric. Redeem the promise. And 
pass CARA--clean, effective, and by a huge margin.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young) for purposes of control.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Conservation 
and Reinvestment Act.
  CARA will provide important environmental and conservation benefits 
to my state of New Hampshire and to the country as a whole. By making 
good on the promise to fully and permanently fund the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, our National Parks, Forests and Wildlife lands will 
be protected. New Hampshire boasts THE most heavily visited National 
Forest in this country--the White Mountain National Forest--in addition 
to critical resource areas like Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge. 
In addition, CARA provides funding

[[Page 7547]]

for other important programs such as the Forest Legacy Program, 
Farmland Protection Program, the Urban Parks Resource and Recovery 
Program, and matching grants for state and local outdoor recreation 
projects.
  New Hampshire needs this help, to meet the conservation challenges we 
face.
  Several Members will be offering amendments to put this bill on hold 
for the next five years, so that it doesn't put any strain on the 
budget resolution we passed earlier this year. I will oppose that 
amendment, because the programs in CARA should be a priority, and 
because we should work to put it in our budget. We will have the 
opportunity to do that, in our negotiations with the President on 
reconciliation legislation, and in reviewing the new economic 
information that will come before us, and we should take advantage of 
that to find the resources to accomplish what Chairman Young has set 
out to do.
  Amendments to put this bill on hold for 5 years mean one thing--no 
additional investment for 5 years. And I know that many precious places 
we have the opportunity to save today will no longer be there in 5 
years. And I know that those that are still there will cost us twice as 
much as they do today.
  I don't want a bigger government. I don't want more government 
employees. I want to invest Federal dollars in land and wildlife 
resources that will yield benefits to New Hampshire and the country in 
perpetuity. Right now, Congress has an historic opportunity to pass 
landmark conservation reinvestment legislation to preserve America's 
natural heritage and protect America's quality of life for future 
generations. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) is supported 
by the nation's governors, mayors, county officials, conservation and 
wildlife organizations, sportsmen's groups, park and recreation 
advocates, business and industry groups, historic preservationists, 
soccer and youth sports organizations and more than two-thirds of my 
Republican and Democratic colleagues.
  Unfortunately, the unique opportunity we have today in Congress to 
enact this landmark legislation is being threatened by a series of 
amendments that would undo this historic bipartisan agreement. Let's 
not do that. Let's pass H.R. 701.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my 
time. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank those that participated in the 
debate, those for and against this legislation. There is a lot of 
concentration on the first part, the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 
But there are six other parts of the bill that mean a great deal. 
Wildlife conservation, which is really my sweetheart; urban park and 
recreation, very important to urban areas; historic preservation, if 
one does not know one's past, one will never know one's future; Federal 
and Indian lands have been destroyed by this government that need 
restoration; conservation easements. The gentleman from California 
mentioned this.
  I have my brother in California. I have people in California who want 
to farm that are actually threatened by the growth of the communities 
that, under the easement program, can still farm and keep that land for 
open spaces so people could enjoy it, yet he could have his livelihood.
  We have payment in lieu of taxes, fully funded, the payment in lieu 
of taxes. Those are the things that are in this bill besides that 
second title. But keep in mind it is my true belief that, under my 
bill, there is a much better protection for private property owners 
under our legislation than in existing law.
  Last year alone, this Congress spent $480 million to purchase land 
with no input from authorizes in the Congress, with no identification 
to the seller of the land, unwillingly, using condemnation. Under my 
bill, none of those things can occur.
  So keep in mind, if my colleagues wants to protect private property, 
they should be voting for this legislation. But beyond that, as the 
gentleman from California had mentioned and other people have spoken 
to, this is a changing society. If we do not keep those open spaces, if 
we do not have the farmers available who can keep their lands, we will 
lose that. We will not have the species which we are trying to protect 
under the Endangered Species Act.
  There is so much in this bill for the future that we ought to 
consider the long haul, the long gain for the betterment of our 
society.
  I am the Private Property Owners Award recipient all my years in 
Congress, and I still am rated 91 percent because I believe in it. But 
this bill does not hurt private property owners. It helps them, and it 
helps this Nation's future.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, today I support H.R. 701, the Conservation 
and Reinvestment Act (CARA) introduced by House Resources Chairman Don 
Young and Ranking Member George Miller. This legislation has been 
referred as ``the most comprehensive conservation and recreation 
legislation the Congress has considered in decades and provides 
permanent funding for valuable conservation and recreational 
opportunities that will benefit the lives of all Americans.''
  The legislation establishes a permanent, automatic funding mechanism 
that channels the revenues from off-shore oil drilling royalties to 
numerous federal and state land and resources conservation programs. 
Also, the bill establishes a new fund--the Conservation and 
Reinvestment Act Fund or ``CARA Fund''--within the Department of 
Treasury to be used for various conservation, resource protection, and 
recreation programs.
  The cornerstone of funding for the legislation is derived from the 
royalties received from outer-continental shelf (OCS) drilling in 
conjunction with establishing a new fund to help coastal states 
mitigate the various impacts of offshore drilling and other OCS 
activities, which will generate revenues of $1 billion annually. 
Moreover, the legislation directs $900 million annually in guaranteed 
funding from the CARA fund to the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
(LWCF), dedicates $350 million annually for the CARA fund to the 
existing Pittman-Robertson wildlife conservation and restoration 
program, provides $125 million annually from the CARA Fund to the Urban 
Park and Recreation Recovery Program, distributes $100 million from the 
CARA fund annually to the Historic Preservation Fund, provides $200 
million in annual mandatory funding for a coordinated program on 
federal and Indian Lands Restoration, and allocates $150 million in 
Conservation Easements and Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery.
  In my home state of North Dakota, CARA has huge, positive impacts for 
our rural communities to the amount of nearly $15 million annually. 
According to the North Dakota State Park and Recreation Department, 
H.R. 701, provides North Dakota with the opportunities to provide for 
local communities to maintain and improve their conservation and 
recreation bases that need much needed assistance.
  I realize that some of my colleagues have raised concerns regarding 
private property provision in CARA. Throughout my time in Congress, I 
have worked to protect the private property rights of all citizens. I 
am pleased that CARA has provisions in it that specifically stipulate 
that the federal government is not authorized to take private property 
without just compensation and that federal agencies may not regulate 
any lands until they are acquired. In fact, in North Dakota, the State 
Park and Recreation Department requires all state agencies to comply 
with regulations assuring local and state support before land is 
acquired.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join the National Governors' 
Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of 
Counties, and more than 300 of my bipartisan colleagues in support of 
this comprehensive, historic legislation.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 701, the 
Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999. I, like more than 300 of my 
Democratic and Republican colleagues, cosponsored H.R. 701 because it 
enhances existing environmental policy and promotes the open space 
conservation and recreation needs of the American people.
  First, I must commend Representatives George Miller and Don Young on 
crafting this remarkably bipartisan legislation. This measure 
establishes $3 billion in mandatory spending, a reliable infusion of 
funding for new and existing conservation programs. H.R. 701 wisely 
creates a permanent stream of matching funds for states to both support 
and expand their land conservation and preservation efforts.
  Specifically, under this bill, approximately 60 percent of the nearly 
$4 billion in annual revenue collected from federal offshore oil and 
gas production leases would be returned to state and local governments 
for land conservation. This legislation would make the relationship 
between offshore energy extraction and coastal states similar to 
existing programs that provide funds to communities in which resources 
are extracted from federal lands. Under this measure, the largest 
proportion of funding would be equitably applied toward energy impact 
assistance in coastal states and those states directly affected by 
offshore development.

[[Page 7548]]

  As a representative from the Texas Gulfcoast, I am dedicated to 
coastal conservation. CARA provides an unprecedented opportunity to 
improve state and local governments' efforts to safeguard their 
coastlines. CARA would invigorate the now dormant funding stream for 
the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), proactively 
protecting wildlife. Moreover, its encouragement of private land 
stewardship, which protects the vast majority of wildlife habitat, is 
especially meaningful in a state like Texas, whose lands are 
predominately privately owned.
  Moreover, CARA is important to the State of Texas where only three 
percent of all land is public. A 1999 survey performed by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture documented that Texas led the nation in loss 
of undeveloped land from 1992 to 1997. H.R. 701 recognizes this fact 
and provides funding not only for specific conservation and recreation 
programs but also for federal and state land acquisitions. The bill 
employs an extraordinarily balanced approach to land acquisition for 
preservation and conservation under which private property owners are 
given strong protections. H.R. 701 provides a strong preference for 
willing seller transactions.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also note that in addition to focusing on 
preservation of our nation's open spaces, CARA provides $100 million 
for states to administer numerous historic preservation programs under 
the Historic Preservation Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my fellow colleagues to join me in supporting 
H.R. 701. This historic legislation creates a significant commitment to 
preserve open spaces, parks, wilderness and coastal areas, directly 
enhancing America's environmental quality of life and ensures the long-
term preservation and enjoyment of our natural world for future 
generations.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I rise in support of this bipartisan 
legislation. I commend my colleagues for establishing a permanent, 
automatic funding mechanism for land acquisition for conservation 
purposes. It utilizes revenues from offshore royalties to numerous 
federal and state land and resources conservation programs.
  The philosophy of using this money for building parks and preserving 
natural areas and wildlife remains as sound today as it was when the 
fund was created. Giving protected budget status to the Land and 
Conservation Fund would mean that this money--generated from the 
government's oil and gas leases--could be allocated without requiring 
annual congressional approval.
  We must take this action because the fund is authorized to receive 
$900 million each year, but since its inception Congress has diverted 
much of that money for purposes other than conservation and recreation.
  The interest in preserving open space could not have come at a better 
time. According to a new comprehensive survey of American biological 
diversity conducted by the Nature Conservancy, the United States 
provides habitat for more than 200,000 native species of plants and 
animals. At the same time, commercial and residential development are 
placing those species under continuing pressure. Americans understand 
how precious the habitat remains across our nation.
  To most Americans, this legislation will extend our nation's and 
Texas' open spaces and other outdoor resources. Resources for open 
space should never be underestimated. Through the Land and Conservation 
Fund, the legislation would dedicate to conservation a portion of the 
monies paid to the federal government by companies for offshore oil and 
gas drilling rights.
  This is important for the State of Texas. It is important for my 
community. We must create greater open space for all American 
communities, and preserve the historic areas of our communities. My 
district is in great need of more green space, more park maintenance 
dollars and dollars to support historic preservation work in the 4th 
ward, 6th ward, and 5th ward, along with the Heights and 3rd ward. 
Money that is furnished for our state through the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund is used to meet the cost of state land protection and 
park and recreational needs. The fund has simply never had enough funds 
to do the job that it has been tasked with. We can change that, Mr. 
Chairman.
  This bill would also dedicate Land and Water Conservation funds to 
conservation purposes, providing additional funding to create or expand 
parks, forest, wildlife, and open spaces. We have a moral 
responsibility to conserve our precious natural resources.
  Future generations will judge the suitability of our land, water, air 
and wildlife. We owe them some appreciation in how we treat our natural 
resources. Finally, I would like to thank the students from the 
Contemporary Learning Center school in my district who visited me on 
Wednesday, May 10, 2000, as part of the Close-up program to present the 
case for this bill, I cosponsored the bill and thanked them for their 
advocacy.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 701, the 
Conservation and Reinvestment Act. I could go on and on with reasons 
why this legislation is bad for New Mexico and bad for the United 
States. There are many others today who will explain the details of 
this bill.
  I will use my time to concentrate on the main objection New Mexicans 
have with this legislation. Local, county and state governments, along 
with the federal government have enough land. In New Mexico, only 43 
percent of the land is owned by citizens. The rest, 57 percent, is 
owned by government and Native American tribal governments. The people 
of New Mexico want to know how much land government wants? Do they want 
another 10 percent, another 20 percent, another 30 percent?
  If one looks at the amount of money this bill mandates to spend over 
the next ten to twenty years there is a lot of private land that is 
going to disappear. I would love to have government or someone explain 
to me how acquiring all of this new land and adding to the millions of 
acres that are already being mismanaged is a good thing? Over 10 years 
this bill could add another 2.25 million acres at $2,000 an acre to the 
hundreds of million of acres the federal government already owns. Who 
knows how much land the state and local governments will buy under this 
bill. Again and again we ask the question. Give us the lists, give us 
the parcels, give us the costs, and just tell us how much land local, 
county, state and federal governments want to own. Or at least tell us 
why these government entities won't provide this information to the 
public.
  Please vote against H.R. 701.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am in strong support of this bill and as 
a cosponsor of H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, I 
commend my good friend from Alaska, the Chairman of the Resources 
Committee, Representative Don Young, for his hard work and leadership 
in bringing this landmark legislation to the floor for action
  H.R. 701 is an important bill for our environment. It provides 
billions of dollars in funding through revenues of outer continental 
shelf activities for a variety of conservation and recreation 
activities. It embodies the principle, embraced by the transportation 
and infrastructure committee, creating a trust fund with a dedicated 
revenue stream for conserving and reinvesting in our Nation's 
resources.
  The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has jurisdiction over 
pollution of navigable waters, including coastal waters and wetlands. 
It also has jurisdiction over marine affairs, including coastal zone 
management, as it relatives to the pollution of a navigable waters.
  As such, I believe that several sections of H.R. 701, relating to 
state grants for activities that address water pollution-related issues 
and consideration of how well correlated a proposed plan is with 
existing federal, state and local programs, impact the Transportation 
Committee's jurisdiction. It is very important that in implementing 
these sections, they be done consistent with existing programs.
  I hope to work together with Chairman Young during conference 
negotiations and as CARA is implemented to address these general 
concerns. He has assured me that we will continue to work together to 
identify the agreed area of our jurisdiction and for solutions to 
concerns we may have.
  I look forward to working with the Chairman of the Resources 
Committee in our continued efforts to protect and enhance our coastal 
waters. H.R. 701 is an important step forward in this direction.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, today I express my concerns about H.R. 
701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Interior Subcommittee on 
Appropriations I have been very supportive of funding acquisition 
projects that are based on willing sellers, and consensus among all 
parties involved. I believe that overall the Land & Water Conservation 
Fund has provided a good means for protecting our lands, and I have 
been proud to support land acquisitions such as the Escure Ranch and 
Bowe Ranch in Eastern Washington. These projects were acquired with the 
full support of the communities which surround them and were funded 
through the Interior Appropriations process and the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund.
  While I am supportive of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, today 
I am rising to share my concerns with the bill before the House, H.R. 
701. Mr. Chairman, I understand that H.R. 701 is intended to supplant 
the current state and local funding for conservation and recreation 
programs and to encourage increased levels of state and local funding 
for

[[Page 7549]]

these conservation projects. But, as a member of the Appropriations 
Committee, I am disturbed by the fact that this bill creates a new 
entitlement for our public lands.
  First, as currently drafted, the bill declares the entire program 
off-budget and takes more than $2.8 billion from the Outer Continental 
Shelf funds. This money is currently considered on-budget and will be a 
charge against the budget process annually over its 15 year life. This 
means that there will be more mandatory spending in the government that 
is essentially outside the discretion of Congress. I understand that 
amendments may be offered today to put this program back on budget, and 
I look forward to listening to the debate on this issue, but I cannot 
support a program that creates a new, more than $2 billion entitlement 
program when we are struggling to maintain our fiscal responsibility.
  Under this new trust fund H.R. 701 accumulates annual deposits of 
$2.8 billion from oil and gas royalties that are to be deposited 
annually by the Secretary of Treasury. Almost $2.4 billion of these 
funds are transferred into accounts for land conservation, acquisition 
and management and would be available for spending by federal agencies 
without the current approval process by the Congress. The remaining 
monies, about $450 million, must have Congressional approval before 
they can be spent.
  Second, over the past few months I have listened to our land managing 
agencies come before the House Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations 
and not be able to tell the Subcommittee what their current backlog 
maintenance is to maintain the lands that they currently own and 
manage. Why are we providing these agencies with more money when they 
cannot tell the Congress what they need to currently maintain their 
lands? This isn't the only problem, Mr. Speaker. The amount of money to 
maintain these lands is enormous, yet we are creating a $2.8 billion 
entitlement to buy new lands. The General Accounting Office noted when 
they came before the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations that if 
the US Fish and Wildlife Service continues to acquire lands at the pace 
it has over the past few years, the costs to maintain their lands could 
exceed $4 billion.
  Finally Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the efforts made by the 
authors of the bill to address some of the concerns regarding the 
protection of private property, I am still concerned about the level of 
protection afforded. I appreciate the authors attempt under the 
definitions section, Section 11 to outline the protections under the 
Constitution, but Mr. Chairman, this section does not protect against 
condemnation by the federal government or for that matter by state or 
local governments. The restrictions that are outlined in the bill only 
apply to the land and Water Conservation Funds--which is only $450 out 
of the more than $2.8 billion program.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the debate today on this bill--and I 
am hopeful that some of the amendments offered will improve this 
legislation.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 701, the 
Conservation and Reinvestment Act.
  I am one of the minority of members who is not a cosponsor of this 
bill. I chose not to become a cosponsor because the original 
legislation would have taken Outer Continental Shelf revenues off-
budget. As a senior member of the Budget Committee, I have consistently 
opposed efforts to take various funds off-budget in order to maintain 
fiscal discipline and preserve a balanced budget.
  While I am pleased the sponsors of this bill have taken these 
budgetary concerns into account and put the CARA Fund on-budget, this 
is still not an easy vote for me.
  I have rarely supported increases in mandatory spending in the 
amounts considered today. However, an opportunity like this is 
extremely rare.
  This bill's guarantee of full-funding for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund (LWCF)--including the critical State-side funding--
will rank as one of the most significant environmental accomplishments 
of our time. LWCF provides the ability to acquire pristine natural 
habitats and open space that can be preserved for generations to come. 
I know that once these lands are gone, they are gone forever.
  I would like to thank my colleague from New York, Mr. Boehlert, for 
his efforts to improve environmental safeguards in the bill. He is to 
be commended for eliminating the original bill's potential incentives 
for increased offshore drilling activity.
  It is critically important as this bill moves forward that we work to 
ensure the tens of millions of federal dollars that will flow to 
coastal states and local governments each year are spent in a way that 
helps, not harms, the environment.
  I hope it will be made clear that authorized use under Section 
102(c)(10)--``Mitigating marine and coastal impacts of Outer 
Continental Shelf activities including impacts on onshore 
infrastructure''--only refers to uses that directly mitigate the 
environmental impacts of offshore drilling and is not intended to fund 
environmentally-destructive road or port expansions or construction of 
bulkheads or jetties. At minimum, activities permitted under this use 
should be capped at 10 percent or less of a state's Title I spending.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 701 is good for coastal areas, open space, urban 
parks, recreational activities and wildlife. The sponsors have worked 
to answer the concerns of widely-varying interests, and I am pleased to 
support the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of H.R. 4377 shall be considered as an original 
bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of 
the text of H.R. 4377 is as follow:

                               H.R. 4377

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Conservation and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Annual reports.
Sec. 5. Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund.
Sec. 6. Limitation on use of available amounts for administration.
Sec. 7. Recordkeeping requirements.
Sec. 8. Maintenance of effort and matching funding.
Sec. 9. Sunset.
Sec. 10. Protection of private property rights.
Sec. 11. Signs.

          TITLE I--IMPACT ASSISTANCE AND COASTAL CONSERVATION

Sec. 101. Impact assistance formula and payments.
Sec. 102. Coastal State conservation and impact assistance plans.

       TITLE II--LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND REVITALIZATION

Sec. 201. Amendment of Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965.
Sec. 202. Extension of fund; treatment of amounts transferred from 
              Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund.
Sec. 203. Availability of amounts.
Sec. 204. Allocation of Fund.
Sec. 205. Use of Federal portion.
Sec. 206. Allocation of amounts available for State purposes.
Sec. 207. State planning.
Sec. 208. Assistance to States for other projects.
Sec. 209. Conversion of property to other use.
Sec. 210. Water rights.

            TITLE III--WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION

Sec. 301. Purposes.
Sec. 302. Definitions.
Sec. 303. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and 
              Reinvestment Act Fund.
Sec. 304. Apportionment of amounts transferred from Conservation and 
              Reinvestment Act Fund.
Sec. 305. Education.
Sec. 306. Prohibition against diversion.

    TITLE IV--URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY PROGRAM AMENDMENTS

Sec. 401. Amendment of Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978.
Sec. 402. Purpose.
Sec. 403. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and 
              Reinvestment Act Fund.
Sec. 404. Authority to develop new areas and facilities.
Sec. 405. Definitions.
Sec. 406. Eligibility.
Sec. 407. Grants.
Sec. 408. Recovery action programs.
Sec. 409. State action incentives.
Sec. 410. Conversion of recreation property.
Sec. 411. Repeal.

                  TITLE V--HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND

Sec. 501. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and 
              Reinvestment Act Fund.
Sec. 502. State use of historic preservation assistance for national 
              heritage areas and corridors.

             TITLE VI--FEDERAL AND INDIAN LANDS RESTORATION

Sec. 601. Purpose.

[[Page 7550]]

Sec. 602. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and 
              Reinvestment Act Fund; allocation.
Sec. 603. Authorized uses of transferred amounts.
Sec. 604. Indian tribe defined.

 TITLE VII--FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM AND ENDANGERED AND THREATENED 
                            SPECIES RECOVERY

                Subtitle A--Farmland Protection Program

Sec. 701. Additional funding and additional authorities under farmland 
              protection program.
Sec. 702. Funding.

         Subtitle B--Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery

Sec. 711. Purposes.
Sec. 712. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and 
              Reinvestment Act Fund.
Sec. 713. Endangered and threatened species recovery assistance.
Sec. 714. Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Agreements.
Sec. 715. Definitions.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act:
       (1) The term ``coastal population'' means the population of 
     all political subdivisions, as determined by the most recent 
     official data of the Census Bureau, contained in whole or in 
     part within the designated coastal boundary of a State as 
     defined in a State's coastal zone management program under 
     the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451 and 
     following).
       (2) The term ``coastal political subdivision'' means a 
     political subdivision of a coastal State all or part of which 
     political subdivision is within the coastal zone (as defined 
     in section 304 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1453)).
       (3) The term ``coastal State'' has the same meaning as 
     provided by section 304 of the Coastal Zone Management Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1453)).
       (4) The term ``coastline'' has the same meaning that it has 
     in the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301 and following).
       (5) The term ``distance'' means minimum great circle 
     distance, measured in statute miles.
       (6) The term ``fiscal year'' means the Federal Government's 
     accounting period which begins on October 1st and ends on 
     September 30th, and is designated by the calendar year in 
     which it ends.
       (7) The term ``Governor'' means the highest elected 
     official of a State or of any other political entity that is 
     defined as, or treated as, a State under the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 and 
     following), the Act of September 2, 1937 (16 U.S.C. 669 and 
     following), commonly referred to as the Federal Aid in 
     Wildlife Restoration Act or the Pittman-Robertson Act, the 
     Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 
     2501 and following), the National Historic Preservation Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 470h and following), or the Federal Agriculture 
     Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-127; 16 
     U.S.C. 3830 note).
       (8) The term ``leased tract'' means a tract, leased under 
     section 6 or 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1335, 1337) for the purpose of drilling for, 
     developing, and producing oil and natural gas resources, 
     which is a unit consisting of either a block, a portion of a 
     block, a combination of blocks or portions of blocks, or a 
     combination of portions of blocks, as specified in the lease, 
     and as depicted on an Outer Continental Shelf Official 
     Protraction Diagram.
       (9) The term ``Outer Continental Shelf'' means all 
     submerged lands lying seaward and outside of the area of 
     ``lands beneath navigable waters'' as defined in section 2(a) 
     of the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301(a)), and of which 
     the subsoil and seabed appertain to the United States and are 
     subject to its jurisdiction and control.
       (10) The term ``political subdivision'' means the local 
     political jurisdiction immediately below the level of State 
     government, including counties, parishes, and boroughs. If 
     State law recognizes an entity of general government that 
     functions in lieu of, and is not within, a county, parish, or 
     borough, the Secretary may recognize an area under the 
     jurisdiction of such other entities of general government as 
     a political subdivision for purposes of this title.
       (11) The term ``producing State'' means a State with a 
     coastal seaward boundary within 200 miles from the geographic 
     center of a leased tract other than a leased tract or portion 
     of a leased tract that is located in a geographic area 
     subject to a leasing moratorium on January 1, 1999 (unless 
     the lease was issued prior to the establishment of the 
     moratorium and was in production on January 1, 1999).
       (12) The term ``qualified Outer Continental Shelf 
     revenues'' means (except as otherwise provided in this 
     paragraph) all moneys received by the United States from each 
     leased tract or portion of a leased tract lying seaward of 
     the zone defined and governed by section 8(g) of the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(g)), or lying 
     within such zone but to which section 8(g) does not apply, 
     the geographic center of which lies within a distance of 200 
     miles from any part of the coastline of any coastal State, 
     including bonus bids, rents, royalties (including payments 
     for royalty taken in kind and sold), net profit share 
     payments, and related late-payment interest from natural gas 
     and oil leases issued pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf 
     Lands Act. Such term does not include any revenues from a 
     leased tract or portion of a leased tract that is located in 
     a geographic area subject to a leasing moratorium on January 
     1, 1999, unless the lease was issued prior to the 
     establishment of the moratorium and was in production on 
     January 1, 1999.
       (13) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior or the Secretary's designee, except as otherwise 
     specifically provided.
       (14) The term ``Fund'' means the Conservation and 
     Reinvestment Act Fund established under section 5.

     SEC. 4. ANNUAL REPORTS.

       (a) State Reports.--On June 15 of each year, each Governor 
     receiving moneys from the Fund shall account for all moneys 
     so received for the previous fiscal year in a written report 
     to the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, as appropriate. The report shall include, in 
     accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretaries, a 
     description of all projects and activities receiving funds 
     under this Act. In order to avoid duplication, such report 
     may incorporate by reference any other reports required to be 
     submitted under other provisions of law to the Secretary 
     concerned by the Governor regarding any portion of such 
     moneys.
       (b) Report to Congress.--On January 1 of each year the 
     Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, shall submit an annual report to the Congress 
     documenting all moneys expended by the Secretary of the 
     Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from the Fund 
     during the previous fiscal year and summarizing the contents 
     of the Governors' reports submitted to the Secretaries under 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 5. CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT FUND.

       (a) Establishment of Fund.--There is established in the 
     Treasury of the United States a fund which shall be known as 
     the ``Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund''. In each 
     fiscal year after the fiscal year 2000, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall deposit into the Fund the following amounts:
       (1) OCS revenues.--An amount in each such fiscal year from 
     qualified Outer Continental Shelf revenues equal to the 
     difference between $2,825,000,000 and the amounts deposited 
     in the Fund under paragraph (2), notwithstanding section 9 of 
     the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1338).
       (2) Amounts not disbursed.--All allocated but undisbursed 
     amounts returned to the Fund under section 101(a)(2).
       (3) Interest.--All interest earned under subsection (d) 
     that is not made available under paragraph (2) or (4) of that 
     subsection.
       (b) Transfer for Expenditure.--In each fiscal year after 
     the fiscal year 2001, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     transfer amounts deposited into the Fund as follows:
       (1) $1,000,000,000 to the Secretary of the Interior for 
     purposes of making payments to coastal States under title I 
     of this Act.
       (2) To the Land and Water Conservation Fund for expenditure 
     as provided in section 3(a) of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6(a)) such 
     amounts as are necessary to make the income of the fund 
     $900,000,000 in each such fiscal year.
       (3) $350,000,000 to the Federal aid to wildlife restoration 
     fund established under section 3 of the Federal Aid in 
     Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669b).
       (4) $125,000,000 to the Secretary of the Interior to carry 
     out the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (16 
     U.S.C. 2501 and following).
       (5) $100,000,000 to the Secretary of the Interior to carry 
     out the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 and 
     following).
       (6) $200,000,000 to the Secretary of the Interior and the 
     Secretary of Agriculture to carry out title VI of this Act.
       (7) $100,000,000 to the Secretary of Agriculture to carry 
     out the farmland protection program under section 388 of the 
     Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
     (Public Law 104-127; 16 U.S.C. 3830 note) and the Forest 
     Legacy Program under section 7 of the Cooperative Forestry 
     Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103c).
       (8) $50,000,000 to the Secretary of the Interior to develop 
     and implement Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery 
     Agreements under subtitle B of title VII of this Act.
       (c) Shortfall.--If amounts deposited into the Fund in any 
     fiscal year after the fiscal year 2000 are less than 
     $2,825,000,000, the amounts transferred under paragraphs (1) 
     through (8) of subsection (b) for that fiscal year shall each 
     be reduced proportionately.
       (d) Interest.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest 
     moneys in the Fund (including interest), and in any fund or 
     account to which moneys are transferred pursuant to 
     subsection (b) of this section, in public debt securities 
     with maturities suitable to the needs of the Fund, as 
     determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, and bearing 
     interest at rates determined by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, taking into consideration current market yields on 
     outstanding

[[Page 7551]]

     marketable obligations of the United States of comparable 
     maturity. Such invested moneys shall remain invested until 
     needed to meet requirements for disbursement for the programs 
     financed under this Act.
       (2) Use of interest.--Except as provided in paragraphs (3) 
     and (4), interest earned on such moneys shall be available, 
     without further appropriation, for obligation or expenditure 
     under--
       (A) chapter 69 of title 31, United States Code (relating to 
     payments in lieu of taxes); and
       (B) section 401 of the Act of June 15, 1935 (49 Stat. 383; 
     16 U.S.C. 715s) (relating to refuge revenue sharing).
     In each fiscal year such interest shall be allocated between 
     the programs referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B) in 
     proportion to the amounts appropriated for that fiscal year 
     under other provisions of law for purposes of such programs. 
     To the extent that the total amount available for a fiscal 
     year under this paragraph and such other provisions of law 
     for one of such programs exceeds the authorized limit of that 
     program, the amount available under this paragraph that 
     contributes to such excess shall be allocated to the other 
     such program, but not in excess of its authorized limit. To 
     the extent that for both such programs such total amount for 
     each program exceeds the authorized limit of that program, 
     the amount available under this paragraph that contributes to 
     such excess shall be deposited into the Fund and shall be 
     considered interest for purposes of subsection (a)(3). 
     Interest shall cease to be available for obligation or 
     expenditure for a fiscal year for purposes of subparagraph 
     (A) if the annual appropriation for that fiscal year under 
     other provisions of law for the program referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) is less than $100,000,000, and in any such 
     case, the allocation provisions of this paragraph shall not 
     apply and all such interest shall be available for purposes 
     of the program referred to in subparagraph (B), up to the 
     authorized limit of such program. Interest shall cease to be 
     available for obligation or expenditure for a fiscal year for 
     purposes of subparagraph (B) if the annual appropriation for 
     that fiscal year under other provisions of law for the 
     program referred to in subparagraph (A) is less than 
     $15,000,000, and in any such case, the allocation provisions 
     of this paragraph shall not apply and all such interest shall 
     be available for purposes of the program referred to in 
     subparagraph (A), up to the authorized limit of such program. 
     Interest shall cease to be available for obligation or 
     expenditure for a fiscal year for purposes of this paragraph 
     if the annual appropriation for that fiscal year under other 
     provisions of law for each of the program referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) and the program referred to in subparagraph 
     (B) is less than $100,000,000 and $15,000,000, respectively, 
     and in any such case, the allocation provisions of this 
     paragraph shall not apply and all such interest shall be 
     deposited into the Fund and be considered interest for 
     purposes of subsection (a)(3).
       (3) Ceiling on expenditures of interest.--Amounts made 
     available under paragraph (2) in each fiscal year shall not 
     exceed the lesser of the following:
       (A) $200,000,000.
       (B) The total amount authorized and appropriated for that 
     fiscal year under other provisions of law for purposes of the 
     programs referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
     paragraph (2).
       (4) Title iii interest.--All interest attributable to 
     amounts transferred by the Secretary of the Treasury to the 
     Secretary of the Interior for purposes of title III of this 
     Act (and the amendments made by such title III) shall be 
     available, without further appropriation, for obligation or 
     expenditure for purposes of the North American Wetlands 
     Conservation Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 4401 and following)
       (e) Refunds.--In those instances where through judicial 
     decision, administrative review, arbitration, or other means 
     there are royalty refunds owed to entities generating 
     revenues under this title, refunds shall be paid by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury from amounts available in the Fund 
     to the extent that such refunds are attributable to qualified 
     Outer Continental Shelf revenues deposited in the Fund under 
     this Act.

     SEC. 6. LIMITATION ON USE OF AVAILABLE AMOUNTS FOR 
                   ADMINISTRATION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of amounts made 
     available by this Act (including the amendments made by this 
     Act) for a particular activity, not more than 2 percent may 
     be used for administrative expenses of that activity. Nothing 
     in this section shall affect the prohibition contained in 
     section 4(c)(3) of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration 
     Act (as amended by this Act).

     SEC. 7. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS.

       The Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall establish such rules regarding 
     recordkeeping by State and local governments and the auditing 
     of expenditures made by State and local governments from 
     funds made available under this Act as may be necessary. Such 
     rules shall be in addition to other requirements established 
     regarding recordkeeping and the auditing of such expenditures 
     under other authority of law.

     SEC. 8. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT AND MATCHING FUNDING.

       (a) In General.--It is the intent of the Congress in this 
     Act that States not use this Act as an opportunity to reduce 
     State or local resources for the programs funded by this Act. 
     Except as provided in subsection (b), no State or local 
     government shall receive any funds under this Act during any 
     fiscal year when its expenditures of non-Federal funds for 
     recurrent expenditures for programs for which funding is 
     provided under this Act will be less than its expenditures 
     were for such programs during the preceding fiscal year. No 
     State or local government shall receive funding under this 
     Act with respect to a program unless the Secretary is 
     satisfied that such a grant will be so used to supplement 
     and, to the extent practicable, increase the level of State, 
     local, or other non-Federal funds available for such program.
       (b) Exception.--The Secretary may provide funding under 
     this Act to a State or local government not meeting the 
     requirements of subsection (a) if the Secretary determines 
     that a reduction in expenditures --
       (1) is attributable to a nonselective reduction in 
     expenditures for the programs of all executive branch 
     agencies of the State or local government; or
       (2) is a result of reductions in State or local revenue as 
     a result of a downturn in the economy.
       (c) Use of Fund To Meet Matching Requirements.--All funds 
     received by a State or local government under this Act shall 
     be treated as Federal funds for purposes of compliance with 
     any provision in effect under any other law requiring that 
     non-Federal funds be used to provide a portion of the funding 
     for any program or project.

     SEC. 9. SUNSET.

       This Act, including the amendments made by this Act, shall 
     have no force or effect after September 30, 2015.

     SEC. 10. PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.

       (a) Savings Clause.--Nothing in the Act shall authorize 
     that private property be taken for public use, without just 
     compensation as provided by the Fifth and Fourteenth 
     amendments to the United States Constitution.
       (b) Regulation.--Federal agencies, using funds appropriated 
     by this Act, may not apply any regulation on any lands until 
     the lands or water, or an interest therein, is acquired, 
     unless authorized to do so by another Act of Congress.

     SEC. 11. SIGNS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall require, as a 
     condition of any financial assistance provided with amounts 
     made available by this Act, that the person that owns or 
     administers any site that benefits from such assistance shall 
     include on any sign otherwise installed at that site at or 
     near an entrance or public use focal point, a statement that 
     the existence or development of the site (or both), as 
     appropriate, is a product of such assistance.
       (b) Standards.--The Secretary shall provide for the design 
     of standardized signs for purposes of subsection (a), and 
     shall prescribe standards and guidelines for such signs.

          TITLE I--IMPACT ASSISTANCE AND COASTAL CONSERVATION

     SEC. 101. IMPACT ASSISTANCE FORMULA AND PAYMENTS.

       (a) Impact Assistance Payments to States.--
       (1) Grant program.--Amounts transferred to the Secretary of 
     the Interior from the Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund 
     under section 5(b)(1) of this Act for purposes of making 
     payments to coastal States under this title in any fiscal 
     year shall be allocated by the Secretary of the Interior 
     among coastal States as provided in this section in each such 
     fiscal year. In each such fiscal year, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall, without further appropriation, disburse such 
     allocated funds to those coastal States for which the 
     Secretary has approved a Coastal State Conservation and 
     Impact Assistance Plan as required by this title. Payments 
     for all projects shall be made by the Secretary to the 
     Governor of the State or to the State official or agency 
     designated by the Governor or by State law as having 
     authority and responsibility to accept and to administer 
     funds paid hereunder. No payment shall be made to any State 
     until the State has agreed to provide such reports to the 
     Secretary, in such form and containing such information, as 
     may be reasonably necessary to enable the Secretary to 
     perform his duties under this title, and provide such fiscal 
     control and fund accounting procedures as may be necessary to 
     assure proper disbursement and accounting for Federal 
     revenues paid to the State under this title.
       (2) Failure to have plan approved.--At the end of each 
     fiscal year, the Secretary shall return to the Conservation 
     and Reinvestment Act Fund any amount that the Secretary 
     allocated, but did not disburse, in that fiscal year to a 
     coastal State that does not have an approved plan under this 
     title before the end of the fiscal year in which such grant 
     is allocated, except that the Secretary shall hold in escrow 
     until the final resolution of the appeal any amount 
     allocated, but not disbursed, to a coastal State

[[Page 7552]]

     that has appealed the disapproval of a plan submitted under 
     this title.
       (b) Allocation Among Coastal States.--
       (1) Allocable share for each state.--For each coastal 
     State, the Secretary shall determine the State's allocable 
     share of the total amount of the revenues transferred from 
     the Fund under section 5(b)(1) for each fiscal year using the 
     following weighted formula:
       (A) 50 percent of such revenues shall be allocated among 
     the coastal States as provided in paragraph (2).
       (B) 25 percent of such revenues shall be allocated to each 
     coastal State based on the ratio of each State's shoreline 
     miles to the shoreline miles of all coastal States.
       (C) 25 percent of such revenues shall be allocated to each 
     coastal State based on the ratio of each State's coastal 
     population to the coastal population of all coastal States.
       (2) Offshore outer continental shelf share.--If any portion 
     of a producing State lies within a distance of 200 miles from 
     the geographic center of any leased tract with qualified 
     Outer Continental Shelf revenues, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall determine such State's allocable share under 
     paragraph (1)(A) based on the formula set forth in this 
     paragraph. Such State share shall be calculated as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act for the first 5-fiscal year 
     period during which funds are disbursed under this title and 
     recalculated on the anniversary of such date each fifth year 
     thereafter for each succeeding 5-fiscal year period. Each 
     such State's allocable share of the revenues disbursed under 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall be based on qualified Outer 
     Continental Shelf revenues from each leased tract or portion 
     of a leased tract the geographic center of which is within a 
     distance (to the nearest whole mile) of 200 miles from the 
     coastline of the State and shall be inversely proportional to 
     the distance between the nearest point on the coastline of 
     such State and the geographic center of each such leased 
     tract or portion, as determined by the Secretary for the 5-
     year period concerned. In applying this paragraph a leased 
     tract or portion of a leased tract shall be excluded if the 
     tract or portion is located in a geographic area subject to a 
     leasing moratorium on January 1, 1999, unless the lease was 
     issued prior to the establishment of the moratorium and was 
     in production on January 1, 1999.
       (3) Minimum state share.--
       (A) In general.--The allocable share of revenues determined 
     by the Secretary under this subsection for each coastal State 
     with an approved coastal management program (as defined by 
     the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451)), or which 
     is making satisfactory progress toward one, shall not be less 
     in any fiscal year than 0.50 percent of the total amount of 
     the revenues transferred by the Secretary of the Treasury to 
     the Secretary of the Interior for purposes of this title for 
     that fiscal year under subsection (a). For any other coastal 
     State the allocable share of such revenues shall not be less 
     than 0.25 percent of such revenues.
       (B) Recomputation.--Where one or more coastal States' 
     allocable shares, as computed under paragraphs (1) and (2), 
     are increased by any amount under this paragraph, the 
     allocable share for all other coastal States shall be 
     recomputed and reduced by the same amount so that not more 
     than 100 percent of the amount transferred by the Secretary 
     of the Treasury to the Secretary of the Interior for purposes 
     of this title for that fiscal year under section 5(b)(1) is 
     allocated to all coastal States. The reduction shall be 
     divided pro rata among such other coastal States.
       (c) Payments to Political Subdivisions.--In the case of a 
     producing State, the Governor of the State shall pay 50 
     percent of the State's allocable share, as determined under 
     subsection (b), to the coastal political subdivisions in such 
     State. Such payments shall be allocated among such coastal 
     political subdivisions of the State according to an 
     allocation formula analogous to the allocation formula used 
     in subsection (b) to allocate revenues among the coastal 
     States, except that a coastal political subdivision in the 
     State of California that has a coastal shoreline, that is not 
     within 200 miles of the geographic center of a leased tract 
     or portion of a leased tract, and in which there is located 
     one or more oil refineries shall be eligible for that portion 
     of the allocation described in subsection (b)(1)(A) and 
     (b)(2) in the same manner as if that political subdivision 
     were located within a distance of 50 miles from the 
     geographic center of the closest leased tract with qualified 
     Outer Continental Shelf revenues.
       (d) Time of Payment.--Payments to coastal States and 
     coastal political subdivisions under this section shall be 
     made not later than December 31 of each year from revenues 
     received during the immediately preceding fiscal year.

     SEC. 102. COASTAL STATE CONSERVATION AND IMPACT ASSISTANCE 
                   PLANS.

       (a) Development and Submission of State Plans.--Each 
     coastal State seeking to receive grants under this title 
     shall prepare, and submit to the Secretary, a Statewide 
     Coastal State Conservation and Impact Assistance Plan. In the 
     case of a producing State, the Governor shall incorporate the 
     plans of the coastal political subdivisions into the 
     Statewide plan for transmittal to the Secretary. The Governor 
     shall solicit local input and shall provide for public 
     participation in the development of the Statewide plan. The 
     plan shall be submitted to the Secretary by April 1 of the 
     calendar year after the calendar year in which this Act is 
     enacted.
       (b) Approval or Disapproval.--
       (1) In general.--Approval of a Statewide plan under 
     subsection (a) is required prior to disbursement of funds 
     under this title by the Secretary. The Secretary shall 
     approve the Statewide plan if the Secretary determines, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, that the plan is 
     consistent with the uses set forth in subsection (c) and if 
     the plan contains each of the following:
       (A) The name of the State agency that will have the 
     authority to represent and act for the State in dealing with 
     the Secretary for purposes of this title.
       (B) A program for the implementation of the plan which, for 
     producing States, includes a description of how funds will be 
     used to address the impacts of oil and gas production from 
     the Outer Continental Shelf.
       (C) Certification by the Governor that ample opportunity 
     has been accorded for public participation in the development 
     and revision of the plan.
       (D) Measures for taking into account other relevant Federal 
     resources and programs. The plan shall be correlated so far 
     as practicable with other State, regional, and local plans.
       (2) Procedure and timing; revisions.--The Secretary shall 
     approve or disapprove each plan submitted in accordance with 
     this section. If a State first submits a plan by not later 
     than 90 days before the beginning of the first fiscal year to 
     which the plan applies, the Secretary shall approve or 
     disapprove the plan by not later than 30 days before the 
     beginning of that fiscal year.
       (3) Amendment or revision.--Any amendment to or revision of 
     the plan shall be prepared in accordance with the 
     requirements of this subsection and shall be submitted to the 
     Secretary for approval or disapproval. Any such amendment or 
     revision shall take effect only for fiscal years after the 
     fiscal year in which the amendment or revision is approved by 
     the Secretary.
       (c) Authorized Uses of State Grant Funding.--The funds 
     provided under this title to a coastal State and for coastal 
     political subdivisions are authorized to be used only for one 
     or more of the following purposes:
       (1) Data collection, including but not limited to fishery 
     or marine mammal stock surveys in State waters or both, 
     cooperative State, interstate, and Federal fishery or marine 
     mammal stock surveys or both, cooperative initiatives with 
     university and private entities for fishery and marine mammal 
     surveys, activities related to marine mammal and fishery 
     interactions, and other coastal living marine resources 
     surveys.
       (2) The conservation, restoration, enhancement, or creation 
     of coastal habitats.
       (3) Cooperative Federal or State enforcement of marine 
     resources management statutes.
       (4) Fishery observer coverage programs in State or Federal 
     waters.
       (5) Invasive, exotic, and nonindigenous species 
     identification and control.
       (6) Coordination and preparation of cooperative fishery 
     conservation and management plans between States including 
     the development and implementation of population surveys, 
     assessments and monitoring plans, and the preparation and 
     implementation of State fishery management plans developed by 
     interstate marine fishery commissions.
       (7) Preparation and implementation of State fishery or 
     marine mammal management plans that comply with bilateral or 
     multilateral international fishery or marine mammal 
     conservation and management agreements or both.
       (8) Coastal and ocean observations necessary to develop and 
     implement real time tide and current measurement systems.
       (9) Implementation of federally approved marine, coastal, 
     or comprehensive conservation and management plans.
       (10) Mitigating marine and coastal impacts of Outer 
     Continental Shelf activities including impacts on onshore 
     infrastructure.
       (11) Projects that promote research, education, training, 
     and advisory services in fields related to ocean, coastal, 
     and Great Lakes resources.
       (d) Compliance With Authorized Uses.--Based on the annual 
     reports submitted under section 4 of this Act and on audits 
     conducted by the Secretary under section 7, the Secretary 
     shall review the expenditures made by each State and coastal 
     political subdivision from funds made available under this 
     title. If the Secretary determines that any expenditure made 
     by a State or coastal political subdivision of a State from 
     such funds is not consistent with the authorized uses set 
     forth in subsection (c), the Secretary shall not make any 
     further grants under this title to that State until the funds 
     used for such expenditure have been repaid to the 
     Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund.

       TITLE II--LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND REVITALIZATION

     SEC. 201. AMENDMENT OF LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT 
                   OF 1965.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment

[[Page 7553]]

     to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference 
     shall be considered to be made to a section or other 
     provision of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 
     (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 and following).

     SEC. 202. EXTENSION OF FUND; TREATMENT OF AMOUNTS TRANSFERRED 
                   FROM CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT FUND.

       Section 2(c) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Amounts Transferred From Conservation and 
     Reinvestment Act Fund.--In addition to the sum of the 
     revenues and collections estimated by the Secretary of the 
     Interior to be covered into the fund pursuant to subsections 
     (a) and (b) of this section, there shall be covered into the 
     fund all amounts transferred to the fund under section 
     5(b)(2) of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000.''.

     SEC. 203. AVAILABILITY OF AMOUNTS.

       Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6) is amended to read as follows:


                            ``appropriations

       ``Sec. 3. (a) In General.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary from the fund to carry out this 
     Act not more than $900,000,000 in any fiscal year after the 
     fiscal year 2001. Amounts transferred to the fund from the 
     Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund and amounts covered 
     into the fund under subsections (a) and (b) of section 2 
     shall be available to the Secretary in fiscal years after the 
     fiscal year 2001 without further appropriation to carry out 
     this Act.
       ``(b) Obligation and Expenditure of Available Amounts.--
     Amounts available for obligation or expenditure from the fund 
     or from the special account established under section 4(i)(1) 
     may be obligated or expended only as provided in this Act.''.

     SEC. 204. ALLOCATION OF FUND.

       Section 5 (16 U.S.C. 460l-7) is amended to read as follows:


                         ``allocation of funds

       ``Sec. 5. Of the amounts made available for each fiscal 
     year to carry out this Act--
       ``(1) 50 percent shall be available for Federal purposes 
     (in this Act referred to as the `Federal portion'); and
       ``(2) 50 percent shall be available for grants to 
     States.''.

     SEC. 205. USE OF FEDERAL PORTION.

       Section 7 (16 U.S.C. 460l-9) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(d) Use of Federal Portion.--
       ``(1) Approval by congress required.--The Federal portion 
     (as that term is defined in section 5(1)) may not be 
     obligated or expended by the Secretary of the Interior or the 
     Secretary of Agriculture for any acquisition except those 
     specifically referred to, and approved by the Congress, in an 
     Act making appropriations for the Department of the Interior 
     or the Department of Agriculture, respectively.
       ``(2) Willing seller requirement.--The Federal portion may 
     not be used to acquire any property unless--
       ``(A) the owner of the property concurs in the acquisition; 
     or
       ``(B) acquisition of that property is specifically approved 
     by an Act of Congress.
       ``(e) List of Proposed Federal Acquisitions.--
       ``(1) Restriction on use.--The Federal portion for a fiscal 
     year may not be obligated or expended to acquire any interest 
     in lands or water unless the lands or water were included in 
     a list of acquisitions that is approved by the Congress.
       ``(2) Transmission of list.--(A) The Secretary of the 
     Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall jointly 
     transmit to the appropriate authorizing and appropriations 
     committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate for 
     each fiscal year, by no later than the submission of the 
     budget for the fiscal year under section 1105 of title 31, 
     United States Code, a list of the acquisitions of interests 
     in lands and water proposed to be made with the Federal 
     portion for the fiscal year.
       ``(B) In preparing each list under subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(i) seek to consolidate Federal landholdings in States 
     with checkerboard Federal land ownership patterns;
       ``(ii) consider the use of equal value land exchanges, 
     where feasible and suitable, as an alternative means of land 
     acquisition;
       ``(iii) consider the use of permanent conservation 
     easements, where feasible and suitable, as an alternative 
     means of acquisition;
       ``(iv) identify those properties that are proposed to be 
     acquired from willing sellers and specify any for which 
     adverse condemnation is requested; and
       ``(v) establish priorities based on such factors as 
     important or special resource attributes, threats to resource 
     integrity, timely availability, owner hardship, cost 
     escalation, public recreation use values, and similar 
     considerations.
       ``(C) The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall each--
       ``(i) transmit, with the list transmitted under 
     subparagraph (A), a separate list of those lands under the 
     administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary that have been 
     identified in applicable land management plans as surplus and 
     eligible for disposal as provided for by law; and
       ``(ii) update each list to be Indian transmitted under 
     clause (i) as land management plans are amended or revised.
       ``(3) Information regarding proposed acquisitions.--Each 
     list under paragraph (2)(A) shall include, for each proposed 
     acquisition included in the list--
       ``(A) citation of the statutory authority for the 
     acquisition, if such authority exists; and
       ``(B) an explanation of why the particular interest 
     proposed to be acquired was selected.
       ``(f) Notification to Affected Areas Required.--The Federal 
     portion for a fiscal year may not be used to acquire any 
     interest in land unless the Secretary administering the 
     acquisition, by not later than 30 days after the date the 
     Secretaries submit the list under subsection (e)(2)(A) for 
     the fiscal year, provides notice of the proposed 
     acquisition--
       ``(1) in writing to each Member of and each Delegate and 
     Resident Commissioner to the Congress elected to represent 
     any area in which is located--
       ``(A) the land; or
       ``(B) any part of any federally designated unit that 
     includes the land;
       ``(2) in writing to the Governor of the State in which the 
     land is located;
       ``(3) in writing to each State political subdivision having 
     jurisdiction over the land; and
       ``(4) by publication of a notice in a newspaper that is 
     widely distributed in the area under the jurisdiction of each 
     such State political subdivision, that includes a clear 
     statement that the Federal Government intends to acquire an 
     interest in land.
       ``(g) Compliance With Requirements Under Federal Laws.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Federal portion for a fiscal year 
     may not be used to acquire any interest in land or water 
     unless the following have occurred:
       ``(A) All actions required under Federal law with respect 
     to the acquisition have been complied with.
       ``(B) A copy of each final environmental impact statement 
     or environmental assessment required by law, and a summary of 
     all public comments regarding the acquisition that have been 
     received by the agency making the acquisition, are submitted 
     to the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate, and the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives and of the Senate.
       ``(C) A notice of the availability of such statement or 
     assessment and of such summary is provided to--
       ``(i) each Member of and each Delegate and Resident 
     Commissioner to the Congress elected to represent the area in 
     which the land is located;
       ``(ii) the Governor of the State in which the land is 
     located; and
       ``(iii) each State political subdivision having 
     jurisdiction over the land.
       ``(2) Limitation on application.--Paragraph (1) shall not 
     apply to any acquisition that is specifically authorized by a 
     Federal law.''.

     SEC. 206. ALLOCATION OF AMOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR STATE PURPOSES.

       (a) In General.--Section 6(b) (16 U.S.C. 460l-8(b)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Distribution Among the States.--(1) Sums in the fund 
     available each fiscal year for State purposes shall be 
     apportioned among the several States by the Secretary, in 
     accordance with this subsection. The determination of the 
     apportionment by the Secretary shall be final.
       ``(2) Subject to paragraph (3), of sums in the fund 
     available each fiscal year for State purposes--
       ``(A) 30 percent shall be apportioned equally among the 
     several States; and
       ``(B) 70 percent shall be apportioned so that the ratio 
     that the amount apportioned to each State under this 
     subparagraph bears to the total amount apportioned under this 
     subparagraph for the fiscal year is equal to the ratio that 
     the population of the State bears to the total population of 
     all States.
       ``(3) The total allocation to an individual State for a 
     fiscal year under paragraph (2) shall not exceed 10 percent 
     of the total amount allocated to the several States under 
     paragraph (2) for that fiscal year.
       ``(4) The Secretary shall notify each State of its 
     apportionment, and the amounts thereof shall be available 
     thereafter to the State for planning, acquisition, or 
     development projects as hereafter described. Any amount of 
     any apportionment under this subsection that has not been 
     paid or obligated by the Secretary during the fiscal year in 
     which such notification is given and the two fiscal years 
     thereafter shall be reapportioned by the Secretary in 
     accordance with paragraph (2), but without regard to the 10 
     percent limitation to an individual State specified in 
     paragraph (3).
       ``(5)(A) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(A)--
       ``(i) the District of Columbia shall be treated as a State; 
     and
       ``(ii) Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American 
     Samoa--
       ``(I) shall be treated collectively as one State; and
       ``(II) shall each be allocated an equal share of any amount 
     distributed to them pursuant to clause (i).
       ``(B) Each of the areas referred to in subparagraph (A) 
     shall be treated as a State for all other purposes of this 
     Act.''.

[[Page 7554]]

       (b) Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations.--Section 6(b)(5) 
     (16 U.S.C. 460l-8(b)(5)) is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) For the purposes of paragraph (1), all federally 
     recognized Indian tribes, or in the case of Alaska, Native 
     Corporations (as defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native 
     Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602)), shall be eligible to 
     receive shares of the apportionment under paragraph (1) in 
     accordance with a competitive grant program established by 
     the Secretary by rule. The total apportionment available to 
     such tribes, or in the case of Alaska, Native Corporations 
     shall be equivalent to the amount available to a single 
     State. No single tribe, nor in the case of Alaska, Native 
     Corporation shall receive a grant that constitutes more than 
     10 percent of the total amount made available to all tribes 
     and Alaska Native Corporations pursuant to the apportionment 
     under paragraph (1). Funds received by a tribe, or in the 
     case of Alaska, Native Corporation under this subparagraph 
     may be expended only for the purposes specified in paragraphs 
     (1) and (3) of subsection (a).''.
       (c) Local Allocation.--Section 6(b) (16 U.S.C. 460l-8(b)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Absent some compelling and annually documented reason 
     to the contrary acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior, 
     each State (other than an area treated as a State under 
     paragraph (5)) shall make available as grants to local 
     governments, at least 50 percent of the annual State 
     apportionment, or an equivalent amount made available from 
     other sources.''.

     SEC. 207. STATE PLANNING.

       (a) State Action Agenda Required.--
       (1) In general.--Section 6(d) (16 U.S.C. 460l-8(d)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) State Action Agenda Required.--(1) Each State may 
     define its own priorities and criteria for selection of 
     outdoor conservation and recreation acquisition and 
     development projects eligible for grants under this Act, so 
     long as the priorities and criteria defined by the State are 
     consistent with the purposes of this Act, the State provides 
     for public involvement in this process, and the State 
     publishes an accurate and current State Action Agenda for 
     Community Conservation and Recreation (in this Act referred 
     to as the `State Action Agenda') indicating the needs it has 
     identified and the priorities and criteria it has 
     established. In order to assess its needs and establish its 
     overall priorities, each State, in partnership with its local 
     governments and Federal agencies, and in consultation with 
     its citizens, shall develop, within 5 years after the 
     enactment of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000, a 
     State Action Agenda that meets the following requirements:
       ``(A) The agenda must be strategic, originating in broad-
     based and long-term needs, but focused on actions that can be 
     funded over the next 5 years.
       ``(B) The agenda must be updated at least once every 5 
     years and certified by the Governor that the State Action 
     Agenda conclusions and proposed actions have been considered 
     in an active public involvement process.
       ``(2) State Action Agendas shall take into account all 
     providers of conservation and recreation lands within each 
     State, including Federal, regional, and local government 
     resources, and shall be correlated whenever possible with 
     other State, regional, and local plans for parks, recreation, 
     open space, and wetlands conservation. Recovery action 
     programs developed by urban localities under section 1007 of 
     the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 shall be 
     used by a State as a guide to the conclusions, priorities, 
     and action schedules contained in State Action Agenda. Each 
     State shall assure that any requirements for local outdoor 
     conservation and recreation planning, promulgated as 
     conditions for grants, minimize redundancy of local efforts 
     by allowing, wherever possible, use of the findings, 
     priorities, and implementation schedules of recovery action 
     programs to meet such requirements.''.
       (2) Existing state plans.--Comprehensive State Plans 
     developed by any State under section 6(d) of the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 before the date that is 5 
     years after the enactment of this Act shall remain in effect 
     in that State until a State Action Agenda has been adopted 
     pursuant to the amendment made by this subsection, but no 
     later than 5 years after the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Miscellaneous.--Section 6(e) (16 U.S.C. 460l-8(e)) is 
     amended as follows:
       (1) In the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``State comprehensive plan'' and inserting ``State Action 
     Agenda''.
       (2) In paragraph (1) by striking ``comprehensive plan'' and 
     inserting ``State Action Agenda''.

     SEC. 208. ASSISTANCE TO STATES FOR OTHER PROJECTS.

       Section 6(e) (16 U.S.C. 460l-8(e)) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e)(1) by striking ``, but not including 
     incidental costs relating to acquisition''; and
       (2) in subsection (e)(2) by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``or to enhance public safety within a 
     designated park or recreation area''.

     SEC. 209. CONVERSION OF PROPERTY TO OTHER USE.

       Section 6(f)(3) (16 U.S.C. 460l-8(f)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``No property''; and
       (2) by striking the second sentence and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) The Secretary shall approve such conversion only if 
     the State demonstrates no prudent or feasible alternative 
     exists with the exception of those properties that no longer 
     meet the criteria within the State Plan or Agenda as an 
     outdoor conservation and recreation facility due to changes 
     in demographics or that must be abandoned because of 
     environmental contamination which endangers public health and 
     safety. Any conversion must satisfy such conditions as the 
     Secretary deems necessary to assure the substitution of other 
     conservation and recreation properties of at least equal fair 
     market value and reasonably equivalent usefulness and 
     location and which are consistent with the existing State 
     Plan or Agenda; except that wetland areas and interests 
     therein as identified in the wetlands provisions of the 
     action agenda and proposed to be acquired as suitable 
     replacement property within that same State that is otherwise 
     acceptable to the Secretary shall be considered to be of 
     reasonably equivalent usefulness with the property proposed 
     for conversion.''.

     SEC. 210. WATER RIGHTS.

       Title I is amended by adding at the end the following:


                             ``water rights

       ``Sec. 14. Nothing in this title--
       ``(1) invalidates or preempts State or Federal water law or 
     an interstate compact governing water;
       ``(2) alters the rights of any State to any appropriated 
     share of the waters of any body of surface or ground water, 
     whether determined by past or future interstate compacts or 
     by past or future legislative or final judicial allocations;
       ``(3) preempts or modifies any Federal or State law, or 
     interstate compact, dealing with water quality or disposal; 
     or
       ``(4) confers on any non-Federal entity the ability to 
     exercise any Federal right to the waters of any stream or to 
     any ground water resource.''.

            TITLE III--WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION

     SEC. 301. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this title are--
       (1) to extend financial and technical assistance to the 
     States under the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act for 
     the benefit of a diverse array of wildlife and associated 
     habitats, including species that are not hunted or fished, to 
     fulfill unmet needs of wildlife within the States in 
     recognition of the primary role of the States to conserve all 
     wildlife;
       (2) to assure sound conservation policies through the 
     development, revision, and implementation of a comprehensive 
     wildlife conservation and restoration plan;
       (3) to encourage State fish and wildlife agencies to 
     participate with the Federal Government, other State 
     agencies, wildlife conservation organizations, Indian tribes, 
     and in the case of Alaska, Alaska Native Corporations, and 
     outdoor recreation and conservation interests through 
     cooperative planning and implementation of this title; and
       (4) to encourage State fish and wildlife agencies to 
     provide for public involvement in the process of development 
     and implementation of a wildlife conservation and restoration 
     program.

     SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Reference to Law.--In this title, the term ``Federal 
     Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act'' means the Act of September 
     2, 1937 (16 U.S.C. 669 and following), commonly referred to 
     as the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act or the 
     Pittman-Robertson Act.
       (b) Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program.--Section 
     2 of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 
     669a) is amended by inserting after ``shall be construed'' 
     the first place it appears the following: ``to include the 
     wildlife conservation and restoration program and''.
       (c) State Agencies.--Section 2 of the Federal Aid in 
     Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669a) is amended by 
     inserting ``or State fish and wildlife department'' after 
     ``State fish and game department''.
       (d) Definitions.--Section 2 of the Federal Aid in Wildlife 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669a) is amended by striking the 
     period at the end thereof, substituting a semicolon, and 
     adding the following: ``the term `conservation' shall be 
     construed to mean the use of methods and procedures necessary 
     or desirable to sustain healthy populations of wildlife 
     including all activities associated with scientific resources 
     management such as research, census, monitoring of 
     populations, acquisition, improvement and management of 
     habitat, live trapping and transplantation, wildlife damage 
     management, and periodic or total protection of a species or 
     population as well as the taking of individuals within 
     wildlife stock or population if permitted by applicable State 
     and Federal law; the term `wildlife conservation and 
     restoration program' means a program developed by a State 
     fish and wildlife department

[[Page 7555]]

     and approved by the Secretary under section 4(d), the 
     projects that constitute such a program, which may be 
     implemented in whole or part through grants and contracts by 
     a State to other State, Federal, or local agencies (including 
     those that gather, evaluate, and disseminate information on 
     wildlife and their habitats), wildlife conservation 
     organizations, and outdoor recreation and conservation 
     education entities from funds apportioned under this title, 
     and maintenance of such projects; the term `wildlife' shall 
     be construed to mean any species of wild, free-ranging fauna 
     including fish, and also fauna in captive breeding programs 
     the object of which is to reintroduce individuals of a 
     depleted indigenous species into previously occupied range; 
     the term `wildlife-associated recreation' shall be construed 
     to mean projects intended to meet the demand for outdoor 
     activities associated with wildlife including, but not 
     limited to, hunting and fishing, wildlife observation and 
     photography, such projects as construction or restoration of 
     wildlife viewing areas, observation towers, blinds, 
     platforms, land and water trails, water access, trail heads, 
     and access for such projects; and the term `wildlife 
     conservation education' shall be construed to mean projects, 
     including public outreach, intended to foster responsible 
     natural resource stewardship.''.

     SEC. 303. TREATMENT OF AMOUNTS TRANSFERRED FROM CONSERVATION 
                   AND REINVESTMENT ACT FUND.

       Section 3 of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 669b) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)'', 
     and by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) There is established in the Federal aid to wildlife 
     restoration fund a subaccount to be known as the `wildlife 
     conservation and restoration account'. Amounts transferred to 
     the fund for a fiscal year under section 5(b)(3) of the 
     Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000 shall be deposited 
     in the subaccount and shall be available without further 
     appropriation, in each fiscal year, for apportionment in 
     accordance with this Act to carry out State wildlife 
     conservation and restoration programs.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Amounts transferred to the fund from the Conservation 
     and Reinvestment Act Fund and apportioned under subsection 
     (a)(2) shall supplement, but not replace, existing funds 
     available to the States from the sport fish restoration 
     account and wildlife restoration account and shall be used 
     for the development, revision, and implementation of wildlife 
     conservation and restoration programs and should be used to 
     address the unmet needs for a diverse array of wildlife and 
     associated habitats, including species that are not hunted or 
     fished, for wildlife conservation, wildlife conservation 
     education, and wildlife-associated recreation projects. Such 
     funds may be used for new programs and projects as well as to 
     enhance existing programs and projects.
       ``(d)(1) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of this 
     section, with respect to amounts transferred to the fund from 
     the Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund so much of such 
     amounts as is apportioned to any State for any fiscal year 
     and as remains unexpended at the close thereof shall remain 
     available for expenditure in that State until the close of--
       ``(A) the fourth succeeding fiscal year, in the case of 
     amounts transferred in any of the first 10 fiscal years 
     beginning after the date of enactment of the Conservation and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2000; or
       ``(B) the second succeeding fiscal year, in the case of 
     amounts transferred in a fiscal year beginning after the 10-
     fiscal-year period referred to in subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Any amount apportioned to a State under this 
     subsection that is unexpended or unobligated at the end of 
     the period during which it is available under paragraph (1) 
     shall be reapportioned to all States during the succeeding 
     fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 304. APPORTIONMENT OF AMOUNTS TRANSFERRED FROM 
                   CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT FUND.

       (a) In General.--Section 4 of the Federal Aid in Wildlife 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669c) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Amounts Transferred From Conservation and 
     Reinvestment Act Fund.--(1) The Secretary of the Interior 
     shall make the following apportionment from the amount 
     transferred to the fund from the Conservation and 
     Reinvestment Act Fund for each fiscal year:
       ``(A) To the District of Columbia and to the Commonwealth 
     of Puerto Rico, each a sum equal to not more than \1/2\ of 1 
     percent thereof.
       ``(B) To Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, each a sum 
     equal to not more than \1/6\ of 1 percent thereof.
       ``(2)(A) The Secretary of the Interior, after making the 
     apportionment under paragraph (1), shall apportion the 
     remainder of the amount transferred to the fund from the 
     Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund for each fiscal year 
     among the States in the following manner:
       ``(i) \1/3\ of which is based on the ratio to which the 
     land area of such State bears to the total land area of all 
     such States.
       ``(ii) \2/3\ of which is based on the ratio to which the 
     population of such State bears to the total population of all 
     such States.
       ``(B) The amounts apportioned under this paragraph shall be 
     adjusted equitably so that no such State shall be apportioned 
     a sum which is less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the amount 
     available for apportionment under this paragraph for any 
     fiscal year or more than 5 percent of such amount.
       ``(3) Amounts transferred to the fund from the Conservation 
     and Reinvestment Act Fund shall not be available for any 
     expenses incurred in the administration and execution of 
     programs carried out with such amounts.
       ``(d) Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Programs.--(1) 
     Any State, through its fish and wildlife department, may 
     apply to the Secretary of the Interior for approval of a 
     wildlife conservation and restoration program, or for funds 
     to develop a program. To apply, a State shall submit a 
     comprehensive plan that includes--
       ``(A) provisions vesting in the fish and wildlife 
     department of the State overall responsibility and 
     accountability for the program;
       ``(B) provisions for the development and implementation 
     of--
       ``(i) wildlife conservation projects that expand and 
     support existing wildlife programs, giving appropriate 
     consideration to all wildlife;
       ``(ii) wildlife-associated recreation projects; and
       ``(iii) wildlife conservation education projects pursuant 
     to programs under section 8(a); and
       ``(C) provisions to ensure public participation in the 
     development, revision, and implementation of projects and 
     programs required under this paragraph.
       ``(2) A State shall provide an opportunity for public 
     participation in the development of the comprehensive plan 
     required under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) If the Secretary finds that the comprehensive plan 
     submitted by a State complies with paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall approve the wildlife conservation and 
     restoration program of the State and set aside from the 
     apportionment to the State made pursuant to subsection (c) an 
     amount that shall not exceed 75 percent of the estimated cost 
     of developing and implementing the program.
       ``(4)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), after the 
     Secretary approves a State's wildlife conservation and 
     restoration program, the Secretary may make payments on a 
     project that is a segment of the State's wildlife 
     conservation and restoration program as the project 
     progresses. Such payments, including previous payments on the 
     project, if any, shall not be more than the United States pro 
     rata share of such project. The Secretary, under such 
     regulations as he may prescribe, may advance funds 
     representing the United States pro rata share of a project 
     that is a segment of a wildlife conservation and restoration 
     program, including funds to develop such program.
       ``(B) Not more than 10 percent of the amounts apportioned 
     to each State under this section for a State's wildlife 
     conservation and restoration program may be used for 
     wildlife-associated recreation.
       ``(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term `State' 
     shall include the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and 
     the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.''.
       (b) FACA.--Coordination with State fish and wildlife agency 
     personnel or with personnel of other State agencies pursuant 
     to the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act or the Federal 
     Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act shall not be subject to the 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.). Except for 
     the preceding sentence, the provisions of this title relate 
     solely to wildlife conservation and restoration programs and 
     shall not be construed to affect the provisions of the 
     Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act relating to wildlife 
     restoration projects or the provisions of the Federal Aid in 
     Sport Fish Restoration Act relating to fish restoration and 
     management projects.

     SEC. 305. EDUCATION.

       Section 8(a) of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 669g(a)) is amended by adding the following at the 
     end thereof: ``Funds available from the amount transferred to 
     the fund from the Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund may 
     be used for a wildlife conservation education program, except 
     that no such funds may be used for education efforts, 
     projects, or programs that promote or encourage opposition to 
     the regulated taking of wildlife.''.

     SEC. 306. PROHIBITION AGAINST DIVERSION.

       No designated State agency shall be eligible to receive 
     matching funds under this title if sources of revenue 
     available to it after January 1, 1999, for conservation of 
     wildlife are diverted for any purpose other than the 
     administration of the designated State agency, it being the 
     intention of Congress that funds available to States under 
     this title be added to revenues from existing State sources 
     and not serve as a substitute for revenues from such sources. 
     Such revenues shall include interest, dividends, or other 
     income earned on the forgoing.

[[Page 7556]]



    TITLE IV--URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY PROGRAM AMENDMENTS

     SEC. 401. AMENDMENT OF URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY ACT 
                   OF 1978.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act 
     of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501 and following).

     SEC. 402. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this title is to provide a dedicated source 
     of funding to assist local governments in improving their 
     park and recreation systems.

     SEC. 403. TREATMENT OF AMOUNTS TRANSFERRED FROM CONSERVATION 
                   AND REINVESTMENT ACT FUND.

       Section 1013 (16 U.S.C. 2512) is amended to read as 
     follows:


 ``treatment of amounts transferred from conservation and reinvestment 
                                act fund

       ``Sec. 1013. (a) In General.--Amounts transferred to the 
     Secretary of the Interior under section 5(b)(4) of the 
     Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000 in a fiscal year 
     shall be available to the Secretary without further 
     appropriation to carry out this title. Any amount that has 
     not been paid or obligated by the Secretary before the end of 
     the second fiscal year beginning after the first fiscal year 
     in which the amount is available shall be reapportioned by 
     the Secretary among grantees under this title.
       ``(b) Limitations on Annual Grants.--Of the amounts 
     available in a fiscal year under subsection (a)--
       ``(1) not more that 3 percent may be used for grants for 
     the development of local park and recreation recovery action 
     programs pursuant to sections 1007(a) and 1007(c);
       ``(2) not more than 10 percent may be used for innovation 
     grants pursuant to section 1006; and
       ``(3) not more than 15 percent may be provided as grants 
     (in the aggregate) for projects in any one State.
       ``(c) Limitation on Use for Grant Administration.--The 
     Secretary shall establish a limit on the portion of any grant 
     under this title that may be used for grant and program 
     administration.''.

     SEC. 404. AUTHORITY TO DEVELOP NEW AREAS AND FACILITIES.

       Section 1003 (16 U.S.C. 2502) is amended by inserting 
     ``development of new recreation areas and facilities, 
     including the acquisition of lands for such development,'' 
     after ``rehabilitation of critically needed recreation areas, 
     facilities,''.

     SEC. 405. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 1004 (16 U.S.C. 2503) is amended as follows:
       (1) In paragraph (j) by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon.
       (2) In paragraph (k) by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon.
       (3) By adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) `development grants'--
       ``(1) subject to subparagraph (2) means matching capital 
     grants to units of local government to cover costs of 
     development, land acquisition, and construction on existing 
     or new neighborhood recreation sites, including indoor and 
     outdoor recreational areas and facilities, support 
     facilities, and landscaping; and
       ``(2) does not include routine maintenance, and upkeep 
     activities; and
       ``(m) `Secretary' means the Secretary of the Interior.''.

     SEC. 406. ELIGIBILITY.

       Section 1005(a) (16 U.S.C. 2504(a)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) Eligibility of general purpose local governments to 
     compete for assistance under this title shall be based upon 
     need as determined by the Secretary. Generally, eligible 
     general purpose local governments shall include the 
     following:
       ``(1) All political subdivisions of Metropolitan, Primary, 
     or Consolidated Statistical Areas, as determined by the most 
     recent Census.
       ``(2) Any other city, town, or group of cities or towns (or 
     both) within such a Metropolitan Statistical Area, that has a 
     total population of 50,000 or more as determined by the most 
     recent Census.
       ``(3) Any other county, parish, or township with a total 
     population of 250,000 or more as determined by the most 
     recent Census.''.

     SEC. 407. GRANTS.

       Section 1006 (16 U.S.C. 2505) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by redesignating paragraph (3) as 
     paragraph (4); and
       (2) by striking so much as precedes subsection (a)(4) (as 
     so redesignated) and inserting the following:


                                ``grants

       ``Sec. 1006. (a)(1) The Secretary may provide 70 percent 
     matching grants for rehabilitation, development, acquisition, 
     and innovation purposes to any eligible general purpose local 
     government upon approval by the Secretary of an application 
     submitted by the chief executive of such government.
       ``(2) At the discretion of such an applicant, a grant under 
     this section may be transferred in whole or part to 
     independent special purpose local governments, private 
     nonprofit agencies, or county or regional park authorities, 
     if--
       ``(A) such transfer is consistent with the approved 
     application for the grant; and
       ``(B) the applicant provides assurance to the Secretary 
     that the applicant will maintain public recreation 
     opportunities at assisted areas and facilities in accordance 
     with section 1010.
       ``(3) Payments may be made only for those rehabilitation, 
     development, or innovation projects that have been approved 
     by the Secretary. Such payments may be made from time to time 
     in keeping with the rate of progress toward completion of a 
     project, on a reimbursable basis.''.

     SEC. 408. RECOVERY ACTION PROGRAMS.

       Section 1007(a) (16 U.S.C. 2506(a)) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) in the first sentence by inserting 
     ``development,'' after ``commitments to ongoing planning,''; 
     and
       (2) in subsection (a)(2) by inserting ``development and'' 
     after ``adequate planning for''.

     SEC. 409. STATE ACTION INCENTIVES.

       Section 1008 (16 U.S.C. 2507) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before the first 
     sentence; and
       (2) by striking the last sentence of subsection (a) (as 
     designated by paragraph (1) of this section) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(b) Coordination With Land and Water Conservation Fund 
     Activities.--(1) The Secretary and general purpose local 
     governments are encouraged to coordinate preparation of 
     recovery action programs required by this title with State 
     Plans or Agendas required under section 6 of the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, including by allowing 
     flexibility in preparation of recovery action programs so 
     they may be used to meet State and local qualifications for 
     local receipt of Land and Water Conservation Fund grants or 
     State grants for similar purposes or for other conservation 
     or recreation purposes.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall encourage States to consider the 
     findings, priorities, strategies, and schedules included in 
     the recovery action programs of their urban localities in 
     preparation and updating of State plans in accordance with 
     the public coordination and citizen consultation requirements 
     of subsection 6(d) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
     Act of 1965.''.

     SEC. 410. CONVERSION OF RECREATION PROPERTY.

       Section 1010 (16 U.S.C. 2509) is amended to read as 
     follows:


                  ``conversion of recreation property

       ``Sec. 1010. (a)(1) No property developed, acquired, or 
     rehabilitated under this title shall, without the approval of 
     the Secretary, be converted to any purpose other than public 
     recreation purposes.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall apply to--
       ``(A) property developed with amounts provided under this 
     title; and
       ``(B) the park, recreation, or conservation area of which 
     the property is a part.
       ``(b)(1) The Secretary shall approve such conversion only 
     if the grantee demonstrates no prudent or feasible 
     alternative exists.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall apply to property that is no 
     longer a viable recreation facility due to changes in 
     demographics or that must be abandoned because of 
     environmental contamination which endangers public health or 
     safety.
       ``(c) Any conversion must satisfy any conditions the 
     Secretary considers necessary to assure substitution of other 
     recreation property that is--
       ``(1) of at least equal fair market value, and reasonably 
     equivalent usefulness and location; and
       ``(2) in accord with the current recreation recovery action 
     program of the grantee.''.

     SEC. 411. REPEAL.

       Section 1015 (16 U.S.C. 2514) is repealed.

                  TITLE V--HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND

     SEC. 501. TREATMENT OF AMOUNTS TRANSFERRED FROM CONSERVATION 
                   AND REINVESTMENT ACT FUND.

       Section 108 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 
     U.S.C. 470h) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before the first sentence;
       (2) in subsection (a) (as designated by paragraph (1) of 
     this section) by striking all after the first sentence; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Amounts transferred to the Secretary under section 
     5(b)(5) of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000 in a 
     fiscal year shall be deposited into the Fund and shall be 
     available without further appropriation to carry out this 
     Act.
       ``(c) At least \1/2\ of the funds obligated or expended 
     each fiscal year under this Act shall be used in accordance 
     with this Act for preservation projects on historic 
     properties. In making such funds available, the Secretary 
     shall give priority to the preservation of endangered 
     historic properties.''.

     SEC. 502. STATE USE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION ASSISTANCE FOR 
                   NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS AND CORRIDORS.

       Title I of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 
     U.S.C. 470a and following) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 114. STATE USE OF ASSISTANCE FOR NATIONAL HERITAGE 
                   AREAS AND CORRIDORS.

       ``In addition to other uses authorized by this Act, amounts 
     provided to a State under

[[Page 7557]]

     this title may be used by the State to provide financial 
     assistance to the management entity for any national heritage 
     area or national heritage corridor established under the laws 
     of the United States, to support cooperative historic 
     preservation planning and development.''.

             TITLE VI--FEDERAL AND INDIAN LANDS RESTORATION

     SEC. 601. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this title is to provide a dedicated source 
     of funding for a coordinated program on Federal and Indian 
     lands to restore degraded lands, protect resources that are 
     threatened with degradation, and protect public health and 
     safety.

     SEC. 602. TREATMENT OF AMOUNTS TRANSFERRED FROM CONSERVATION 
                   AND REINVESTMENT ACT FUND; ALLOCATION.

       (a) In General.--Amounts transferred to the Secretary of 
     the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture under section 
     5(b)(6) of this Act in a fiscal year shall be available 
     without further appropriation to carry out this title.
       (b) Allocation.--Amounts referred to in subsection (a) year 
     shall be allocated and available as follows:
       (1) Department of the interior.--60 percent shall be 
     allocated and available to the Secretary of the Interior to 
     carry out the purpose of this title on lands within the 
     National Park System, lands within the National Wildlife 
     Refuge System, and public lands administered by the Bureau of 
     Land Management.
       (2) Department of agriculture.--30 percent shall be 
     allocated and available to the Secretary of Agriculture to 
     carry out the purpose of this title on lands within the 
     National Forest System.
       (3) Indian tribes.--10 percent shall be allocated and 
     available to the Secretary of the Interior for competitive 
     grants to qualified Indian tribes under section 603(b).

     SEC. 603. AUTHORIZED USES OF TRANSFERRED AMOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--Funds made available to carry out this 
     title shall be used solely for restoration of degraded lands, 
     resource protection, maintenance activities related to 
     resource protection, or protection of public health or 
     safety.
       (b) Competitive Grants to Indian Tribes.--
       (1) Grant authority.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     administer a competitive grant program for Indian tribes, 
     giving priority to projects based upon the protection of 
     significant resources, the severity of damages or threats to 
     resources, and the protection of public health or safety.
       (2) Limitation.--The amount received for a fiscal year by a 
     single Indian tribe in the form of grants under this 
     subsection may not exceed 10 percent of the total amount 
     available for that fiscal year for grants under this 
     subsection.
       (c) Priority List.--The Secretary of the Interior and the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall each establish priority lists 
     for the use of funds available under this title. Each list 
     shall give priority to projects based upon the protection of 
     significant resources, the severity of damages or threats to 
     resources, and the protection of public health or safety.
       (d) Compliance With Applicable Plans.--Any project carried 
     out on Federal lands with amounts provided under this title 
     shall be carried out in accordance with all management plans 
     that apply under Federal law to the lands.
       (e) Tracking Results.--Not later than the end of the first 
     full fiscal year for which funds are available under this 
     title, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall jointly establish a coordinated program 
     for--
       (1) tracking the progress of activities carried out with 
     amounts made available by this title; and
       (2) determining the extent to which demonstrable results 
     are being achieved by those activities.

     SEC. 604. INDIAN TRIBE DEFINED.

       In this title, the term ``Indian tribe'' means an Indian or 
     Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or 
     community that the Secretary of the Interior recognizes as an 
     Indian tribe under section 104 of the Federally Recognized 
     Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a-1).

 TITLE VII--FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM AND ENDANGERED AND THREATENED 
                            SPECIES RECOVERY

                Subtitle A--Farmland Protection Program

     SEC. 701. ADDITIONAL FUNDING AND ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES UNDER 
                   FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM.

       Section 388 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
     Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-127; 16 U.S.C. 3830 note) 
     is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 388. FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment and Purpose.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall carry out a farmland protection program for 
     the purpose of protecting farm, ranch, and forest lands with 
     prime, unique, or other productive uses by limiting the 
     nonagricultural uses of the lands. Under the program, the 
     Secretary may provide matching grants to eligible entities 
     described in subsection (d) to facilitate their purchase of--
       ``(1) permanent conservation easements in such lands; or
       ``(2) conservation easements or other interests in such 
     lands when the lands are subject to a pending offer from a 
     State or local government.
       ``(b) Conservation Plan.--Any highly erodible land for 
     which a conservation easement or other interest is purchased 
     using funds made available under this section shall be 
     subject to the requirements of a conservation plan that 
     requires, at the option of the Secretary of Agriculture, the 
     conversion of the cropland to less intensive uses.
       ``(c) Maximum Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost 
     of purchasing a conservation easement described in subsection 
     (a)(1) may not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of 
     purchasing the easement.
       ``(d) Eligible Entity Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `eligible entity' means any of the following:
       ``(1) An agency of a State or local government.
       ``(2) A federally recognized Indian tribe.
       ``(3) Any organization that is organized for, and at all 
     times since its formation has been operated principally for, 
     one or more of the conservation purposes specified in clause 
     (i), (ii), or (iii) of section 170(h)(4)(A) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 and--
       ``(A) is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Code;
       ``(B) is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the 
     Code; and
       ``(C) is described in paragraph (2) of section 509(a) of 
     the Code, or paragraph (3) of such section, but is controlled 
     by an organization described in paragraph (2) of such 
     section.
       ``(e) Title; Enforcement.--Any eligible entity may hold 
     title to a conservation easement purchased using grant funds 
     provided under subsection (a)(1) and enforce the conservation 
     requirements of the easement.
       ``(f) State Certification.--As a condition of the receipt 
     by an eligible entity of a grant under subsection (a)(1), the 
     attorney general of the State in which the conservation 
     easement is to be purchased using the grant funds shall 
     certify that the conservation easement to be purchased is in 
     a form that is sufficient, under the laws of the State, to 
     achieve the purposes of the farmland protection program and 
     the terms and conditions of the grant.
       ``(g) Technical Assistance.--To provide technical 
     assistance to carry out this section, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may not use more than 10 percent of the amount 
     made available for any fiscal year under section 702 of the 
     Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000.''.

     SEC. 702. FUNDING.

       (a) Availability.--Amounts transferred to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture under section 5(b)(7) of this Act in a fiscal 
     year shall be available to the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     without further appropriation, to carry out--
       (1) the farmland protection program under section 388 of 
     the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
     (Public Law 104-127; 16 U.S.C. 3830 note), and
       (2) the Forest Legacy Program under section 7 of the 
     Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 
     2103c).
       (b) Minimum Allocation.--Not less than 10 percent of the 
     amounts transferred to the Secretary of Agriculture under 
     section 5(b)(7) of this Act in a fiscal year shall be used 
     for each of the programs referred to in paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) of subsection (a).

         Subtitle B--Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery

     SEC. 711. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this subtitle are the following:
       (1) To provide a dedicated source of funding to the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine 
     Fisheries Service for the purpose of implementing an 
     incentives program to promote the recovery of endangered 
     species and threatened species and the habitat upon which 
     they depend.
       (2) To promote greater involvement by non-Federal entities 
     in the recovery of the Nation's endangered species and 
     threatened species and the habitat upon which they depend.

     SEC. 712. TREATMENT OF AMOUNTS TRANSFERRED FROM CONSERVATION 
                   AND REINVESTMENT ACT FUND.

       Amounts transferred to the Secretary of the Interior under 
     section 5(b)(8) of this Act in a fiscal year shall be 
     available to the Secretary of the Interior without further 
     appropriation to carry out this subtitle.

     SEC. 713. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES RECOVERY 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Financial Assistance.--The Secretary may use amounts 
     made available under section 712 to provide financial 
     assistance to any person for development and implementation 
     of Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Agreements 
     entered into by the Secretary under section 714.
       (b) Priority.--In providing assistance under this section, 
     the Secretary shall give priority to the development and 
     implementation of species recovery agreements that--
       (1) implement actions identified under recovery plans 
     approved by the Secretary under section 4(f) of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(f));
       (2) have the greatest potential for contributing to the 
     recovery of an endangered or threatened species; and
       (3) to the extent practicable, require use of the 
     assistance on land owned by a small landowner.

[[Page 7558]]

       (c) Prohibition on Assistance for Required Activities.--The 
     Secretary may not provide financial assistance under this 
     section for any action that is required by a permit issued 
     under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973 (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)(B)) or an incidental take 
     statement issued under section 7 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1536), or that is otherwise required under that Act or any 
     other Federal law.
       (d) Payments Under Other Programs.--
       (1) Other payments not affected.--Financial assistance 
     provided to a person under this section shall be in addition 
     to, and shall not affect, the total amount of payments that 
     the person is otherwise eligible to receive under the 
     conservation reserve program established under subchapter B 
     of chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831 and following), the wetlands 
     reserve program established under subchapter C of that 
     chapter (16 U.S.C. 3837 and following), or the Wildlife 
     Habitat Incentives Program established under section 387 of 
     the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
     (16 U.S.C. 3836a).
       (2) Limitation.--A person may not receive financial 
     assistance under this section to carry out activities under a 
     species recovery agreement in addition to payments under the 
     programs referred to in paragraph (1) made for the same 
     activities, if the terms of the species recovery agreement do 
     not require financial or management obligations by the person 
     in addition to any such obligations of the person under such 
     programs.

     SEC. 714. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES RECOVERY 
                   AGREEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may enter into Endangered 
     and Threatened Species Recovery Agreements for purposes of 
     this subtitle in accordance with this section.
       (b) Required Terms.--The Secretary shall include in each 
     species recovery agreement provisions that--
       (1) require the person--
       (A) to carry out on real property owned or leased by the 
     person activities not otherwise required by law that 
     contribute to the recovery of an endangered or threatened 
     species;
       (B) to refrain from carrying out on real property owned or 
     leased by the person otherwise lawful activities that would 
     inhibit the recovery of an endangered or threatened species; 
     or
       (C) to do any combination of subparagraphs (A) and (B);
       (2) describe the real property referred to in paragraph 
     (1)(A) and (B) (as applicable);
       (3) specify species recovery goals for the agreement, and 
     measures for attaining such goals;
       (4) require the person to make measurable progress each 
     year in achieving those goals, including a schedule for 
     implementation of the agreement;
       (5) specify actions to be taken by the Secretary or the 
     person (or both) to monitor the effectiveness of the 
     agreement in attaining those recovery goals;
       (6) require the person to notify the Secretary if--
       (A) any right or obligation of the person under the 
     agreement is assigned to any other person; or
       (B) any term of the agreement is breached by the person or 
     any other person to whom is assigned a right or obligation of 
     the person under the agreement;
       (7) specify the date on which the agreement takes effect 
     and the period of time during which the agreement shall 
     remain in effect;
       (8) provide that the agreement shall not be in effect on 
     and after any date on which the Secretary publishes a 
     certification by the Secretary that the person has not 
     complied with the agreement; and
       (9) allocate financial assistance provided under this 
     subtitle for implementation of the agreement, on an annual or 
     other basis during the period the agreement is in effect 
     based on the schedule for implementation required under 
     paragraph (4).
       (c) Review and Approval of Proposed Agreements.--Upon 
     submission by any person of a proposed species recovery 
     agreement under this section, the Secretary--
       (1) shall review the proposed agreement and determine 
     whether it complies with the requirements of this section and 
     will contribute to the recovery of endangered or threatened 
     species that are the subject of the proposed agreement;
       (2) propose to the person any additional provisions 
     necessary for the agreement to comply with this section; and
       (3) if the Secretary determines that the agreement complies 
     with the requirements of this section, shall approve and 
     enter with the person into the agreement.
       (d) Monitoring Implementation of Agreements.--The Secretary 
     shall--
       (1) periodically monitor the implementation of each species 
     recovery agreement entered into by the Secretary under this 
     section; and
       (2) based on the information obtained from that monitoring, 
     annually or otherwise disburse financial assistance under 
     this subtitle to implement the agreement as the Secretary 
     determines is appropriate under the terms of the agreement.

     SEC. 715. DEFINITIONS.

       In this subtitle:
       (1) Endangered or threatened species.--The term 
     ``endangered or threatened species'' means any species that 
     is listed as an endangered species or threatened species 
     under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1533).
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, in accordance 
     with section 3 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1532).
       (3) Small landowner.--The term ``small landowner'' means an 
     individual who owns 50 acres or fewer of land.
       (4) Species recovery agreement.--The term ``species 
     recovery agreement'' means an Endangered and Threatened 
     Species Recovery Agreement entered into by the Secretary 
     under section 714.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No amendment to that amendment is in order 
except those printed in House Report 106-612. Each amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered 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.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes 
the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately follows 
another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first question 
shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 106-612.


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

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

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Young of Alaska:
       Page 21, line 9, strike ``for the'' and all that follows 
     down through ``period'' in line 13.
       Page 21, line 24, strike ``for the 5-year period 
     concerned''.
       Page 25, strike lines 11 through 15 and insert:
       ``(B) A program for the implementation of the plan which 
     shall include (i) a description of how the plan will address 
     environmental concerns, (ii) for producing States, a 
     description of how funds will be used to address the impacts 
     of oil and gas production from the Outer Continental Shelf, 
     and (iii) a description of how the State will evaluate the 
     effectiveness of the plan.
       Page 26, line 18, after ``used'' insert ``in compliance 
     with Federal and State law''.
       Page 33, line 22, strike ``Indian''.
       Page 39, line 11, strike ``paragraphs'' and insert 
     ``clauses''.
       Page 39, after line 21, insert:
       (d) State Projects of Regional or National Significance.--
     Section 6(b) (16 U.S.C. 460l-8(b)) is amended by adding the 
     following at the end:
       ``(7)(A) Any amounts available in addition to those amounts 
     made available under section 5 of the Conservation and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2000 in a fiscal year shall be available 
     without further appropriation to the Secretary of the 
     Interior to be distributed among the several States under a 
     competitive grant program for State projects as authorized 
     under section 6(e)(1) of national or regional significance 
     involving one or more States.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall award grants only to projects 
     that would conserve open space and either conserve wildlife 
     habitat, protect water quality, or otherwise enhance the 
     environment, or that would protect areas that have historic 
     or cultural value. The Secretary shall give preference to 
     projects that would be most likely to have the greatest 
     benefit to the environment regionally or nationally and would 
     maintain or enhance recreational opportunities.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It eliminates the 
incentives claim. It more clearly defines the State plan within title 
I, and ensures the coastal impact assistance uses adhere to the State 
and Federal laws. It creates a multi-State competitive

[[Page 7559]]

grant program. It removes a typo error within title II. It clarifies a 
provision within title II.
  It is supported by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone). The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) 
and I have agreed to this amendment, and it is in the manager's 
substitute. I urge the passage of the legislation.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Young 
amendment. This amendment is being offered by Mr. Young on behalf of 
Congressmen Miller, Tauzin, Dingell, John, Markey, Pallone, and me. It 
reflects an agreement worked out in painstaking negotiations among the 
staffs on the amendment sponsors. I greatly appreciate the time and 
effort the sponsors of the bill were willing to put into this 
compromise, which I think is to everyone's advantage, and, more 
importantly, to the public's advantage.
  The amendment makes three sets of reasonable improvements in the 
bill, which are in keeping with statements the bill's sponsors have 
been saying about the bill all along.
  First, the sponsors have said again and again that this bill is 
designed to be neutral on the issue of off-shore oil drilling, creating 
neither incentives nor disincentives. This amendment will ensure that 
that is the case. By freezing the formula in Title I as of the date of 
enactment, we remove any chance that states or counties will push for 
more drilling in order to increase their share of Title I monies.
  Second, the sponsors have said again and again that the expenditure 
of Title I money should help, not harm the environment. This amendment 
will help ensure that states explicitly address environmental concerns 
in their plans and that those plans comply with state and federal law. 
Moreover, we ask states to think about how they will evaluate the 
success of their plans--something that should appeal to all of us who 
believe in promoting a ``second generation'' of environmental 
protection that will look at actual environmental impacts not just 
inputs like spending.
  Third, the bill's sponsors have said again and again that they want 
to help states provide recreational opportunities for their citizens. 
This amendment will help states do that, as well as protect open space 
and natural resources by setting up a competitive grant program for 
those purposes. We still need to find funding for this important 
program, but we have at least made clear that this program should be 
part of any final CARA bill.
  Again, this is a good amendment on which all of us have worked hard. 
It is supported by all the sponsors of CARA as well as by all the 
elements of the environmental community. I urge its overwhelming 
purpose.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, at this point I submit the extraneous 
materials to which I referred in my previous remarks.

  Amendments to H.R. 701, as Reported, Offered by Mr. Boehlert of New 
                                  York

                (Page and line nos. refer to H.R. 4377)

       Page 9, line 20, strike ``$1,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$900,000,000''.
       Page 11, after line 2, add the following new paragraph:
       ``(9) $100,000,000 to the Secretary of the Interior to 
     carry out title VIII of this Act.''.
       Page 11, line 6, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(9)''.
       Page 20, line 15, strike ``50 percent'' and insert ``41 
     percent''.
       Page 20, line 18, strike ``25 percent'' and insert ``28 
     percent''.
       Page 20, line 22, strike ``25 percent'' and insert ``31 
     percent''.
       Page 21, strike line 1 and all that follows down through 
     line 5 on page 22, insert the following:
       ``(2) Offshore outer continental shelf share.--(A) If any 
     portion of a producing State lies within a distance of 200 
     miles from the geographic center of any leased tract, the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall determine such State's 
     allocable share under paragraph (1)(A) based on the formula 
     set forth in this paragraph.
       ``(B) Each such State's allocable share of the revenues 
     disbursed under paragraph (1)(A) shall be inversely 
     proportional to the distance between the nearest point on the 
     coastline of such State and the geographic center of each 
     leased tract or portion of the leased tract (to the nearest 
     whole mile) that is within 200 miles of that coastline.
       ``(C) If a State's allocable share under paragraph (1)(A) 
     exceeds 35 percent of the revenues to be disbursed under 
     paragraph (1)(A), the amount from such State which exceeds 
     this limit shall be reallocated among the other States 
     eligible under this paragraph in proportion to the amounts 
     they received under the initial allocation under this 
     paragraph.
       ``(D) Each State's allocable share under paragraph (1)(A) 
     shall be calculated as of the date of the enactment of this 
     Act and shall apply for each fiscal year in which States 
     receive funds under this title.
       ``(E) In applying this paragraph, a leased tract or portion 
     of a leased tract shall be excluded if the tract or portion 
     is located in a geographic area subject to a leasing 
     moratorium on January 1, 1999, unless the lease was issued 
     prior to the establishment of the moratorium and was in 
     production on January 1, 1999.
       ``(3) Maximum State share.--
       ``(A) In general.--The allocable share of revenues 
     determined by the Secretary under this subsection for each 
     coastal State with a total population less than 6,000,000 
     shall not be more in any fiscal year than 12 \2/9\ percent of 
     the total amount of the revenues transferred by the Secretary 
     of the Treasury to the Secretary of the Interior for the 
     purposes of this title for that fiscal year under subsection 
     (a).
       ``(B) Recomputation.--Where one or more coastal States' 
     allocable shares, as computed under paragraphs (1) and (2), 
     are decreased by any amount under this paragraph, the 
     allocable share for all other coastal States shall be 
     recomputed and increased by such amounts so that not more 
     than 100 percent of the amount transferred by the Secretary 
     of the Treasury to the Secretary of the Interior for purposes 
     of this title for that fiscal year under section 5(b)(1) is 
     allocated to all coastal States. The increase shall be 
     divided equally among such other coastal States.
       Page 22 line 6, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       Page 22, line 7, strike ``The'' and insert ``After applying 
     the maximum share provisions of paragraph (3) to all coastal 
     States, the''.
       Page 22, line 14, strike ``0.50'' and insert ``5/9''.
       Page 22, line 20, strike ``0.25'' and insert ``5/18''.
       Page 23, line 1, after ``States''' insert ``(except for 
     those that have had their allocable share reduced under 
     paragraph (3)(B))''
       Page 23, strike line 10 and all that follows down through 
     line 3 on page 24 and redesignate subsection (d) on line 4 of 
     page 24 as subsection (c).
       Page 24, line 5, strike ``and coastal political 
     subdivisions''.
       Page 24, beginning in line 15, strike ``In the case of'' 
     and all that follows down through the period on line 18 and 
     insert ``The Governor shall work with coastal political 
     subdivisions in developing the plan and may disburse funds to 
     those subdivisions as part of the plan.''.
       Page 25, strike line 11 and all that follows down through 
     line 15 and insert:
       ``(B) A program for the implementation of the plan, which 
     shall include a description of how the plan will improve the 
     environment and a program for determining whether the plan is 
     having its intended effects.''.
       Page 26, strike line 15 and all that follows down through 
     line 9 on page 28 and insert:
       (c) Authorized Uses of State Grant Funding.--Except as 
     provided in subsection (d), the funds provided under this 
     title are authorized to be used only to improve the coastal 
     and ocean environment by preserving, protecting, managing, 
     and, where possible, restoring and enhancing coastal, marine, 
     estuarine, and Great Lakes resources, including habitats, 
     living marine resources, shorelines, and water quality 
     through the following activities:
       (1) Preparation, coordination, or implementation of 
     federally or State-approved coastal, estuarine, or marine 
     comprehensive conservation, or resource management plans or 
     programs.
       (2) The conservation, restoration, enhancement, or creation 
     of marine, coastal, or estuarine habitats.
       (3) The protection, conservation, or enhancement of coastal 
     or estuarine shorelines, including natural protective 
     features such as beaches, dunes, coral reefs, wetlands, or 
     barrier islands.
       (4) Preparation, coordination, or implementation of 
     comprehensive fishery, marine mammal, avian, or other living 
     marine resource management plans, including ratified 
     interstate or international agreements and fishery observer 
     programs.
       (5) Identification, prevention, management, and control of 
     invasive exotic and nonindigenous species.
       (6) Data collection, research, monitoring, or other 
     assessments, including population surveys, relating to 
     fisheries, avian species, marine mammals, or other living 
     marine resources, or to coastal, estuarine, marine, and Great 
     Lakes resources or habitats.
       (7) Observations necessary to develop and implement real 
     time tide and current measurement systems.
       (8) Projects that promote research, education, training, 
     and advisory services in fields related to activities 
     authorized by this subsection.
       (9) Enforcement of Federal, State, or local marine, 
     coastal, and estuarine resource management statutes.
       (d) Authorized Use of State Grant Funding in Producing 
     States.--In addition to the uses authorized in subsection 
     (c), a producing State may use up to 10 percent of the funds 
     provided under this title each year to mitigate the impacts 
     of Outer Continental Shelf activities, including impacts on 
     onshore infrastructure.
       Page 28, line 10, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.

[[Page 7560]]

       Page 31, line 10, strike ``The'' and insert ``(A) Except as 
     provided in subparagraph (B), the''.
       Page 31, after line 17, insert the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(B) Remaining funds.--If, for any fiscal year, the Acts 
     making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and 
     the Department of Agriculture for that fiscal year have not 
     approved in accordance with subparagraph (A), by the date 90 
     days after the commencement of such fiscal year, the full 
     amount of the Federal portion, the President may obligate and 
     expend the remaining funds for projects on the list submitted 
     under subsection (e). No later than 180 days after the 
     commencement of the fiscal year, the President shall submit 
     to the Congress a list of the specific projects he intends to 
     fund, and no funds shall be expended until 120 days after 
     that list has been submitted.''.
       Page 31, line 24, strike the period and insert ``or is 
     undertaken pursuant to paragraph (1)(B).''.
       Page 53, line 19, strike the closing quotation marks and 
     after line 19, insert the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Wildlife Conservation Strategy.--Any State that 
     receives an apportionment pursuant to section 4(c) shall 
     within 5 years of the date of the initial apportionment 
     develop and begin implementation of a wildlife conservation 
     strategy based upon the best available and appropriate 
     scientific information and data that--
       ``(1) uses such information on the distribution and 
     abundance of species of wildlife, including low population 
     and declining species as the State fish and wildlife 
     department deems appropriate, that are indicative of the 
     diversity and health of wildlife of the State;
       ``(2) identifies the extent and condition of wildlife 
     habitats and community types essential to the conservation of 
     species identified under paragraph (1);
       ``(3) identifies the problems which may adversely affect 
     the species identified under paragraph (1) or their habitats, 
     and provides for priority research and surveys to identify 
     factors which may assist in restoration and more effective 
     conservation of such species and their habitats;
       ``(4) determines those actions which should be taken to 
     conserve the species identified under paragraph (1) and their 
     habitats, and establishes priorities for implementing such 
     conservation actions;
       ``(5) provides for periodic monitoring of species 
     identified under paragraph (1) and their habitats and the 
     effectiveness of the conservation actions determined under 
     paragraph (4), and for adapting conservation actions as 
     appropriate to respond to new information or changing 
     conditions;
       ``(6) provides for the review of the State wildlife 
     conservation strategy and, if appropriate, revision at 
     intervals of not more than 10 years; and
       ``(7) provides for coordination to the extent feasible by 
     the State fish and wildlife department, during the 
     development, implementation, review, and revision of the 
     wildlife conservation strategy, with Federal, State, and 
     local agencies and Indian tribes that manage significant 
     areas of land or water within the State, or administer 
     programs that significantly affect the conservation of 
     species identified under paragraph (1) or their habitats.
       Page 77, after line 22, add the following new title and 
     make the necessary conforming changes in the table of 
     contents:

     TITLE VIII--NON-FEDERAL LANDS OF REGIONAL OR NATIONAL INTEREST

     SEC. 801. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this title is to provide a dedicated source 
     of funding to make grants to help States conserve open space 
     through the purchase of lands and interests in lands that are 
     of regional or national interest.

     SEC. 802. TRANSFER OF FUNDS.

       Amounts transferred to the Secretary of the Interior under 
     section 5(b)(9) of this Act in a fiscal year shall be 
     available without further appropriation, to carry out this 
     title.

     SEC. 803. COMPETITIVE GRANTS TO STATES.

       (a) Grant Authority.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     administer a competitive grant program to assist States in 
     purchasing lands of national or regional significance or in 
     purchasing easements to protect those lands.
       (b) Matching Requirement.--A grant provided under this 
     section shall not cover more than 50 percent of the cost of 
     the purchase of the land or easement.
       (c) Applications.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue and publish 
     in the Federal Register the schedule for the submission of 
     grants and the criteria under which applications for grants 
     under this section shall be evaluated. At a minimum, such 
     criteria shall require that an application--
       (1) be submitted by the Governor of a State, or in the case 
     of a multistate application, by the Governors of all the 
     participating States;
       (2) demonstrate that the matching funds required by 
     subsection (b) will be available;
       (3) demonstrate that the use of the grant will conserve the 
     land being purchased in a manner that will protect the 
     environment; and
       (4) detail what uses of the land will be allowed after the 
     purchase.

     The Secretary may revise the criteria at the beginning of a 
     fiscal year and shall publish any revisions in the Federal 
     Register. Any revised criteria must meet the requirements of 
     this subsection.
       (d) Criteria for Competitive Selection Among Grant 
     Applications.--In carrying out this title, the Secretary 
     shall award grants only to projects that would conserve open 
     space, and would preserve wildlife habitat, protect water 
     quality, or otherwise enhance the environment, or that would 
     protect areas that have historic or cultural value. The 
     Secretary shall give preference to projects that would be 
     most likely to have the greatest impact on the environment 
     regionally or nationally and would protect recreational 
     opportunities.
       (e) Notice to Congress.--In any fiscal year, no funds for 
     grants under this title may be expended until 60 days after 
     the Secretary has submitted to the appropriate authorizing 
     and appropriating Committees of the Congress a list of States 
     receiving awards under this title and a brief description of 
     the project the State will undertake.
                                  ____

                                                   April 13, 2000.
       Dear Representatives Boehlert, Markey, and Pallone: We are 
     writing to thank you for your leadership in offering 
     amendments to H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act 
     (CARA) of 1999 and to offer our enthusiastic support for your 
     amendments package. H.R. 701 provides landmark levels of 
     critically needed funding for land, wildlife, marine, 
     coastal, historic, and cultural conservation needs. Your 
     amendments would move CARA farther down the road to becoming 
     the first substantial conservation bill of the new century.
       Your amendments would make significant improvements to H.R. 
     701 including:
       In Title I, removing many problematic incentives for new 
     offshore oil development, capping the amount of funding that 
     could be used for damaging infrastructure, and better 
     ensuring that the bulk of the funds will be spent on 
     environmentally beneficial projects;
       In Title II, taking needed steps toward ensuring the 
     federal portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund will 
     be spent so that protection of lands in our national parks, 
     wildlife, refuges, forests and other public lands will not be 
     unnecessarily delayed;
       Adding to Title III important strategic planning provisions 
     that have been recommended almost unanimously by wildlife 
     conservation groups; and
       Adding a new competitive grant program that would provide 
     funding for acquisition and easements for non-federal lands 
     of regional or national interest.
       Our organizations will work tirelessly to ensure adoption 
     of your amendments when H.R. 701 is considered on the House 
     floor. Passage of these amendments will ensure that our 
     organizations will be united in support of CARA moving 
     through the House.
       Again, we applaud your leadership in working to obtain 
     these needed fixes to the bill and tremendously appreciate 
     your efforts. We look forward to working with you as H.R. 701 
     moves to the House floor.
           Sincerely,
         Barbara Jeanne Polo, Executive Director, American Oceans 
           Campaign; Roger T. Rufe, Jr., President, Center for 
           Marine Conservation; Rodger Schlickeisen, President, 
           Defenders of Wildlife; Fred Krupp, Executive Director, 
           Environmental Defense; Thomas C. Kiernan, President, 
           National Parks Conservation Association; Richard Moe, 
           President, National Trust for Historic Preservation; 
           Mark Van Putten, President & CEO, National Wildlife 
           Federation; John Adams, President, Natural Resources 
           Defense Council; Meg Maguire, President, Scenic 
           America; Carl Pope, Executive Director, Sierra Club; 
           William H. Meadows, President, The Wilderness Society; 
           Gene Karpinski, Executive Director, U.S. Public 
           Interest Research Group; William M. Eichbaum, Vice 
           President, U.S. Conservation and Global Threats, World 
           Wildlife Fund.
                                  ____



                                    Americans for Our Heritage

                                               and Recreation,

                                                      May 9, 2000.
     Hon. Sherwood Boehlert,
     Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Boehlert: Americans for Our Heritage 
     and Recreation, a national grassroots organization of 
     conservation and civic organizations, park and recreation 
     leaders, urban and open space advocates, and the sporting 
     goods and outdoor recreation industry wants to thank you for 
     your leadership in joining with Representatives Edward Markey 
     and Frank Pallone to seek important environmental 
     improvements to the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA, 
     H.R. 701).
       Through the hard work of House Resources Committee Chairman 
     Don Young, Representative George Miller, and key co-sponsors 
     of the legislation, CARA affords a

[[Page 7561]]

     unique and major opportunity to provide a permanent federal 
     commitment to parks and open space protection through 
     dedicated funding for natural heritage programs, including 
     the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
       As you know, for more than three decades, the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund has been the cornerstone of American 
     conservation and recreation, responsible for more than seven 
     million acres of parkland and 37,000 state and local park and 
     recreation projects. A visionary program, LWCF invests moneys 
     from depleting resources--offshore oil and gas--to fund 
     parks, protect wildlife, and preserve open spaces.
       Given the $12 billion backlog in parks and special places 
     that need immediate protection, we are especially 
     appreciative that your amendments would provide an important 
     assurance for LWCF's federal component that Congress keep its 
     35-year old promise and annually fund the program at its 
     authorized level, and not divert or withhold funding as has 
     been done in years past.
       We also are particularly pleased that your amendments would 
     provide funding to preserve regional lands of national 
     significance, such as the Northern Forest and Mississippi 
     Delta regions, without diminishing the important state and 
     local recreation and open space components of LWCF's state 
     matching grants program.
       Finally, we commend your efforts to ensure that the 
     legislation contains no incentives for offshore oil and gas 
     drilling and that coastal funding is used in a manner that 
     will not harm the environment.
       We look forward to working with you and other Members of 
     Congress to advance your amendment and the improvements to 
     CARA, which it incorporates, and pass a final piece of 
     legislation that truly will preserve our natural heritage and 
     enhance America's quality of life for generations to come.
       Again, many thanks for your leadership.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jane Danowitz,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                League of Conservation Voters,

                                      Washington, DC, May 5, 2000.
     Re: Support the Boehlert (R-NY)/Markey (D-MA)/Pallone (D-NJ) 
         amendments to H.R. 701.

     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: The League of Conservation Voters is 
     the bipartisan, political voice of the national environmental 
     movement. Each year, LCV publishes the National Environmental 
     Scorecard, which details the voting records of members of 
     Congress on environmental legislation. The Scorecard is 
     distributed to LCV members, concerned voters nationwide and 
     the press.
       LCV urges you to support amendments offered by 
     Representatives Boehlert (R-NY), Markey (D-MA), and Pallone 
     (D-NJ) to H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 
     2000. H.R. 701 provides landmark levels of critically needed 
     funding for land, wildlife, marine, coastal, historic, and 
     cultural conservation needs. The Pallone/Boehlert/Markey 
     amendments would help CARA become the first substantial 
     conservation bill of the new century.
       The Markey/Pallone/Boehlert amendments would make 
     significant improvements to H.R. 701 including:
       In Title I, removing many problematic incentives for new 
     offshore oil development, capping the amount of funding that 
     could be used for damaging infrastructure, and better 
     ensuring that the bulk of the funds will be spent on 
     environmentally beneficial projects;
       In Title II, taking needed steps to ensure that the federal 
     portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund will be spent 
     each year to avoid unnecessary delays in the protection of 
     our national parks, wildlife refuges, forests and other 
     public lands;
       Adding to Title III important strategic planning provisions 
     that have been recommended almost unanimously by wildlife 
     conservation groups; and
       Adding a new competitive grant program that would provide 
     funding for acquisition and easements for non-federal lands 
     of regional or national interest.
       The passage of these amendments is key to LCV's support of 
     H.R. 701. We urge you to vote ``yes'' on the Boehlert/Markey/
     Pallone amendments to H.R. 701.
       LCV's Political Advisory Committee will consider including 
     votes on these issues when compiling LCV's 2000 Scorecard. If 
     you need more information, please call Betsy Loyless in my 
     office at 202/785-8683.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Deb Callahan,
     President.
                                  ____



                                    The Trust for Public Land,

                                   Washington, DC, April 13, 2000.
     Hon. Sherwood Boehlert,
     Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Boehlert: I am writing to express the 
     Trust for Public Land's appreciation and my own for your 
     important efforts to advance H.R. 701, the Conservation and 
     Reinvestment Act (CARA), to consideration by the House of 
     Representatives and your constructive approach to addressing 
     the particulars of this landmark conservation bill.
       As you well know, the longstanding constraints on annual 
     funding of such vital programs as the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund (LWCF) and the Forest Legacy Program have 
     placed enormous stresses on federal and nonfederal resource 
     areas, on communities, and on private landowners. The 
     Conservation and Reinvestment Act clearly affords one of the 
     best opportunities in conservation history to rededicate 
     federal resources to these critical national needs, providing 
     enhanced, reliable funding levels through several well-
     targeted programs to secure key natural, recreational, 
     cultural, and other resource lands before they are lost 
     forever. Accordingly, TPL has welcomed the initiative of 
     Chairman Young, Congressman Miller, and their many cosponsors 
     in offering CARA, and has enthusiastically advocated swift 
     House action on this legislation.
       We also are gratified by your unflagging commitment to the 
     crucial land-saving programs promoted by CARA, your efforts 
     to ensure expeditious floor action, and your positive 
     engagement on the bill's specific provisions. As we have 
     previously indicated, we are supportive of improvements to 
     the bill that do not impair its chance of ultimate success. 
     As a transaction-oriented conservation organization, with 
     experience in the real estate marketplace and a working 
     knowledge of the need to protect willing-seller lands as they 
     become available--we particularly commend your efforts in 
     Title II to provide appropriate additional assurances for 
     annual funding of federal-side LWCF, as well as the concept 
     of additional funding for lands of regional and national 
     significance you propose in Title VIII. We look forward to 
     working with you toward inclusion of these and other 
     refinements in a final, enacted Conservation and Reinvestment 
     Act.
       TPL firmly believes that the time has come for House 
     passage of CARA. With your assistance in bringing the bill to 
     the floor, and with appropriate deliberation of the issues 
     your amendment raises, we also believe that Congress is 
     within reach of a lasting victory for America's irreplaceable 
     parklands and public spaces.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Alan Front,
     Senior Vice President.
                                  ____



                                       The Izaak Walton League

                                                   of America,

                                                   April 14, 2000.
     Hon. Sherwood Boehlert,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Boehlert: I'm writing to express 
     appreciation on behalf of our members for your efforts to 
     encourage the House leadership to schedule the Conservation 
     and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 701) for consideration at the 
     earliest possible date. We believe it is absolutely critical 
     that this landmark conservation bill is signed into law in 
     this session of Congress.
       I also wish to thank you for your proposed amendment to 
     Title III that would add a valuable planning tool to the 
     state wildlife funding program. As you know, the League along 
     with a diverse group of other conservation and environmental 
     organizations worked diligently to craft this broadly 
     accepted planning provision. It would ensure that these funds 
     will be used for the most critical wildlife conservation 
     needs. This amendment deserves thoughtful consideration by 
     the full House.
       Like you, we want to ensure that the coastal impact 
     assistance provision results in the greatest benefit to our 
     valuable marine and tidal resources; however, the equitable 
     distribution of those funds among the states is clearly a 
     matter for congress to determine.
       Your proposal to add assurances that Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund monies be expended for the intended 
     purposes of that program is welcomed by our members who have 
     been among the most ardent supporters of that program. 
     Conservation of our country's land resources for fish and 
     wildlife and other valuable benefits that derive from these 
     open natural spaces is becoming increasingly important.
       While we will always support improvements to legislation 
     that benefits the environment, it is of first and foremost 
     importance that nothing impedes the final passage of CARA. We 
     would be pleased by the addition of any improving amendments 
     that do not jeopardize that outcome.
           Respectfully,
                                                   Paul W. Hansen,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                     Northern Forest Alliance,

                                                   April 19, 2000.
     Representative Sherwood Boehlert,
     Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Boehlert: We are writing to express our 
     appreciation and enthusiastic support for your leadership in 
     developing strengthening amendments to H.R. 701, the 
     Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA). H.R. 701 provides 
     the opportunity to put words into action, and enact the most 
     far-reaching conservation measure in recent memory.
       The most important accomplishment of H.R. 701 would be the 
     restoration of full and permanent funding for the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund. Revitalizing this fund

[[Page 7562]]

     will have a direct impact on conservation efforts in every 
     region of the country, including the Northern Forest. This 
     legislation would be significantly improved, however, by 
     modifications embodied in your proposed amendments. In 
     particular we strongly support the provision that would 
     create an additional, more flexible fund which is capable of 
     addressing important state-led projects of local, regional or 
     national significance which exceed the capacity of 
     traditionally administered state-side grants.
       Your amendments would also remove much of the incentive for 
     states and localities to accept new offshore oil development, 
     cap the amount of funding that could be used for damaging 
     infrastructure, ensure the federal portion of the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund will be expended, and add strategic 
     planning provisions recommended by wildlife conservation 
     groups.
       We are prepared to communicate with your colleagues in 
     Congress and lend our support to ensure adoption of your 
     amendments when H.R. 701 is considered on the House floor. 
     Thank you again for your efforts to improve and pass 
     conservation legislation this year.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Andrea L. Colnes,
                                               Executive Director.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 2 printed in House Report 106-612.


                 Amendment No. 2 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. 2 offered by Mr. Regula:
       Page 4, line 13, before the period insert ``, except that 
     no State may be treated as a coastal State in any fiscal year 
     in which there is a Federal moratorium on offshore leasing 
     and related activities off the coast of that State''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and a Member opposed each will control 
10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I have no illusions that this amendment 
will pass, but my purpose in offering it is to show my colleagues the 
unfairness of this proposed legislation.
  As my colleagues know, the purpose of Title I is to create a revenue 
sharing and a coastal conservation fund for coastal States and eligible 
local governments to mitigate the various impacts of OCS activities and 
provide funds for the conservation of our coastal ecosystems.
  Indeed, one can make a valid argument for using Outer Continental 
Shelf oil and gas leasing revenues for the restoration of coastlines 
that have been negatively impacted by offshore drilling. The fact that 
the revenues for the CARA fund would be derived directly, and I 
emphasize directly, from royalties from offshore leases and would go 
for the protection of these coasts makes some sense. However, it is 
quite disingenuous to distribute these funds to coastal States across 
the country which have a moratorium on offshore drilling.
  Presently, 98 percent of our offshore production comes from the Gulf 
of Mexico and the western Gulf of Mexico. These States include Texas, 
Mississippi, and Louisiana. They shoulder the risk of offshore 
drilling, so it would be prudent that they should receive 98 percent of 
the funding in this title if we are going to do what the title says: 
provide coastal assistance to the States that are being impacted by 
offshore drilling.
  Currently, Title I is so broad that it provides funding to many 
coastline States, even those where there is some, none, or only partial 
OCS leasing is taking place. For example, 30 States and five 
territories would receive funding under this title. If 30 States and 
five territories were producing oil and natural gas off their coast, 
this Nation would not be dependent on oil imports for more than 50 
percent of our oil needs, as we are now.
  As my colleagues can see from this chart, this is not the case. In 
fact, since we began collecting OCS royalties in 1953, the U.S. has 
collected $127 billion, $115 billion of which has come from production 
in the Gulf of Mexico. That is clear on this chart.
  The amendment I am offering today would merely allow these States 
which currently allow offshore drilling to receive the majority of 
funding under Title I of the bill. These States are the logical 
recipients of any coastal program designed to mitigate the impacts of 
OCS activities. I urge my colleagues to consider this common sense 
amendment.
  This chart does not really give us the full story, because, and I 
again emphasize, 98 percent of our offshore production comes from the 
Gulf of Mexico and the western Gulf of Mexico and essentially is 
limited to three States and a portion of Alabama. Yet, the bulk of this 
distribution of this fund goes to States, coastal States that ban 
offshore drilling because of a moratorium.
  I have to say that the moratoria are included in the Interior bill, 
which I chair. Why? Because I recognize it is the will of the majority 
of this Congress that there should be no drilling offshore in Alaska, 
offshore in California, offshore in Florida, and a number of the 
Eastern States. I recognize that this is the will of the body.
  But by the same token, those States want to get a big chunk of the 
offshore revenues, even though the coastal impacts are limited 
essentially to three or four States. If we were to do anything that 
would be fair, we should give the bulk of the revenues to the States 
that are suffering the bulk of the impact of offshore drilling.
  I would suggest to the sponsors that they ought to amend this bill 
and make it fairer and recognize the facts of life. That is that the 
Gulf of Mexico States are bearing the burden of offshore drilling, and 
obviously to the benefits of all of us. Because without that 
production, we would have a far more serious crisis.

                              {time}  1845

  We are indebted to those States for allowing drilling and we should 
reward them accordingly.
  I find it eminently unfair to have a bill that says that the Gulf of 
Mexico States should produce the oil, should take the impact of all the 
on-shore environmental problems, and yet ship the money to California, 
that has a ban, a moratorium, and today produces very little off-shore 
oil; ship the oil to Alaska, that has a moratorium, and yet would get a 
big chunk of money. I cannot understand how that could be considered 
fair, and I am quite sure the sponsors would not want to do something 
that is unfair in their treatment of the States.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller) going to claim the full 10 minutes or is he going 
to yield time to me?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If the gentleman would like to split 
the time in opposition, that would be fine.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the gentleman would not mind doing so, 
because the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) would like to speak.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I will then yield the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) 2 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) will control 5 minutes in opposition, and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) will control 5 minutes in 
opposition, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is 
recognized for 2 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in opposition to this amendment and all destructive 
amendments to the bill. I supported the previously passed manager's 
amendment, and I would like to see the bill move forward.

[[Page 7563]]

  At all levels of government, New Jersians and people across the 
Nation are showing great interest in conserving open space to enhance 
not only their own lives, but those of the plants and animals that 
depend on healthy ecosystems for survival. In my years as a Member of 
Congress, I cannot think of a more important environmental initiative 
on which I have had the pleasure of working.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the sponsors of the bill, the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young), the Chairman of the committee, and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for welcoming 
the improvements that have been made to the bill, especially those 
recently suggested by myself and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) that were 
reflected in the manager's amendment that we just passed.
  Our bipartisan agreement will ensure that the bill does not include 
major incentives to encourage future oil drilling off our fragile 
coastline, and, in addition, it will create a new land acquisition and 
easement program to protect non-Federal lands of regional or national 
significance.
  Ultimately, CARA will provide $2.8 billion annually to State and 
local communities. Under the bill, my home State of New Jersey would 
receive approximately $60 million each year, and this funding could be 
used for coastal conservation, impact assistance, preservation of 
farmland and open space, or even helping protect the delicate 
ecosystems of the Pinelands and Highlands regions of the Garden State.
  There is no question that CARA is an important bill that deserves to 
move forward. Any further changes to the bill beyond the manager's 
amendment would slow the momentum the bill needs to gain serious 
consideration in the Senate. The House should provide the solid vote 
this bill deserves, the one reflected by its broad cosponsorship, to 
keep CARA moving in the right direction.
  While I am incredibly supportive of this bill, I believe it is a work 
in progress. We must not lose achievable opportunities to ensure full 
protection for our coasts, wildlife and public lands. I look forward to 
working with other members and the Administration to ensure that this 
bill lives up to its promise.
  I remain concerned about the integrity of the federal Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. I want to ensure that the final legislation provides 
for full, permanent and secure funding for the LWCF and that the money 
is actually spent each year. We must also make certain that our land 
management agencies are comfortable with the changes made to the 
program. Furthermore, I believe that additional provisions are needed 
to ensure that wildlife protection funding is spent where it is most 
needed.
  It is for these reasons I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
CARA and the manager's amendment, and in opposing all destructive 
amendments. We have an opportunity today to preserve other national 
heritage for tomorrow. The time to act is now.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and wish to state that there are a number of reasons why we should 
all oppose this amendment.
  Let me first thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), 
for making the case that, in fact, our States along the Gulf Coast 
produce indeed the great bulk of this money. The Gulf of Mexico 
produces, and has produced, nearly $127 billion, he tells us, I thought 
it was 122 billion, not million, dollars to the Federal Treasury over 
the years of production. But keep in mind that these are the reasons 
why this amendment, I think, should fail.
  Number one, the formula for sharing revenues from the offshore is not 
my formula, it is not the formula of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young) or the formula of the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller). It is a formula derived by minerals management after deep and 
intensive study of what would be a fair allocation of offshore 
revenues. To do what? To solve coastal impact problems of not just my 
State, where the problems are severe, but States all over America.
  So all coastal States with similar problems share in the formula 
devised by minerals management.
  Secondly, this bill was designed to be drilling neutral. Now, I would 
love to pass legislation to encourage people that have moratoriums to 
lift their moratoriums and make the same contribution we are doing in 
Louisiana, but this is not the bill. We decided from the beginning this 
bill would not be an incentive program for production, it would simply 
be a fair sharing of revenues for the problems of coastal impact 
assistance.
  And, third, I think we need to look at the effect of this amendment. 
I know my friend did not intend it, but by the language he chose, the 
new coastal States, as he would define them, would include the Great 
Lakes States of Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and 
Minnesota, but it would leave out California. It would leave out 
Alabama, one of the Gulf Coast States where the production occurs.
  So it is a defective formula even if it was the right thing to do, 
and I do not believe it is the right thing to do.
  Now, here I am, a Louisianan, standing here and asking my colleagues 
to vote against an amendment that my State would incredibly benefit 
from. It is still the wrong thing to do. We ought to defeat this 
amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I would like to also thank the gentleman from Ohio for his 
generosity to the State of Louisiana. If this amendment is enacted, 
Louisiana would gain about $200 million.
  But this bill was borne about balance. Now, my colleague, the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), talked about the formula. The 
intent of the amendment, I understand, and I applaud the gentleman from 
Ohio for doing it, but the balance was struck in the formula. Fifty 
percent of the title I dollars, fifty percent are weighted on producing 
States, 25 percent on the amount of shoreline and 25 percent on the 
population along those coastlines.
  So this was the balance that was struck because this is a bill not 
only about producing States, not only about States that bear a lot, in 
Louisiana's case, 90 percent, over 90 percent of the money that comes 
into this fund comes off the shore of my great State, but this bill was 
borne about balance. This upsets that balance and it ought to be 
defeated.
  I also would like to say that the balance here was struck also in 
other areas, and we will hear a lot more about that in the next few 
amendments. I might add, in conclusion, that the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) left out the State of Florida that would not be 
a producing State and would not participate in this. The State of 
Florida has a beautiful coastline. Miles and miles of white sandy 
beaches that my children and I go to in the summers.
  So I urge my colleagues, please, do not support this amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage).
  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time, and I rise in strong support of this amendment because I 
think it is utterly fair that those States that are producing States 
are the ones that should reap the benefits. The interstates in this 
Nation do not reap the benefits because they are not coastal States 
that are producing States. So I really am very supportive of this very 
fair amendment.
  Talk about being fair, this debate has addressed the willing buyer, 
willing seller, as if it was protection for private property 
acquisition. But, actually, the former California Director of the State 
Fish and Game and former President of the National Wildlife Federation, 
Mr. Ray Arnette, states in a letter that, ``Despite the best intentions 
of its authors, CARA fails on all accounts. It spells disaster for 
property owners. Overzealous regulators, joined by environmental 
pressure groups and other extremists, will make folly of the

[[Page 7564]]

willing seller clause by harassing owners of properties targeted for 
acquisition and distracting potential buyers. Very few families and 
small businesses in particular have the financial and emotional ability 
to stay over an extended period, governmental agencies and foundation-
funded, richly financed pressure groups.''
  I think he sums up my views about the true effect of these paper-thin 
protections best in stating, ``It is not possible to negotiate as a 
willing seller when the government is the only buyer.''
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly in strong opposition to 
the amendment of my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Mr. Chairman, I want to speak very briefly about an amendment offered 
by my friend, Chairman Regula. The Regula 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 to include in the 
Interior appropriations bill a moratorium on further oil and gas leases 
off the Florida coast. Most in Florida remain 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 
legislation I 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--under what conditions--are appropriate for 
oil drilling 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 resources, ensuring that any activity off our coast does not 
adversely affect our unique environment. Chairman Regula wants to deny 
Florida funding under this bill because of that moratorium. I agree 
with the basic premise of his argument.
  The moratorium which he carries 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. 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.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 701 
and oppose the Regula amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has 3 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 2 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has 
1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  Let me make two quick points. The first is that this process started 
with this bill being funded with a new tax. The new tax was on 
recreational equipment; everything from binoculars to backpacks to off-
the-road vehicles to anything else one could think of that had to do 
with outdoor recreation. I did not think that was acceptable, and I did 
not support it. And I told the chairman so, and I told the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller) so, and they worked out what I 
think is a very fair system.
  Point number two that I want to make is that Members from California 
who support the destructive amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) are voting to cut $67 million from California's share of this 
pie. Members from Florida voting for the Regula amendment would cut $68 
million from Florida's share of this program. Members from my home 
State of New Jersey should realize that we would lose $20 million. And 
colleagues from New York, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) 
is, that State would lose $40 million.
  Now, I want everybody to think about that when they go back home this 
fall. Colleagues from Virginia will lose $17 million; those from the 
State of Washington will lose $15 million; and those from Puerto Rico 
will lose $8 million.
  Now, I have this sheet, which I will put in front of the podium, and 
when my colleagues all come down to vote on this amendment, I hope they 
will take a look at this sheet before they cast their votes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of 
CARA, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, and in opposition to this 
amendment and all other amendments.
  I would like to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller), for all of their hard work on this piece of historic 
legislation. This bill will restore our national commitment to 
America's natural resources.
  CARA redeems the solemn pledge made over 30 years ago to reinvest the 
profits from off-shore energy production back into our natural 
resources. CARA will fulfill the promise of steady and certain funding 
for public lands. CARA will support State and local efforts to protect 
our wildlife and to preserve and protect our local green spaces.
  Our coastal resources are under increasing pressure from population 
growth, expansion of coastal tourism and recreation, increased maritime 
traffic, threats to our water quality, and loss of essential fish and 
other coastal habitats. CARA is essential in helping to combat this 
growing problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment and all other 
amendments to the bill. It is important that the integrity of this bill 
remain intact for this carefully crafted bipartisan bill.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 30 
seconds, and I think he started off his comments by saying that he was 
not too optimistic about the passage of his amendment.
  Just in the event, however, it does pass, I would like to inform the 
gentleman and the chairman of the full committee that I intend to offer 
a perfecting amendment, inasmuch as the boundaries now in Alabama would 
be divided. In a portion of our State, we have a moratorium, and 
another portion we do not. Under the gentleman's amendment, even though 
we are allowing the production and exploration, we would receive 
nothing.
  I am sure that the gentleman, and the chairman as well, would accept 
that, in the event that the gentleman's amendment is adopted.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, there is no Member of this body that I 
respect and admire more than the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), but 
on this issue we simply disagree.
  This amendment would not only kill CARA, it would be a step in the 
wrong direction at any time on any bill. This amendment is designed to 
weaken support for the moratorium on offshore oil drilling. This 
amendment in effect would punish States that do not allow drilling off 
their shores.

[[Page 7565]]

  The drilling moratorium has been a good and sensible policy and 
should not be interfered with, least of all in this bill.
  Some others also offer the argument that it is only fair to give 
title I money to States that are willing to accept the costs of oil 
drilling, but that is based on a misunderstanding of title I. Title I 
is not exclusively, or even primarily, an oil impact mitigation 
program. It is a program to help coastal States with a full range of 
problems they face, problems all coastal States face regardless of 
whether oil is drilled off their shores.
  I must urge everyone who supports CARA and everyone who supports the 
moratorium on offshore oil drilling and everyone who supports 
addressing the full range of coastal issues to oppose this amendment. 
Let us keep CARA moving forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. There is 
no member of this body that I respect and admire more than I do 
Chairman Regula. But on this issue, we simply disagree.
  This amendment would not only kill CARA; it would be a step in the 
wrong direction at any time on any bill. This amendment is designed to 
weaken support for the moratorium on off-shore oil drilling. The 
amendment, in effect, would punish states that do not allow drilling 
off their shores.
  That's particularly ironic to do as part of CARA. CARA gives more 
money to oil producing states precisely because it recognizes the 
environmental and other costs that such drilling imposes. And now we're 
going to try to use federal funds to force other states to suffer these 
problems as well?
  The drilling moratorium has been a good and sensible policy and 
should not be interfered with--least of all this bill.
  Now, some also offer the argument that it's only fair to just give 
Title I money to states that are willing to accept the cost of oil 
drilling. But that is based on a misunderstanding of Title I. Title I 
is not exclusively, or even primarily, an oil impact mitigation 
program. It is a program to help coastal states with the full range of 
problems they face--problems all coastal states face regardless of 
whether oil is drilled off their shores.
  So I must urge everyone who supports CARA and everyone who supports 
the moratorium on off-shore drilling and everyone who supports 
addressing the full range of coastal issues to oppose this amendment. 
Let's keep CARA moving forward.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I know 
that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has struggled long and hard 
over many years with the problems of moratorium in his committee, but 
each and every time this Congress has decided that it would not punish 
those States that had a moratorium. Also, as the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Callahan) points out, it causes problems for States like Alaska, 
California and Alabama, where we are still producing, but we have 
moratoriums. Those moratoriums were put there by Republican governors, 
Republican presidents and State legislatures, and that is what the 
elected officials decided.
  As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) has pointed out, this 
is about the people's resources being used to protect the coast lines 
of this great Nation.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me point out and clarify something, 
and that is this bill defines coastal States according to the Coastal 
Zone Management Act, and that includes the Great Lake States, not 
according to OCS Lands Act. This provision is something that was 
established in the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say again this is simply a matter of fairness. 
Three and a half States produce 98 percent of the revenues, and yet we 
are proposing to share these with States, particularly the States like 
California and Alaska, on a much different basis.
  In fact, the coastal States that are producing the revenues would get 
less, and I do not think that is fair. I believe a vote for this 
amendment is a vote for fairness in the way we manage our OCS revenues.
  Now, having said that, I do not think the bill itself is a good bill, 
because we are giving away our responsibility that we are elected to 
do. We are creating a new entitlement, and this will just be the 
precursor of many more. I would urge a vote against the bill. I urge a 
vote for this amendment, simply to bring fairness to this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. REGULA. 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 Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in House 
Report 106-612.


               Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Radanovich

  Mr. RADANOVICH. 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. 3 offered by Mr. Radanovich:
       Page 9, line 18, after ``deposited in the fund'' insert the 
     following: ``that remain after the application of subsection 
     (f) for the fiscal year,''.
       Page 15, after line 8, insert the following:
       (f) Full Funding of PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing.--To 
     the extent that amounts available under subsection (d) for a 
     fiscal year are not sufficient to pay all amounts authorized 
     to be paid for the fiscal year under chapter 69 of title 31, 
     United States Code (relating to payment in lieu of taxes), 
     and section 401 of the Act of June 15, 1935 (49 Stat. 383; 16 
     U.S.C. 715s; relating to refuge revenue sharing), amounts in 
     the Fund shall be used to make such payments.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) and a Member opposed each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich.)
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that would fully fund the 
PILT program, which is called payments in lieu of taxes, and the Fish 
and Wildlife Services Refuge Revenue Sharing Program.
  Each year we debate PILT on the floor during this appropriations 
time. The administration never requests full funding and the Committee 
on Appropriations is unable to fully fund PILT within the budget. We 
then see an amendment on the floor to increase funding, usually at the 
expense of energy research, and it always passes. Last year's amendment 
to increase PILT by $20 million passed on a vote of 248 to 169.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time we end the appropriations game and make the 
Federal Government live up to its promises through PILT. In 1976, we 
passed the PILT Act. We did it because Congress recognized local 
governments must provide essential services on our Federal lands, but 
they get no tax revenues from them. Local governments provide emergency 
medical care, search and rescue, police, fire protection, road 
maintenance, garbage removal and a host of other essential services. 
Local taxpayers pay the full cost of these services, but the benefits 
go to all the visitors on our Federal lands.
  Congress recognized this when the PILT was created, and Congress 
recognized it again in 1994 when we passed amendments to PILT. That 
year, it was necessary to update the formula to account for inflation 
and population changes. The House passed that bill on a voice vote, and 
President Clinton signed it on October 22, 1994.
  Today that formula promises $320 million in PILT payments to local 
governments, but we continue to fund it at only $135 million.
  Mr. Chairman, before coming to Congress, I served as a county 
supervisor for Mariposa County, California, and almost 50 percent of 
this county is owned by the Federal Government. Mariposa is the home of 
Yosemite National Park and parts of the Sierra and

[[Page 7566]]

Stanislaus National Forest. None of that Federal land is in our tax 
base, none of the economic activity on that land is taxable in our 
county. Still our small communities, my hometown, by the way, has fewer 
than 2,000 people, provide all the basic services for more than 4 
million visitors that visit Yosemite every year.
  PILT recognizes that the Federal Government has an obligation to 
contribute to these services. This amendment would fund that 
obligation.
  It is relevant that today we are debating a bill that would create 
$2.85 billion in mandatory spending. That money will go to Federal 
land-related purposes. It mandates spending on new public land 
purchases, but what is not mandatory in this bill, and should be, is 
PILT.
  Mr. Chairman, what is more mandatory than our tax obligation to local 
governments? Especially when the money goes to help support services 
like search and rescue, emergency medical, fire and sheriffs, all to 
the benefit of visitors on our Federal lands, ensuring full funding of 
PILT would be a big improvement to this bill.
  It will uphold our obligations to counties and local communities 
before we provide mandatory spending for new programs, particularly for 
programs that remove land from our local tax base.
  This amendment would fund PILT. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, how much time am I entitled to in 
opposition to the amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young) controls 10 minutes in opposition.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of controlling 
time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) will control 5 minutes in oppostion to 
the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I tell my good friend the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Radanovich) that this amendment is not necessary, nor needed. If 
we do as the Committee on Appropriations should do, we would, under 
CARA, fully fund PILT.
  Last year, the Committee on Appropriations funded $135 million last 
year and $10.7 million. Under this program that is not appropriated, we 
would, in fact, fully fund it with $185 million and $15 million in 
refuge so it would be fully funded. It would be perfectly funded for 
the first time.
  What has to happen now, the requirement now is through the Committee 
on Appropriations, who has not fully funded it. I agree with the 
gentleman, it should be. But under CARA, for the first time, we will 
have the money to fully fund the program as long as the Committee on 
Appropriations continues to do their job.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the historical 
commitment or the all-time high was $135 million. That times two is not 
quite $300 million.
  The obligation to PILT is $320 million. There is no chance that it is 
subject to full funding under this type of scenario because, under 
CARA, what was appropriated would be matched.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, CARA creates a 
ratio and it will be fully funded under that ratio. As long as the 
Committee on Appropriations continues to do as they have done in the 
past, we will match that under the CARA bill. It does not do it 
historically, but we will match it.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, but CARA, if I may add, that their obligation is only to match 
what is appropriated; and what is appropriated is never even half of 
the $320 million obligation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, then that is the fault of the 
Committee on Appropriations. But they will have more money than they 
have now for PILT.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, we will have more money than we will now, but under this 
program, they are creating seven new mandatory programs and fully 
funding them when we have an unfunded PILT program that even under this 
bill will not be funded.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, under this 
bill, under the provision of the title, we are fully funding PILT under 
CARA as long as the Committee on Appropriations does the job that they 
are supposed to do.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, but they never fully fund PILT.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have not yielded to the 
gentleman. I just answered the question.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think taking the same tact as my chairman the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the purpose for this and in 
discussing this with supporters of PILT was to make sure that the 
Committee on Appropriations would continue to fund PILT to the level. 
But recognizing, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) 
pointed out, that they have not funded it at full funding, we would 
then match up to $200 million.
  So they are at $135 million. Full funding is $247 million. We would 
add $112 million to bring them to full funding. But they have got to 
continue their effort. So, as it is indexed, that would change.
  So this was an effort by many of the people in the committee, as my 
colleague knows, who support PILT. And in the communities that support 
it, this was an effort to see whether or not we could take two pools of 
money and get us there to full funding.
  Because the likelihood is, if we do not do that, we all know what 
happens in the Committee on Appropriations; their demands are much 
greater than the revenues that are available to them and we will never 
get to full funding.
  Mr. RADONAVICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, as a point of inquiry, does CARA 
obligate full funding for PILT? Can the gentleman say that it obligates 
full funding for PILT?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, 
CARA obligates us to match the appropriation to take them to full 
funding.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, so the most of this $320 million obligation that has been funded 
has been $135 million.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, it is $247 million I 
think.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, the most in the recent years has been 
$135 million. If they double that, it is $270 million. They are still 
short.
  I say to the gentleman, please tell me that CARA would them come in 
and fund all of this up to the $320 million obligation.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, it would match the 
appropriations funding up to $200 million. In this instance we are full 
funding this $247 million. They do $135 million. We would do $112 
million, to take them to $247 million.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, but what the gentleman said previously 
is that CARA will match what is appropriated, correct, and then do 
something else, or just match what is appropriated?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, that is right. 
Because, otherwise, the appropriators walk away from their obligation 
on PILT and CARA inherits it. We are trying to augment that.

[[Page 7567]]


  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman, but CARA only 
matches what is appropriated?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, no. Up to, whatever it 
takes to get to full funding.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, so the gentleman is assuring me that, 
under CARA, PILT will be fully funded?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, that is how the law is 
written. Unless appropriations just put nothing in. That is why the 
match is in, to keep appropriations in the game.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman, still subject to 
appropriations, though?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, yes.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, but there are seven new programs that 
are created that are not subject to appropriations anymore?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the CARA money is not. 
But the appropriators have to put up their share of the funds.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, CARA creates seven new programs that 
are mandatory programs that will be fully funded, while PILT is not 
included in that.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this is part of that 
money. That is what we are trying to tell the gentleman.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, but it is still subject to 
appropriations when seven new programs are put under mandatory 
spending.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, no, there are not 
seven new programs.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, who controls the time?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) controls the time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind the other 
gentleman from California, if CARA is not passed, how much money did 
they get in PILT? How much money do they get?
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from California will 
continue to yield, what concerns me is, then let us make PILT 
mandatory.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, that is what we do under CARA.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, our share is 
mandatory.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, let us make PILT mandatory. The $320 
million obligation, why do not my colleagues join me in this amendment 
and make it fully mandatory like they have made seven other new 
programs that are created by this bill mandatory spending? This is an 
unfunded obligation.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, under CARA, that share 
is mandatory and it will be matched by the appropriators.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman, why does he not 
join me in adding PILT to the other seven mandatory programs?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, it is. To the extent 
to which we fund it, it is mandatory.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, it is still subject under the 
appropriations.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I say to the 
gentleman, no. The appropriators have to do their share, as they are 
doing today, which is $135 million, or whatever.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, if I could maybe try to explain the situation as it 
deals with PILT versus the appropriations.
  First of all, this was about enhancement, not supplanting. So we took 
an historic number of what the Committee on Appropriations over the 
last few years has actually allocated to PILT.
  Last year, in fiscal year 2000, they appropriated $135 million.

                              {time}  1915

  The bill that is in front of us says that if the Committee on 
Appropriations appropriates $100 million, at least $100 million, then 
the difference would be made up through the interest payments on the 
bill. So what it basically would do, it is not a match, it is more of 
$100 million for PILT and $15 million for refuge revenue sharing. So if 
the appropriation comes up with that commitment, and these numbers were 
not pulled out of the air, they were historical in nature, if they make 
that, then CARA will enhance the rest.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I urge the founders of 
this legislation to join in this amendment. Let us look at the history 
of PILT. Everybody says they are for PILT. PILT has never been fully 
funded. Why do we have PILT? We take hundreds of millions of acres out 
of rural counties, rural communities and we take them out of the tax 
base, and PILT is allowed, it says we are going to pay you so much back 
to help with local services.
  Last year, $320,000 million authorized, we only funded $135 million, 
and that is historic. It has never been funded. If you are serious 
about mandating $480 million worth of purchases by the Federal 
Government, $480 million worth of purchases by the States hereafter, 
live up to the law of PILT. Make it mandatory funding. Do not make 
local governments go without services, fire services, emergency 
services, road services without a tax base.
  Our rural lands that people go to, we need services. PILT was set up 
to pay for that. We pay pennies per acre. In Pennsylvania where I came 
from, we paid $1.20 an acre for every acre. That was not enough, in my 
view. You are taking money out of the land base. PILT is a formula to 
help local government provide the services that are necessary for the 
people who are going to use that land. In fairness, join us tonight and 
make PILT mandatory funding so we do not have to have this battle that 
we have launched year after year after year. Rural America has taken it 
in the neck long enough.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage).
  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this 
amendment. In fact, this amendment is the only way that logically PILT 
can be funded under CARA, because where the rubber really meets the 
road in the plain language of this bill is that PILT will be funded 
only if there is interest left over in the accounts, not spent by the 
Secretary of Interior on various other programs.
  Now, you tell me when any Federal agency has money left over that can 
generate interest. So the bare bones fact is that there will be no 
money generated for PILT under the present language. All of these lands 
in yellow and green are lands that are dependent upon PILT for their 
very existence. In some counties in my own State of Idaho, only 4 
percent of the counties' lands are in private holdings that provide for 
the necessary services that counties must fund. They are even cutting 
back on the number of days that they can hold school. Now, that is a 
shame. And fire and police and maintenance are going wanting because we 
have not funded PILT. But CARA will not fund PILT unless we get this 
amendment. Because, as I say, no agency leaves money in their funds to 
generate interest. That is the only way that PILT money would be 
funded.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My concern, and I represent mainly a rural area of California. About 
330,000 acres were just taken up in the Sequoia National Monument, 
displaced about 100 workers and cost my communities that have about 16 
percent unemployment about $8 million in revenues a year. I am 
concerned about this bill because I do not agree with any further 
Federal funding being spent on States or counties that have more than 
50 percent Federal land ownership, because you are taking tax base 
revenues away from counties. The problem that I have with CARA is that 
there are seven new programs being created that require mandatory 
spending: Coastal impact

[[Page 7568]]

assistance, Land and Water Conservation Fund, Federal Aid in Wildlife 
Restoration, Urban Parks and Recreational Recovery, National Historic 
Preservation Act, Indian lands restoration, farmland protection 
easements and endangered species recovery. I understand a lot of people 
think that those programs are good and I see some merit in quite a few 
of them. But when you are taking away the tax base from small counties 
that have to provide emergency services at their local levels in rural 
areas, you are treating rural areas unfairly. That is why I think PILT 
in this bill and my amendment would make it mandatory. There would not 
be any question that the obligation, created by PILT was passed by this 
Congress, would not be met. If you vote to pass my amendment, it means 
that PILT, those counties that provide all of the services for the 
local people in the rural areas would be included in this preferential 
category of mandatory spending. It would fully fund that $320 million 
obligation annually, would not subject it to the whims of the Congress 
through the Committee on Appropriations.
  If it is good enough for environmental measures, it is good enough 
for those that guard and protect and enhance human life in small rural 
counties. For that, I hope that people will support this amendment and 
vote it in.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). Does the gentleman from 
California yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. RADANOVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I had 2 minutes left for closing. I did not know 
the gentleman was closing, that he was speaking on the remaining 5 
minutes he had. Do I still have the right to close or do I have to use 
up the time?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California is just 
exhausting his own time. The gentleman from Alaska still has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. May I inquire of the remaining time that I have?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, the only point that I want to make is 
that those who provide services in rural America that are getting 
blighted by this kind of Federal land purchase dollars deserve the 
right to have PILT funded on a mandatory basis and not subject to 
appropriations, just the way these other seven programs that you have 
created for Federal land purchases in blighting rural communities and 
putting them all on welfare deserve to have that right, too. So I hope 
that people will vote for my amendment and make PILT mandatory.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would tell the gentleman I am very sympathetic and would support 
his amendment if we had not reached this agreement in the delicate 
balance which we did arrive at. I want to, again, stress that last year 
the Committee on Appropriations, by the way, because there are certain 
individuals in the Committee on Appropriations that do not like this 
bill, if they had been doing their jobs, they would have fully funded 
it.
  In fact, the Committee on Appropriations owed this America $13 
billion which was collected in offshore development that we said we 
were going to spend, we spent it for other reasons. This is what I am 
very concerned with. I want to remind the gentleman that last year the 
Committee on Appropriations only funded $135 million for PILT, $10 
million for the refuge sharing program. What we tried to do and, by the 
way, this was insistence from one of the Western Caucus members that we 
consider the PILT.
  We tried to take and say, all right, we will fully fund it with the 
help of the Committee on Appropriations, which we do. After we did 
that, the National Association of Counties supports the bill. It is 
their interpretation that it is the full funding. I can assure the 
gentleman, I may not be on this committee next year, I will be the vice 
chairman of this committee, it is my intent to make sure that this does 
occur. I hope he has a little faith in what we are trying to do here 
because I think he is absolutely correct. To have a small community 
have to shoulder the burden for the national good is wrong. They ought 
to be reimbursed for those lands that are taken out of production. But 
we thought we were doing it. We really thought we had a formula here. 
Really this idea came from the National Association of Counties. That 
is who we were working with.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. If the gentleman will yield, it does not give this 
Congress the right to further fund programs that are causing further 
harm to rural America without giving them any further assurance that 
their problems are going to be solved.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. We are attempting to make sure that any lands 
that are acquired, it takes it off the tax roll, that there is full 
reimbursement for those small communities. I understand the problem. We 
have gone from 7.5 in 25 years to 1.5 of rural community. I understand 
the problem, because I have this affecting me in Alaska. But we were 
trying to do something correct. Very frankly I think we did do 
something correct. We fully funded it.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. The problem is that you provide no assurance that 
these PILT obligations are going to be met. Then you are wildly 
increasing funding for more of the same programs.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. We claim there has been no land purchased, 
number one, under my program. There has been land purchased under the 
other program, about $480 million a year, which you voted for, by the 
way, $480 million a year for the last 6 years which we have been in 
control. I just want people to remember that.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. 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 California 
(Mr. Radanovich) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in House 
Report 106-612.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  Mr. TANCREDO. 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. 4 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       Page 10, line 2, strike ``$900,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$450,000,000''.
       Page 10, line 8, strike ``$125,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$350,000,000''.
       Page 10, line 17, strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$225,000,000''.
       Page 10, line 24, strike ``$50,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$150,000,000''.
       Page 11, line 5, strike ``$2,825,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,700,000,000''.
       Page 30, beginning at line 24, strike 
     ``Act--'' and all that follows through page 31, line 5, and 
     insert ``Act, 100 percent shall be available only for grants 
     to States.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. As we are all aware, there is more to CARA than just land 
acquisition. It is a bill that was designed in part to combat the fast 
paced growth of urban areas. I am pleased to offer this amendment with 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) to direct our efforts toward 
mitigating the impacts of urban and suburban growth. I represent two of 
the fastest growing counties in the United States, Jefferson and 
Arapahoe County in Colorado.

[[Page 7569]]

Having witnessed this growth firsthand, it perplexes me that the focus 
of the debate surrounding this bill should remain squarely on Federal 
land acquisition. CARA provides other mechanisms to meet our 
environmental obligations, especially in those suburban areas which are 
most impacted by rapid growth.
  Under our amendment, funding to the Urban Parks and Recreation 
Recovery program, or UPARR, will increase by $225 million over the 
current bill, improving the quality of life and environmental integrity 
of the urban areas. If we are going to spend this money, let us spend 
it where people can experience these improvements on a day-to-day 
basis.
  We will increase funding to the farmland protection program by $125 
million. In Colorado, I would argue that the farmers of Jefferson, 
Arapahoe Douglas and Boulder Counties should be listed and protected as 
an endangered species themselves. Instead, they are under attack by the 
current endangered species policies of the Federal Government and they 
are afforded little, if any, help by the same Federal Government to 
protect their property. Our amendment can fix that.
  Our amendment offers a substantial increase in the funding made 
available to the endangered species recovery programs in title VII of 
this bill. If we want to recover a species of wildlife that are 
declining in population, let us do it by addressing the issue and not 
by acquiring more land. Make no mistake, this amendment does not 
prohibit the Federal acquisition of land. We can still pay for that 
through the normal appropriations process. However, it does remove a 
fund designated for that purpose.
  I challenge the notion that land is actually preserved by Federal 
land acquisition. It is true that development on that land may be 
prevented, but the Federal Government must become the steward of this 
land for the years to come once it obtains that land. In Colorado, even 
the United States Forest Service does not pretend that our national 
forests are healthy. They are diseased, infested and their roads and 
trails are deteriorating as well. We should provide local landowners, 
farmers and local governments the financial resources to better care 
for these lands themselves.
  If my colleagues want to address the issue of urban sprawl or urban 
growth, then let us allocate the money in this bill in a way that 
actually reflects that purpose. A dedicated fund for Federal land 
acquisition will not prove to be the answer. By and large, it will be a 
burden. Instead, let us empower our localities and property owners to 
better manage their own land. This amendment is a long-term solution to 
a long-term challenge that our country faces.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment. This is an amendment that 
essentially guts this legislation, because the authors of this 
amendment are very much aware of how valuable the people of this Nation 
hold the Federal expenditures that we make under the Federal Land and 
Water Conservation Act. This is the program that we use to preserve the 
headwater forests, the great redwood forests in northern California. 
This is the program that we use to preserve the Baca Ranch in New 
Mexico, the great holdings that are supported by the people of that 
State, the people of the region and across this Nation to protect those 
lands. This is money that we use to try to protect the great 
Everglades, as we have tried to restore the Everglades. There is 
overwhelming support across this Nation for the protection of the 
Everglades and the augmentation of the Everglades so that we can try to 
clean up the water pollution problems and the other problems that we 
have there.
  That is what the Federal Land and Water Conservation Act does. It is 
not a matter of trading in this money for money that would go to State 
or suburban programs. This bill is about a balance, about a balance of 
the amendment that we just heard before, trying to help out counties 
with PILT payments, about a balance of trying to help the Federal 
Government meet its obligations to protect the great assets, what many 
people consider the wonders of the world, the Zions, the Arches, the 
national parks, the Grand Canyon, the Grand Tetons, Yosemite, King's 
Canyon, all of these areas that are so dramatic that are under threat. 
We have people who have areas inside of those parks who want to sell 
those lands who have inholdings who want to get out. This is the means 
by which we do that.
  This is very, very important. Let us not act like this is some new 
land rush that was $450 million. This was set back in the 1970s, this 
amount for Federal land acquisition. The Committee on Appropriations 
appropriated somewhere around $300 million or so for Federal 
acquisition, and they do it at the request of the Members of Congress. 
Elected officials walk into the Committee on Appropriations and ask, 
and they ask that these lands be acquired in their State, in their 
congressional district, as do Senators. Under this process, if those 
are authorized by the Congress of the United States, only if they are 
authorized by the Congress of the United States, and if they are 
submitted by the President of the United States and the Committee on 
Appropriations approves them and the authorizing committees approve 
them, then and only then will they be acquired for the people of the 
United States of America.
  Very shortly, school will be out, the summer season will start, and 
millions of Americans will travel across this country to see these 
great assets, to see what we call the crown jewels of the Federal land 
system. Millions of Americans will power into Yosemite, into the Grand 
Tetons, into the Grand Canyon, into the Everglades, into the Great 
Smokies. All of those parks are under threat. This is the source of 
revenues that we try every year to protect those and to augment others 
that are worthy of being in this system.
  Mr. Chairman, to kill this is to kill the Federal Government's 
ability, the Federal Government's ability to protect those resources 
and to enhance those resources on behalf of all Americans. It is not 
just that the Yosemite is in California, because people come from all 
over the country and all over the world. These are dynamic engines of 
economic activity around Yellowstone, around Yosemite, around the 
Everglades, and it is important that we take care of them. That is what 
Federal land and water conservation funding does. This amendment guts 
that proposal. It guts that effort. This money is erased from the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not about trading it off, as the gentleman has 
said, to sprinkle it through the other programs. Those programs were 
funded in this legislation, in the balance, in the balance that was 
achieved by long, tough, difficult, bipartisan negotiations with many, 
many, many of the interest groups, outside interest groups, those who 
are concerned about national parks and fish and wildlife and habitat 
and hunting and fishing and all of the rest. So we ought not to gut 
this bill with this amendment, and I would hope that the House would 
overwhelmingly reject this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman yield 5 minutes 
to us?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, how much time did the gentleman 
from California yield to me?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) has 5\1/2\ minutes. He controls the 
time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I meant to yield the 
remaining time to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) now controls the 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

[[Page 7570]]


  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the net effect of this amendment is to take $500 
million out of the Land and Conservation Fund, which monies are used as 
one of a number of tools that we have to preserve open space: 
acquisition. Now, I understand to some in this room that the word 
``acquisition'' has a negative meaning, but to those of us who 
represent States and communities, or let us just say on the East Coast 
between Boston and Florida, this tool is extremely important.
  In my district, for example, every year I go to see the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and I ask for funds to expand the Forsythe 
Refuge; Ed Forsythe was my predecessor and they named the wildlife 
refuge after him. We have so much development pressure in New Jersey 
that we have programs to retire development easements. We have so much 
development pressure in New Jersey that we have used State Green Acres 
money to buy land. We have so much development pressure that we use 
Land and Water Conservation monies to preserve open spaces through 
acquisition. It is usually sensitive land. It is usually land where we 
as human beings have no business building housing developments or 
shopping centers or parking lots or whatever other uses these lands may 
have.
  Without these funds, Members will lose a good deal of the abilities 
they have to help the folks back home live in an environment that has 
conservation policy that is good for the folks back home.
  So as well-intended as this may be, it is destructive to the process 
that we are all involved in in trying to maintain a quality environment 
with open space in the coastal States that are highly developed and 
under development pressure.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire as to how much time 
remains.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, but 
against the bill. This is very, very interesting, what we have going on 
here. Everybody is talking about how the Federal Government has to own 
it. The Federal Government has to own it, or else it does not seem to 
count for the proponents of this bill. The Federal Government seems to 
have the franchise on environmental consciousness. Of course we do not 
want the private property people in on it because of private ownership, 
and the State governments which, under the Tancredo amendment, are not 
only supported, but encouraged to buy the land. The State governments 
are not given any credit.
  We do not hear from the proponents of CARA which, as we all know, 
stands for Congress abdicating the rights of Americans, because what it 
is is we are running from our responsibilities of voting for land 
acquisitions or voting against land acquisitions. We are going to turn 
it over to other people.
  Mr. Chairman, the curious thing is that the proponents of CARA do not 
say how much land we should own. I will ask them, can any of my 
colleagues who are supporting CARA tell me how much Federal land we 
should own in this country?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from California, and I just 
want a quick answer. Twenty-five percent, thirty-five percent, forty 
percent, fifty percent? How much?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, they will make that 
decision under the democratic process, just like the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston) asked us to buy Cumberland Island.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, regular order, 
please, Mr. Chairman.
  The question is, how much land should the Federal Government own? 
Twenty-five percent, 35 percent, 40 percent, 50 percent? The lead 
cosponsor of this bill cannot answer the question and instead gives us 
this fishy answer.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from California. I will give 
the gentleman one more shot. How much, 50 percent?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman will let 
me answer, right?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Absolutely. I am looking for a percentage, 25 percent, 
50 percent? How much land should the Federal Government own?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the fact is, in recent 
years Federal ownership of land has been going down, so that is the 
trend, that is the trend. Mr. Chairman, if I can finish my answer.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia's time has 
expired.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reclaimed the time before it expired.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
controls the time.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman, I will be 
glad to continue the dialogue under the gentleman's time. But here is 
the question. They do not know how much Federal land we should own. 
Right now it is 32 percent. Basically, that is everything east of the 
Mississippi River. Now, how much should it be? Maybe the current 32 
percent is not enough. Maybe we should have 50 percent in Federal 
Government hands. I do not know. I wish the people who are pushing 
CARA, $2.8 billion a year in Federal acquisition money for 15 years, 
could tell us.
  The point is, we are concerned on behalf of our State governments, on 
behalf of private landowners that this is a Federal Government land 
grab, and we are very concerned about that.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the Subcommittee on Interior of the 
Committee on Appropriations, and as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Saxton) says, colleagues come to our committee every year for this land 
in New Jersey and we have been supporting it. We will continue to 
support it under the Tancredo-Pombo amendment. What is wrong with that? 
That is the constitutional process laid out by our Founding Fathers in 
1789. But suddenly, that is not good enough. We have to have this new 
law.
  I urge my colleagues to look at this very carefully.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  This amendment would eliminate the bill's provisions for land 
acquisitions, eliminate the provisions for land acquisitions by Federal 
agencies, and instead, increase the emphasis on assisting the States 
and local governments. Do not get me wrong; I want to assist the States 
and local governments, but sometimes Federal acquisitions are 
appropriate and necessary.
  Three examples in Colorado that exist right now. We are trying to get 
a bill through this body that would authorize acquisition of lands next 
to the Great Sand Dunes National Monument, partly for addition to that 
unit of the national park and also to create a wildlife refuge. 
Secondly, there is a need to acquire inholdings in the Black Canyon of 
the Gunnison National Park we just created in this body. Thirdly, right 
in my district, right in my district there are lands in the Beaver 
Brook watershed that the City of Golden wants to sell for addition to 
the Arapaho National Forest. This proposed acquisition has broad 
support and needs to go forward on a priority basis.
  These are just a few examples in Colorado. It is clear that this 
amendment is a poison pill. In Colorado, 35 percent of our lands are 
owned by the Federal Government. As a Coloradan, as a Rocky Mountain 
Westerner, as an

[[Page 7571]]

American, we ought to pass this bill but defeat this amendment. This is 
nothing but a poison pill.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire again as to how much time 
is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
has 4 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) 
is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I 
thank the gentleman for cosponsoring this amendment.
  We have heard a lot of things about this amendment, most of which 
have absolutely nothing to do with this amendment. What this is all 
about is the Federal acquisition of new land. It has nothing to do with 
Yosemite or Yellowstone or the Grand Tetons or any of the other stuff. 
They are already federally owned. The Federal Government already has 
those.
  This map will probably be shown quite often tonight. This is Federal 
ownership of land. Everything we see colored on here is Federal 
ownership of land.
  What this amendment says, quite frankly, is the Federal Government 
already owns enough land. They do not need to buy more. Now, everybody 
that is coming down here tonight is talking about all the great things 
this bill is going to do. We heard people one right after another 
coming down. They are talking about their urban parks, they are talking 
about protecting their wetlands, they are talking about doing things so 
that their States can buy land. They are talking about all of these 
things. Well, I say to my colleagues, that is what this amendment puts 
more money into. It puts more money into urban parks, it puts more 
money into our endangered species recovery. It puts more money into 
protecting farmland. All of the things my colleagues have been talking 
about.
  All I am saying is the Federal Government owns enough land. Now, if 
there is something that is that important, if there is something that 
we really need to buy, then sell something and buy it. The Federal 
Government owns 700 million acres of this country already.

                              {time}  1945

  All of that is not environmentally sensitive. All of that is not 
important to be held in public trust. They can sell some of it and buy 
something, if they want to. But if Members really do care about urban 
parks, about protecting farmland, about protecting endangered species 
and doing endangered species recovery programs, this gives more money, 
$450 million a year in more money for the things they say they want. 
That is why they are supporting this bill.
  Nobody has the courage to come down here and say they think the 
Federal government ought to own more land. They own one-third of this 
country already. They own too much already. Members know that. Members 
know they own too much already.
  Talk about State ownership, in the 13 Western States alone, the 
States own 142 million acres, besides the literally hundreds of 
millions of acres that the Federal government owns. In my State of 
California, the government owns over half of the State. Everybody 
thinks California is this developed, packed State. Over half of the 
State is owned by the government, over half of it.
  When we talk about government ownership, do Members realize that the 
700 million acres that the government owns, that the Federal government 
owns, that half of that is held with some kind of conservation 
easement? It is held as National Park Service land, as wildlife refuge, 
as wilderness area. Three hundred fifty million acres is already held 
with a conservation easement on it. How much do they want?
  They say they are in favor of this bill because of all the great 
things it does. We do not take a dime away from any of that. What we 
are saying is, the Federal government owns enough land. If Members 
really want to protect urban parks, really want to put money into 
protecting farmlands, really want to put money into protecting 
endangered species, this is the amendment that does it. This is the one 
Members have to support.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I see the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) standing there. This discussion about we own too 
much land, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) tells us this year that 
the demands from Members of Congress far exceed what this committee 
could do; that over the vast majority of this Congress go before that 
committee and they ask, would the Federal government please purchase 
this inholding, will they expand this boundary, will they provide this 
new section of park, will they provide this unit?
  That is the fact of the matter. That is the democratic process. 
Members of Congress represent their constituents and make these 
requests. In recent years, the total land mass has gone down. I think 
we should trade out and swap out more lands. I agree with all of that. 
The fact of the matter is, it is Members of Congress and Members of the 
Senate that believe that these acquisitions should be made, these 
inholdings should be bought.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, that is true, but what the gentleman wants 
to do is to give authority to the States to buy the land, so they will 
go to the State legislators to get the requests.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. No, we are going to come right back 
to the gentleman to get that long list. The gentleman will be so happy 
as an appropriator.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my colleagues that this bill has 
been a very long process with many, many meetings. We reached a very 
balanced bill supported by 4,000, and every governing organization in 
this Nation.
  I can agree about what has been said about this amendment, but the 
reality is this amendment should not be adopted.
  I got interested about the gentleman from Georgia talking about how 
much we own. Last year he asked us to buy Cumberland Island. If that is 
the case, that he does not believe in Federal ownership of land, and I 
have not mentioned anybody's name so I will not yield at this time, if 
anybody would like to have purchased the land, then maybe we ought to 
take and have that land sold back to the private sector. The private 
sector would be the best way, because the Federal government should not 
have any more land.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, the 4,000 or 5,000 or 100,000 that the 
gentleman has on that sheet, none of those people are badgering for 
more Federal land acquisition. That is all the State side money, the 
$2.8 money in State side.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Reclaiming my time, I happen to agree with the 
gentleman, but remember the balance that I was talking about. Without 
this provision, if this amendment was adopted, if this amendment was 
adopted, then, very frankly, the package falls. I have to tell the 
gentlemen that. They understand that.
  So I would suggest respectfully that we defeat the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). All time on the amendment 
has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page 7572]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Tancredo) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in House 
Report 106-612.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Souder

  Mr. SOUDER. 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. 5 printed in House Report 106-612 offered by 
     Mr. Souder:
       Page 15, after line 8, insert the following:
       (f) Intent of Congress To Supplement Annual Appropriations 
     for National Park Service.--Amounts made available by this 
     Act are intended by the Congress to supplement, and not 
     detract from, annual appropriations for the National Park 
     Service.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, before I begin to explain my amendment, I want to 
commend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), our committee chairman 
on the Committee on Resources, and the ranking member, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller), for their work in crafting this 
bill.
  As a cosponsor of this fine piece of legislation, I strongly support 
this epic bill. My amendment is very simple. It merely clarifies that 
funds provided under CARA are intended to supplement and in no way 
detract from annual appropriations for the National Park Service.
  We are going to hear a lot of debate through tonight and possibly 
into tomorrow that is very contentious, and I as a strong conservative 
would like to make a brief statement in clarifying both my position 
regarding this bill and this amendment.
  A fundamental question is, what is in fact a conservative? I believe 
a key, fundamental part of being a conservative is conservation. That 
is what we do as conservatives: We appreciate our heritage, our natural 
beauty in America, whether it is the wonder of parks like Yellowstone 
and Yosemite and Glacier and the Grand Canyon; the rivers, the 
wildlife, which illustrate the wonder of intelligent design of our 
world.
  The cultural heritage of America, the Independence Halls, the 
Gettysburgs, help us understand who we are as a people. The national 
lake shores like the Indiana dunes, or the amazing combination areas 
like the Golden Gate recreational area, where we have cultural and 
natural beauty, that is the legacy that we want to pass to our children 
and to our children's children.
  We need to have a passion for that heritage. That is part of being a 
conservative. We can argue how much the government should own, how much 
regulation there should be. But the fundamental thing that we want to 
pass on in generations is a sense of who we are, both in our natural 
and cultural beauty.
  The reason that is important is there are charges made that those of 
us who back CARA are somehow trying to gut some of our national 
mission, that this is a zero sum game; if funds move to the State and 
local level, that in fact we would reduce the Federal funding for our 
National Parks.
  I really respect the difficult job that our chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations has every 
year in his difficulty meeting the $13 billion backlog in facilities 
and $26 billion in operations in the National Parks. I think it is 
important to make a statement in this bill that CARA is meant to be a 
supplement to what we are doing in the National Parks, and that it is 
part and parcel, part of and not just similar to the principle of the 
social security trust fund, the gas tax.
  When we say we are going to take revenue for a particular function, 
in this case environmental, or whether it is hunting and fishing fees, 
they should be used for what they are intended to be collected for.
  In the pattern over the last number of years, when we have had a 
deficit we have diverted these funds. This bill is not intended to take 
the funds from Interior, but rather to add a supplement to 
environmental legislation.
  Let me make one other point. I come from Indiana. I understand the 
frustrations of a lot of the Western States with high public lands. We 
have 3 percent public ownership of land in Indiana, 2 percent Federal. 
I have none in my district.
  I sought out the Committee on Resources, not because of anything 
directly related to my district, but because I am a strong believer in 
preserving our natural and historic heritage. We need a program like 
CARA, because our only wildlife programs are State parks, county parks. 
That is where our recreation funds are. We see our dollars constantly 
come to Washington and be diverted into the West. We need to have these 
things in the Midwest, as well.
  At the same time, the people of northeast Indiana, while we strongly 
want additional dollars, our tax dollars, for things to be matched in 
our local areas, we also support our National Park system. Almost every 
family, or a high percentage of the families, in my district will visit 
at least one or probably multiple of our kind of classic National 
Parks, as well as many regional National Forests, fish and wildlife 
settings, and national lake shores and other things that fall under our 
public land system.
  But this amendment is essential to say two things: One, we want to 
preserve our National Parks, and this is not meant to reduce any 
dollars in that area; secondly, that we need additional dollars to 
build up our State and local resources, because many of us, that is our 
primary way of appreciating the nature and our cultural heritage.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I do, and I yield to 
the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) controls the 5 minutes in opposition.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Before we go any further, Mr. Chairman, we are 
in a one, two, one, two. The Chair does not have to take care of us, 
but once in a while, I believe last time the gentleman controlled the 
time and yielded to me. I am just suggesting we do that. That is off 
the record, but I hope everybody sees it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) 
claiming the time in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  With the concurrence of the gentleman from California, we are willing 
to accept the amendment, because it makes great sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder) wish to seek further time? The gentleman has 20 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) is 
recognized for 20 seconds.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with what the gentleman 
is trying to do. I only wish it could be expanded for the forests, like 
the gentleman has Hoosier National Forest. We have a lot of 
responsibilities: The Bureau of Indiana Affairs, all the cultural 
agencies in town are afraid they are going to get shorted, even though 
we may give extra for the parks. I am for that, but there are other 
areas that also need to be funded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.

[[Page 7573]]

  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 6 printed in House Report 106-612.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Shadegg

  Mr. SHADEGG. 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. 6 offered by Mr. Shadegg:
       Page 15, after line 8, insert the following:
       (f) Ensuring Social Security and Medicare Solvency.--The 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall not transfer funds to the 
     Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund under this Act during 
     any fiscal year unless--
       (1) the Director of the Congressional Budget Office has 
     certified that the House and Senate have approved legislation 
     that--
       (A) ensures that a sufficient portion of the on-budget 
     surplus is reserved for debt retirement to put the Government 
     on a path to eliminate the publicly held debt by fiscal year 
     2013 under current economic and technical projections; and
       (B) ensures that there is not an on-budget deficit for that 
     fiscal year;
       (2) the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and 
     Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability 
     Insurance Trust Fund has certified that outlays from such 
     trust funds are not anticipated to exceed the revenues to 
     such trust funds during any of the next 5 fiscal years; and
       (3) the Board of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance 
     Trust Fund has certified that the outlays from such trust 
     fund are not anticipated to exceed the revenues to such trust 
     fund during any of the next 5 fiscal years.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people have spoken. They agree that 
conservation funding is important. I commend the sponsors of this bill 
on that point.
  But there is a very important condition. They do not agree that we 
should raid the social security surplus. They have made that position 
extremely clear last year and the year before. They want 100 percent of 
the surplus set aside.
  They also want to know that Medicare is funded and solvent. They have 
made that very clear. They want to know that it is there for their 
health care as seniors. And they want to know that the public debt will 
be paid off by the deadline of 2013 that this Congress and the 
President have agreed upon.
  Mr. Chairman, we are being urged tonight to vote against every single 
amendment to this bill. I would urge my colleagues, do not put their 
brains on hold. Listen to the debate.
  I urge Members to vote for this amendment. If they vote against it, 
they will hear from America's seniors. Let me explain why.
  CARA creates a $3 billion mandatory spending program to provide funds 
for land acquisition and conservation activities. If this bill is 
signed into law as the authors have written, this $3 billion will be 
spent every single year, no matter what. Under this bill, if Congress 
and the President do nothing, the money will nonetheless be spent.
  If the government is running a deficit and raiding the social 
security trust fund and stealing money from social security, then this 
$3 billion will still be spent on land acquisition and conservation. If 
social security or Medicare are going bankrupt, this $3 billion, which 
is what we are putting on auto pilot, will still be spent. It will not 
be set aside for Medicare. If there is not enough money to pay down the 
publicly-held debt by 2013, a commitment that this Congress and this 
president have made, nonetheless, the $3 billion in this bill gets 
spent, no matter what.
  Congress should support conservation, I agree with that, but not at 
the expense of our commitment to protect social security, not at the 
expense of our commitment to protect Medicare, not at the expense of 
America's seniors, and not at the expense of our grandchildren by 
burdening them with additional debt.
  The American people have spoken, Mr. Chairman. In a poll conducted, 
20 percent of voters said preserving social security was their top 
priority. Ten percent said paying down the debt was important. Only 1 
percent said creating more parks and additional conservation was 
important to them.
  Yet, under this bill, if social security is bankrupt and the debt is 
increasing and we are raiding the social security surplus, the law 
would require that we still must spend $3 billion a year on acquiring 
more Federal land and more conservation funding. It would not allow 
that money to be spent on saving social security or paying down the 
debt.
  The Shadegg amendment is simple and straightforward. It deals with 
this very problem. It protects social security. It protects Medicare. 
It says that the Secretary of the Treasury would have to certify that 
four conditions are met: First, that we are on track to eliminate the 
$3 trillion debt by 2013; second, that we are saving the social 
security surplus; third, that Medicare is not expected to run a deficit 
within the next 5 years; fourth, that social security is expected not 
to run a deficit within the next 5 years.

                              {time}  2000

  If the answer to each of these four questions, and they are laid out 
right here, is yes, then the money gets spent under the bill. If the 
answer is no, that is, if we are raiding Social Security or if we are 
raiding Medicare or if we are not paying down the debt, then the money 
would not be spent before the Congress acts.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
point out that it has the support of the United Seniors Association, 
the Sixty Plus Association, and it addresses the concerns of the 
Concord Coalition.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to strongly support 
this amendment. I think it is an excellent amendment. It points out the 
economic impact this could have. And I think it clearly also points out 
that what we are creating is an entitlement, as the gentleman from 
Arizona points out.
  This money is going to be spent if we are running a deficit and the 
ultimate result would be to dip into the Social Security trust fund, 
because we have to spend it every year. We are creating an entitlement. 
And I commend the gentleman for what he is proposing and I urge our 
colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would point out that 
this still allows these monies to be spent. It requires a 
straightforward certification that these conditions are met before 
those monies can be spent. And it is a straightforward attempt to make 
sure that we protect Social Security, we do not raid it; we protect 
Medicare, we do not raid it; and, we stay on the commitment of this 
Congress to pay down the debt, the publicly held debt, by 2013.
  It is a straightforward and honest amendment that says conservation 
funding is still important and it ought to occur, but not at the 
expense of Social Security, not at the expense of Medicare, not at the 
expense of paying down our debt.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the 
time in opposition, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be split 
with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and 
the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) will each be recognized for 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  We are going to have a whole series of amendments this evening that 
are offered by opponents of the legislation to essentially try to gut 
the legislation. This amendment, in fact, is

[[Page 7574]]

flawed and it is trying to obviously use, as so many have from time to 
time on this floor, the emotionalism of Social Security.
  Mr. Chairman, as we know already, there is the pledge by the 
President, there is a pledge by the Democrats, the Republicans, the 
leadership on both sides of the aisle, the leadership in both Houses 
that there is a lock-box proposal that Social Security will not be 
invaded. This would suggest that CBO is supposed to certify that to 
eliminate the debt by 2013.
  CBO tells us they cannot certify any such thing. They can tell us, as 
they do now, their best estimates of where we are going and where we 
are at a particular time in terms of deficit reduction, as we have 
experienced over the last several years in the size of the surplus.
  This is simply an effort by opponents to kill this legislation. We 
have a number of programs where we spend money automatically, whether 
it is Robinson-Pittman, whether it is the crime legislation and all the 
rest of that, and nobody for a moment believes that the Congress is 
going to do that at the expense of Social Security.
  The reason, one of the reasons this Congress has done so little 
legislatively is that we have a clear commitment to using the deficit 
to protect Social Security, to protect Medicare, and to pay down the 
debt.
  Due to our good fortunes, we also have the ability to fund a program 
such as this and I would urge the Members to vote against this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like my colleagues to look at this little 
diagram. This is what CARA would take out of the total budget. It is 
0.002 percent. That is all it takes out of it. And this amendment would 
be the first time that a new criteria is set on every bill. Only CARA 
does it apply to.
  Now, the thing that bothers me is that CARA is not about new 
spending. There is approximately, with the help of the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula) $1 billion a year that has already been spent. But 
under this amendment, none of that money would be spent. So we would 
cut out. No new parks, no wildlife refuge additions, no grants to 
States, no assistance to landowners or endangered species. None of that 
would occur.
  So what the amendment does is eliminate, in fact, until all that 
criteria is met, no more spending period for the Department of 
Interior. And I am sure the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) would love 
that.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to point out that it does 
not stop that spending. It only stops that spending from automatically 
happening. The spending could still occur with the approval of 
Congress.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, yes, but the 
spending could not occur until we reach that goal. Although I think 
some of those are meritorious.
  Mr. SHADEGG. No, no, no.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, that is my interpretation. I 
believe that is the way it was presented. And, again, I would like to 
suggest that this is the only bill that this amendment would apply to. 
And, of course, this is the only bill before us today.
  But if we were going to do as the gentleman wishes to do, then we 
should apply that to everything. I happen to think, by the way, and I 
happen to think very frankly one thing we have to keep in mind, if we 
were to take a poll of all of our senior citizens, I think that we will 
find that they support this overwhelmingly. They are the ones that use 
the parks. They are the ones that go to the refuges. They are the ones 
that are worried about the redwoods, and they are the ones, frankly, 
worried about the endangered species.
  So keep in mind, although the gentleman says that we are going to 
spend the money away from Social Security or divert it away, remember 
the intention of the original act, the Land and Water Conservation Act. 
The Congress owes the American people $13 billion which we have not 
used correctly, that the law said we should use. That is my concern.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young) for yielding to me. I only want to point out that there are 
other revenue sharing mandatory programs in this government. For 
example, interior States get 50 percent of the sharing of Federal 
mineral resources on Federal lands within the State. That is paid out 
every year regardless of our budget problems. Paid out every year.
  We just passed mandatory spending for airports. We passed mandatory 
spending for highways in this country. Those are paid out regardless of 
our budgetary problems under those mandatory programs. This is nothing 
new.
  None of those programs are conditioned upon anybody certifying the 
future. Who could predict that future? The bottom line is that this is 
a red herring to kill the bill and we knew it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to clarify the intent of the 
amendment and the language of the amendment, which says the funds 
simply would not be automatically spent under those conditions. If the 
Congress wanted to go ahead and make the appropriations to spend them, 
then that could occur. It does not prevent them from ever being spent; 
it simply says they are not spent as an entitlement.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding. I would say the whole point is to stop the funding. That 
is the situation we have today. That is the situation by which Congress 
took $13 billion out of what was supposed to be spent and went off and 
spent it on something else.
  And the gentleman from Alaska is correct. No money would be spent 
unless we could certify that we going to eliminate the national debt by 
2013. The very people the gentleman tells us to certify it say they 
cannot certify any such thing. Remember, 6 years ago, we thought we 
were going to have $300 billion deficits as far as the eye could see, 
is what they said. And now people want to tell us that we are going to 
have surpluses as far as the eye can see now of $300 billion.
  So the CBO is trying to say that we cannot certify that. And if they 
cannot certify that, none of this money can be spent for any of these 
purposes. And that is the gentleman's intent because the gentleman 
opposes the bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
comment. I just suggest respectfully that amendment should be rejected. 
It is a small, small part of this total budget, and I do go back to my 
senior citizens and I do think they frankly support this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Shadegg) for yielding me this time, and I must say this debate is 
absolutely phenomenal. All of the arguments that are being made about 
the automatic spending are precisely why I oppose the bill. Not because 
I do not support the conservation, all of the wildlife, all of the good 
things that are in it.
  But remember, 2 years ago we came before this body and we took 
highway spending off budget. Last year we took aviation off budget. Now 
we are taking conservation off budget. We are creating new entitlement 
programs, and I do not know how many times I have stood on this floor 
and listened to people say we have just got to stop and restrain 
entitlement spending.

[[Page 7575]]

  But, Mr. Chairman, because it is a good purpose, and who can argue 
against all of the good things that are in this bill? But no matter how 
we color it, spending is spending. And no matter how many times we talk 
about the good parts of legislation, ultimately we are going to have to 
make some decisions. And this amendment today does not say we cannot 
spend it. It just says that we have got to look at what actually is 
happening in the year in which we are going to be appropriating for 
various conservation programs and say whether the money is there or 
not. If it is not there without touching Social Security, we cannot do 
it.
  How many times have we unanimously agreed on both sides of the aisle 
we are not going to touch Social Security? But now tonight we are going 
to put automatically in place, on auto pilot, something that will spend 
$3 billion a year no matter what. We are going to wake up here maybe 
next year, maybe the year after, maybe the year after that, maybe in 4 
or 5 years, but sooner or later the chickens are going to come home to 
roost.
  And we can say all we want to say about the merits of it. I agree 
with all of my friends on both sides of the aisle that are absolutely, 
totally in favor of this legislation. But it really bothers me when we 
continue, year after year, to put new programs on auto pilot and then 
we are going to come back to the American people and say we are for 
balancing the budget, we are for not doing anything to Social Security. 
In the meantime, we have not done anything to protect Social Security.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman's 
amendment. He is right on target.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one clarification. The highway 
funds were tax dollars collected for gas used on the highways. The 
airport funds were dollars collected for those who use the airports and 
the airplanes and the fuel that was used. It was not supposed to go to 
the general fund anyway.
  This is exactly the same, because we have $13 billion that is owed to 
the public because we collected it. It was supposed to be spent in the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund, and we spent it. We spent it on God 
knows what. All we are doing in this bill is paying back the public and 
land and water conservation, endangered species, historical 
preservation, land easements, and all the rest of things in this good 
bill, just doing what is correct.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller) for yielding me this time. There is a lot of 
discussion here today about this is going to be another entitlement, 
and we need to correctly budget the tax dollars that come in to this 
great city.
  But that is exactly what we are doing. The gentleman from Alaska just 
said that the tax dollars that are designated for highways go to 
highways. They do not go to all the other programs that are out there. 
The tax dollars designated for airports go to airports. The revenue 
that we are collecting for conservation, for land easements, for 
fisheries, for agriculture, for all those things, the dollars collected 
for that specific purpose from those programs now are not going to be 
scattered throughout the Federal budget. They are going to be 
designated with a succinct budget for these conservation programs.
  In our home, we designate a certain amount of money from our budget 
for the mortgage or rent, for water or electricity, for clothing, for 
recreation. That is exactly what we are doing here.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) 
has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Shadegg amendment.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Madam Chairman, I want to go back to the chart that was used earlier. 
This, Madam Chairman, is the $2.8 billion that each year goes to CARA. 
Do my colleagues know what, in relation to the large $1.8 trillion 
budget, one can argue that is a very, very thin slice of the pizza.
  However, let me speak to you as an appropriator. We have lots of 
competing needs: education need, children with disabilities, defense 
needs, Social Security, grandmothers raising grandchildren, foster kid 
care, Medicare, day care, Kosovo. Everything that is in the Federal 
Government has to come out of this pie.
  Now, this $2.8 billion in relation to $1.8 trillion is not that much. 
But let me tell my colleagues, $2.8 billion a year is not a small 
amount of money. That is a huge amount of money. I can tell my 
colleagues one thing. If they got home to their seniors and say, 
``Would you want to spend that money on Social Security or on new lands 
when we already have one-third of the land in America owned by the 
Federal Government'', they are probably going to say, ``Do you know 
what? I am more concerned about long-term health care.'' Because 
seniors cannot afford $50,000 a year for long-term health care. They 
could come up with other ways to spend that $2.8 billion.
  So the question is, under the Shadegg amendment, do we put this land 
acquisition money in front of Social Security? Do we put land 
acquisition in front of paying down the debt for our children? Do we 
put it in front of Medicare. I do not think we do. I do not think our 
seniors want us to do that.
  If my colleagues think they can vote on this one because it is going 
to gut this bill, they are going to vote against it, let me tell them, 
I would be very careful because they will be explaining this vote for a 
long, long time.
  We have all worked very hard to support debt reduction, protecting 
Social Security and Medicare. This gives us a chance to make sure that 
we all come together and say, does one know what? These are very 
important things, and I am going to support the Shadegg amendment for 
that.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, I simply rise again in opposition to this amendment, 
recognizing that the purpose of this amendment is to make sure that no 
funds can ever be spent under this program. Because what this amendment 
says, it needs to be certified. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Shadegg) knows very well the CBO has told us they simply cannot certify 
that.
  So in absence of that certification, it has nothing to do with Social 
Security, it has nothing to do with Medicare, it has to do with the 
fact that they have to certify something that is 13 years in advance. 
They cannot certify that. That is the reason why this amendment is 
designed to kill this bill. This would kill the funding.
  I guess maybe this is a fight among the appropriators and everybody 
else where they apparently can spend money and take everything else 
into consideration, but we cannot do that with this legislation because 
it does not run every nickel through their committee.
  I think the point is this, this is simply an amendment to strike this 
legislation, and it is to try to do it using the emotionalism of Social 
Security and all of the rest of that. The fact of the matter is we know 
that people value these programs. They think that we have been derelict 
in our duty in responding to the needs for these conservation measures.
  We ought to oppose this amendment for what it is. It is an effort to 
kill this legislation.

[[Page 7576]]

  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, let me simply point out, just to use their words, 
this is an attempt to strike the legislation, to gut it, it is a red 
herring, it is to make sure that no funding can ever be spent. The 
whole point, so my opponents say, is to stop the funding. They used the 
word ``kill''. They say it is designed to kill. They say it would kill 
the funding. Indeed they are prescient because they can read my mind 
and understand my intent.
  Well, let me make clear. This year the Secretary of Treasury could 
certify that, in fact, we are paying down the debt. We are on the track 
to eliminate the publicly held debt. This year, the Secretary of 
Treasury could certify and would certify we are saving 100 percent of 
Social Security. This year, the Secretary of Treasury could certify and 
would certify that we are not expected to run a deficit in Medicare 
within the next 5 years, and that Social Security is not expected to 
run a deficit within the next 5 years.
  All of the conditions set in this legislation are met this year. 
Indeed, it is very clear that this year, 2001, even if the Shadegg 
amendment is adopted, the bill's money will be spent exactly as urged. 
It is no attempt to gut the bill. It is about protecting Social 
Security. It is about protecting Medicare. It is about paying down the 
debt. This year, the money could be spent. It is not an attempt to gut 
the bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). All time for debate has 
expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Madam 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 Arizona (Mr. 
Shadegg) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in House 
Report 106-612.


             Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage

  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage:
       Page 15, after line 17, insert the following new section 
     and make the necessary conforming changes in the table of 
     contents:

     SEC. 6A. NATIONAL MONUMENTS.

       No funds made available by this Act (including the 
     amendments made by this Act) may be used for the 
     establishment or management of a national monument designated 
     after 1995 under the Act of June 8, 1906, commonly known as 
     the ``Antiquities Act'' (16 U.S.C. 431 and following).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the 
gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage) and a Member opposed each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-
Hage).
  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment very simply prevents funds from CARA 
being utilized for the management or creation of national monuments 
designated after 1995 under the Antiquities Act.
  Madam Chairman, for the past 5 years, the current administration has 
grossly misused the 1906 Antiquities Act to lock up literally millions 
of acres throughout the United States from production. This first 
occurred in 1996 when President Clinton, on a campaign stop in Arizona, 
much to the surprise of every State official in Utah, declared millions 
of acres in Utah as the Grand Escalante Monument. He pulled this 
maneuver with virtually no environmental or Congressional process, but 
simply as a political favor to the Sierra Club.
  Now, as the Clinton-Gore administration winds down, Secretary Babbitt 
has traversed the western United States, declaring ``monuments'' of 
massive proportion in Arizona and California and scoping others in my 
own State of Idaho and also in New Mexico, keeping in mind, Madam 
Chairman, these designations, which have the impact of shutting down 
activity and economies in the affected areas, are done without any 
Congressional authorization or even oversight, without any real local 
input, and without any environmental assessment as required by the 
National Environmental Policy Act.
  In short, Madam Chairman, the President has tortured and twisted a 
well-intended law to exercise his executive will over the people and 
livelihoods of the rural West.
  While I have worked vigorously with my colleagues to, at the very 
least, inject due process for these designations, the administration 
has fought us all the way, not even agreeing to require a basic NEPA 
analysis.
  The one saving hope that we have, Madam Chairman, is that because 
these actions have occurred through executive order and are thus 
temporary, we can work with the next administration to once again 
restore the intended purpose of the Antiquities Act, which is to 
designate actual monuments which are of truly historic and natural 
significance.
  I believe this is a responsible amendment that even cosponsors of 
this bill should support. I do urge its passage.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) rise?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to yield 5 minutes of my 10 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for the 
purpose of control.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alaska?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. Madam Chairman, the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. 
Chenoweth-Hage) makes a lot of arguments about the designation of 
monuments, but this bill has nothing to do with monuments. In fact, 
very frankly, I do not think if this amendment was adopted, it would 
stop the President from designating monuments. Only on Federal lands 
can monuments be created, and it has to be by an edict of the 
President.
  As my colleagues know, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) 
introduced the bill, and we voted for that bill, and it moved out of 
the House and sent it over to the Senate to, in fact, keep this type of 
action from occurring. I supported that and voted for it. Because I 
think what has been done in Escalante, what was done in Alaska by 
Stewart Udall, those things were done incorrectly. But that was the 
prerogative of the President. Until we change that law, that is the 
only way we can address that problem.
  But under this bill, it does not pertain to the monument problem at 
all. There is no money spent out of this bill for monuments. There is 
no action out of this bill for monuments. In fact, this bill has 
nothing to do with monuments.
  Now, although I sympathize with the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. 
Chenoweth-Hage) and the problem of monuments, in fact, I would support 
it, have supported the legislation, this is not the place to try to 
have an amendment adopted to solve that problem. In fact, I oppose the 
amendment. I strongly object to the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding me this time.
  Madam Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller), ranking member, and the gentleman from Alaska

[[Page 7577]]

(Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Resources, for what will 
prove to be a unique opportunity in conservation and reinvestment when 
it comes to our green spaces, when it comes to the idea of conservation 
of our land.
  Let me thank constituents of mine from the Contemporary Learning 
Center, young people who came up and advocated for this legislation 
because it has great impact on inner city parks, more green space, 
although it has far-reaching impact.
  Let me acknowledge with respect to the amendment of the gentlewoman 
from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage) to indicate that I would hope that we 
would be cautious in the amendments that have no bearing on the 
particular underlying legislation.
  For example, there are no funds in this bill for the establishment of 
national monuments. Obviously, monuments can be established by the 
Antiquities Act by the Presidential proclamation.
  I happen to believe, however, that we should consider on a case-by-
case situation the idea of monuments. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) knows I have discussed with him over a number of years a 
tribute to Sojourner Truth.
  But I think we should stay focused on H.R. 701 and what it does do, 
which is provide $2.8 billion for annual funding for important 
conservation and recreation programs. For my community, this is a great 
influx or insertion of dollars and energy around this idea.
  As well, we who are collectively in urban areas and rural areas, can 
find opportunities in this legislation that will respond to the desires 
of our communities to be involved in more green space.
  I would hope that we would spend time on recognizing that this bill 
does need to move forward and that we not shackle it with a number of 
amendments that may inhibit its movement and also opportunity to create 
greater spaces for our constituents.
  Madam Chairman, I ask the support of this entire legislation, and I 
would ask for the opposition or the opposing of the present amendment.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to the time 
remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-
Hage) has 7 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) 
has 4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
  Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Idaho 
for yielding me this time.
  I would like to point out that Theodore Roosevelt was the man who 
sponsored this 1906 Antiquities law. And he was the man that got it 
through. Why did he do it? He did it because there was nothing to 
preserve things. There was nothing to preserve Indian ruins, historic 
things, scientific things, or nothing. So out of that, fortunately, we 
have got the Grand Canyon, we have got Zion and Bryce, we have got 
other great parks.
  Since that time in 1915, we got the organic act or the park law. We 
have got all kinds of bills that now protect the public ground. In 
fact, even a judge has said this law should probably be repealed 
because there is no need for it; and besides that, the Constitution is 
abundantly clear that Congress is the organization that handles the 
public lands of America, not the Executive Branch.
  The gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage) alluded to the fact 
that, on September 16, 1996, safely on the South River of the Grand 
Canyon, the President came there and put 1.7 million acres in the Grand 
Staircase Escalante.

                              {time}  2030

  The bill that I have been referring to says what? That the President 
in his proclamation shall state the historic or archeological reason 
for doing something, and in this particular instance, the President 
failed to do that. I urge my colleagues to read that proclamation; it 
did not say anything.
  Now, what they do not understand is the next sentence in the law says 
this: And he shall use the smallest acreage available to protect that 
site. First, he does not tell us what it is. Then he uses 1.7 million 
acres, and then he goes around the next year in Arizona, right on the 
Arizona Strip, we get another million acres. Then he goes down to 
Phoenix, then we get more acres. Then he goes to the coast, and we get 
more. Then he goes to Sequoia and we get more. Then there are people 
stand on the floor, Democrats and Republicans, saying Sequoia is well 
taken care of. Now, do you blame us for being paranoid?
  We find ourselves in a situation where my AA called up the day before 
they did the Grand Staircase Escalante, talked to the top person in the 
White House, and said we are hearing this rumor, is the President 
really going to do this? We are hearing the same rumor. Of course not, 
we do not know anything about it. And the next day he is standing on 
the south rim of the Grand Canyon and doing this. Do you think anyone 
else would be paranoid if you get that kind of information?
  Right now, my good friends, I am hearing about the Missouri up in 
Montana. I am hearing about the Four Corners. I am hearing about the 
Salton Sea. Sure, we are paranoid. I think the gentlewoman from Idaho 
(Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage) has come up with a great idea. There should be no 
funding for these things, because Congress is the one to do it.
  Madam Chairman, I would appreciate the Members of the House giving 
some real thought to this. This is true, it is an antiquated law. There 
is no reason to have it, and I can see no reason in the world to fund 
this.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
  Mr. POMBO. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
the time.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It says that none of 
the money within this act can be used for the establishment of 
monuments under the Antiquities Act. Now, I agree with the chairman of 
the committee that this legislation does not deal directly with that, 
but the reason that this is so important, I think, has been proven time 
and time again over the past 8 years, when the administration has found 
it inconvenient or not enough money has gone into the areas that they 
wanted, they turned around and they took money from other places, as 
the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) is very aware, when it came to 
Pittman-Robertson money, if they did not have money for the projects 
they wanted, they just took it out of Pittman-Robertson.
  What I am afraid of is that under this act, when $3 billion a year is 
thrown out and we let them spend it on whatever they want, it may 
become convenient for them to establish a new monument and then not 
have the money for it and just take it from here, because there is 
really not enough sideboards, oversight on this particular spending.
  What the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage) is trying to do 
is she is trying to rein in the administration. She is trying to rein 
in the executive branch. She is trying to pull them back and say, no, 
it cannot be done unless Congress specifically authorizes it.
  I believe this is a very important amendment, and there may be those 
that sluff it off and say that this does not deal with the Antiquities 
Act, that this underlying legislation does not deal with monuments, but 
there is not enough oversight within the legislation to stop them from 
spending the money on things that they want.
  I support the gentlewoman's amendment wholeheartedly. I think it is 
an important amendment, and I think that it should be added on to the 
bill.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I believe I have the 
right to close. Are there any remaining speakers?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young) has the right to close.

[[Page 7578]]


  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I want the right to 
close.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I will close if I have to.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Is the gentleman yielding me the 
balance of the time?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller) the balance of my time for purposes of control.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) has 7 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. 
Chenoweth-Hage) has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I reserve the 
balance of my time to close.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Chairman, I thank the House for allowing this amendment to come 
up. It is a very, very important amendment, because even as I speak, 
Secretary Babbitt is in my State, looking at setting aside three 
different sites as a national monument under the 1906 Antiquities Act. 
This is a clear distortion of the Antiquities Act. The Antiquities Act 
very clearly says that the area immediately around the antiquity shall 
be protected, not one 1.8 million acres like was set aside in Utah and 
the hundreds of thousands that we expect in Idaho and various other 
States.
  I think this is an amendment that will rein in the kind of ambition 
that we have seen in this administration. I urge its support.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. I think 
this amendment is a bit off the mark here; the concern here is with the 
President using the authority that he has under the Antiquities Act to 
establish monuments. There is nothing in this legislation that gives us 
the opportunity to do that. We do not have the authority to do that, 
only the President has the authority to do that.
  I think the problem occurs, and this may even be a problem for people 
who have these monuments in their districts, that is, conceivably under 
this act, under title VI, some monies might be used for restoration and 
maintenance; now you have created two classes of antiquities. We can 
use it for all of the existing antiquities, but for those since 1995, 
we cannot.
  In Utah, where they have this massive track of Federal lands out 
there, the monies cannot be used to take care of it, to restore it or 
to maintain it, and that would also be true I guess in California, 
where I know local citizens are concerned about exactly that effort, 
now that it is in antiquities how will it be managed, and conceivably 
some of these funds could be used for that purpose.
  I think the gentlewoman is sort of throwing out the baby with the 
bathwater here and using the idea that somehow Congress can use the 
Antiquities Act, when Congress has no ability, no authority to use the 
Antiquities Act.
  I do not know if the gentlewoman wants to withdraw the amendment or 
wants to go ahead with it, but it clearly misses the mark. I think it 
creates a worse problem for people who already have these, because 
clearly we cannot establish them. In Utah and in Colorado and Arizona, 
where they have them, I think they would like to know that they could 
have some ability to take them.
  The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) has indicated already the 
substantial increase in tourists and others who are going to this area, 
which is a burden on the State in terms of maintenance; that is why I 
do not know if this is what the gentlewoman really wants to do. The 
gentlewoman ought to take the first part out, because there is no 
authority in law for us to do that.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Idaho.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Madam Chairman, I must say to the gentleman 
that, clearly, the Committee on Rules felt that the amendment was in 
order.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Reclaiming my time, Madam chairman, 
the amendment is in order. It is fine. But the President has the 
authority under the Antiquities Act to do this. There is nothing in 
this bill that establishes any authority for us under the Antiquities 
Act because it does not pertain to us.
  The gentlewoman is welcome to the amendment.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Well, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
this administration usually uses money that has not been either 
authorized or appropriated, and this just puts a fence around money 
being used for this purpose. So it is in order.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Once again reclaiming my limited 
time, I appreciate that. All I am saying is for Representatives who 
have had these established in their areas, I am not sure this is what 
they want to do, to cut off the money for those areas, because that is 
the law now.
  Nobody here is offering to repeal the Utah one or the California one 
or the Arizona one. So now they have to be maintained because there is 
increased traffic and tourism and all the rest going to these areas. So 
the gentlewoman now wants to cut off the ability, by chance, to use 
this money for the purposes of maintenance or restoration.
  Madam Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Idaho 
(Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in House 
Report 106-612.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Pombo

  Mr. POMBO. Madam 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. 8 offered by Mr. Pombo:
       Page 18, line 1, after ``unless'', insert ``specifically''.
       Page 18, after line 2, insert the following:
       (c) Protection of Rights in Non-Federal Property From 
     Federal Acquisition of Nearby Lands.--The right of an owner 
     of non-Federal real property to use and enjoy that property 
     shall not be diminished based on the property being--
       (1) within the boundaries of a Federal unit as a 
     consequence of the acquisition of lands for that unit with 
     amounts made available by this Act; or
       (2) adjacent to Federal lands acquired with amounts made 
     available by this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
  Mr. POMBO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is an extremely important amendment. I think it cuts to the 
heart of a lot of what is wrong and what is broken with our current 
land management system at the Federal level in this country.
  This amendment speaks to when the Federal Government goes into an 
area by action of this bill, by taking money that is appropriated under 
this bill and authorized under this bill, and buys one piece of land. 
And I held this up a little earlier. It is a map of Federal land 
ownership in this country. And we can see throughout the West most of 
it is owned by the Federal Government right now. But let us say that 
they went just outside of this, take Texas as

[[Page 7579]]

an example, or Louisiana, or any of the States that have very little 
Federal land, and let us say that they drew on the map a little circle 
and said we want this to someday be a wildlife refuge, and they buy one 
little piece of land. Well, what this amendment says is that if they do 
not own it, they do not control it.
  Under current law, under current practice, under current 
interpretation of the morass of laws that are currently on the books, 
the Federal Government, just because it draws something on a map, they 
have not paid for it, they have not exchanged money, they have not paid 
the rightful property owner anything, all they have done is they have 
gone in and drawn something on a map, what this amendment says is that 
they do not control it, then. It is very simple.
  Now, I know most Members of the House, most people in this country 
believe that, well, the Federal Government cannot control it. The 
Federal Government cannot put special restrictions on one property 
owner that it cannot put on another just because some bureaucrat 
sitting in an office in Washington, D.C. drew a line on a map. But the 
truth of the matter is they can, and they literally have hundreds of 
rules and regulations on the books that come down on the head of the 
poor unfortunate property owner who happens to be inside the line 
instead of outside the line.
  What this amendment quite simply says, if they do not pay for it, 
they cannot control it. The Constitution states, ``nor shall private 
property be taken for public use without just compensation.'' It says 
that if it is for the public good, a wildlife refuge, a national park, 
a wilderness area, or for something else that people support, they have 
to pay for it before they can take it. And what I am trying to do is to 
protect those property owners, the unfortunate property owners, who 
happen to fall inside the line instead of outside the line.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, 
and I ask unanimous consent that my friend, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), be allowed to control 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) each will control 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) seeks to 
change a line that is in the CARA bill that reads, as follows: Let me 
read this sentence to the Members: The CARA bill provides currently 
that Federal agencies using funds appropriated by this act may not 
apply any regulation on lands until the lands or water or an interest 
therein is acquired.

                              {time}  2045

  CARA already does that. It says, in effect, that before the 
Government actually acquires a land, it cannot impose any regulations 
or limitations on use on that land even though it proposes to buy that 
land.
  CARA also says, ``unless authorized to do so by another act of 
Congress.'' That gives the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) some 
trouble and other Members some trouble. But let me tell my colleagues 
what that means.
  What that means is that Congress has, in effect, passed laws that 
regulate property, not all of which I agree with, not all of which many 
of us agree with. Congress has passed laws to protect, for example, 
mining in public parks and recreational areas and wilderness areas to 
protect against certain activities in those parks.
  It certainly has passed a lot of laws and regulations aimed at 
protecting species that are endangered and threatened and the wetlands 
and a whole host of Federal environmental protective legislation. That 
does affect potentially the use of their property.
  CARA also includes the language, I should point out to my friend the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), of the fifth amendment. It 
restates it. It says that whenever any property under CARA, or 
otherwise, is affected by a taking under the fifth amendment, due 
compensation is going to get paid.
  But CARA does precisely what the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Pombo) wants. It says that until the Government actually acquires the 
property that is proposed to be acquired, no new regulatory authority 
is granted under this act that does not already exist in some other 
act.
  Now, I would like to change some of those other acts. I know the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) would, too. But that is not what 
we are doing today. We are discussing CARA. And we are talking about a 
problem that the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) has. And I agree 
with him, it does happen. But agencies do, on occasion, try to impose 
regulations on proposed acquisitions. And those things do happen. It is 
unfortunate. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I 
went over some examples of that.
  CARA tries to cure that and says so very clearly, no regulations 
under CARA can be imposed upon proposed acquisitions until the 
Government takes title. It is as clear as a bell.
  CARA does correctly recognize, however, that there are other acts of 
Congress that may impose certain restrictions on the private use of 
private property. If they impose a taking, CARA provides compensation 
rights under the fifth amendment. And that is precisely what CARA ought 
to do.
  The amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) would seek 
to interfere with those other statutes through this bill. I do not 
think this is the place to do it. And the amendment of the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Pombo) therefore would cause some real problems 
not only with this bill but many other statutes, such as those that 
protect against mining in Yellowstone Park, for example.
  I would suggest that this amendment needs to be defeated.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 
minutes.
  Madam Chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has just 
accurately explained the situation within CARA. We went around and 
around on this in the negotiations for many, many days and many, many 
hours; and we provided exactly the protection that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo) says that he wants.
  What we could not assure, as the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin) has pointed out, we could not assure him that other laws of the 
United States would not come into play, such as clean air and clean 
water.
  If they have a national park and somebody on the boundary of that 
national park wants to put in a gas station and they want to sell gas 
with MTBE, and we now know that leaks into the groundwater, under the 
Clean Water Act, under the Clean Air Act, they might be able, like any 
other landowner, to say, I do not want them to do this, they are 
infringing on my property rights.
  And one thing we said was that we could not diminish the right of the 
Federal Government that other property owners have. If they have a 
piece of property and a person comes along and they want to put in a 
smelting plant, they might want to know what the air quality coming out 
the smokestack is. So would the National Park Service.
  If they want to put in a mine, if there is going to be toxic waste in 
that mine that goes through and into a river that runs through one of 
our national parks, the National Park Service may want to ask some 
questions about that. That is under the other laws. But in and of this 
act, they do not get to impose the burdens on property owners. That is 
what was hammered out, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) 
has explained it perfectly right. That is the agreement that was handed 
out.

[[Page 7580]]

  But we are not going to use CARA to waive the Clean Air Act, to waive 
the Clean Water Act, to waive the Superfund legislation. That is not 
what CARA is going to be used for.
  CARA, with this amendment, would be used as a battering ram by 
landowners against other basic environmental laws in this Nation. And 
that is not what is to be done. If somebody wants to do that some day 
when the Clean Air Act is on the floor or the Clean Water Act, they can 
hammer that out. But they cannot use the Pombo language to strike down 
the basic environmental laws of this Nation.
  We have protected the landowner from CARA. We have protected those 
people. The one incident that the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) 
brought to our attention, in fact inside that refuge line vineyards 
have been planted, wineries have been started, subdivisions have been 
started, homes have been remodeled. All of these activities have been 
carried on. Because you do not have the right to do that without just 
compensation, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) pointed out.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMBO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, I would like to point out that my colleague from 
California is absolutely wrong, did not read the amendment; and what he 
is talking about I would not propose and has absolutely nothing to do 
with this particular amendment.
  What this amendment says is that just because as an action taken 
under this act that they get put inside one of these Federal 
boundaries, they would not be treated differently than someone outside 
of the boundary.
  The Clean Air Act still applies, the Clean Water Act still applies, 
the Endangered Species Act still applies just like it does today. This 
amendment does not change any of that.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment, which will provide common sense protections and peace of 
mind to property owners affected by this bill.
  H.R. 701 enhances the Government's appetite for an ability to own and 
control even more of our country's land even while reducing the amount 
of private property individual Americans can own.
  Madam Chairman, where does it stop? The Federal Government already 
owns nearly one-third of the total land base in the United States. In 
the West, Government ownership is staggering. They control 54 percent 
of the land in 12 western States. In some counties in California, it is 
90 percent.
  If they want more land, great, buy it in the East. The Government 
only owns 6 percent of the land east of the Mississippi.
  We are being reassured that this bill will not coerce the sale of 
private land because it has a willing seller requirement. The idea of a 
willing seller is a myth. The reality is that, with enough government 
pressure, a private landowner will become willing to sell as the rights 
to use his land are squeezed by burdensome Federal, State, and local 
government ordinances, policies, and laws.
  The Federal Government can and does regulate property owners into 
submission, making them willing sellers only after the value of their 
land has dramatically fallen and only after they have lost their 
ability to earn a living.
  Madam Chairman, H.R. 701 has grave consequences for private property 
ownership. I urge my colleagues to support the protections proposed in 
the Pombo amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, let me point out that in the negotiations on this 
bill, when the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) raises the 
question of whether or not there were in fact regulatory authorities 
that affected lands that were not yet in the park ownership yet but, 
nevertheless, around it; and we were told at first that there were no 
such things. And then, sure enough, there are all kinds of laws in 
effect right now that do in fact provide some regulatory authority 
under existing law for those lands.
  They include, for example, under the NMPS Organic Act, NMPS can 
regulate inholdings where there is a session of jurisdiction from the 
State to protect park resources, provide wildlife protection, preclude 
discharge of firearms, forbid the starting of fires, to prohibit 
gambling, to name just a few.
  In short, there are other laws that protect parks and resources from 
all kinds of activities, the likes of which I do not think my 
colleagues would probably want around a place like Yellowstone. Those 
laws are in effect today.
  The problem with the Pombo amendment is that it would threaten the 
implementation of those laws even though the bill as written clearly 
says that no new regulations stem from CARA. In other words, nothing in 
the act crafted through these delicate compromises increases nor 
diminishes any authority under existing law to regulate private 
property that is not already enjoyed by the Government in fee 
ownership. Nothing in CARA increases or diminishes regulations on 
private property.
  But just to make it abundantly clear again, we have included in CARA 
the protection of the fifth amendment, that if any other regulation 
that exists in current law operates to so limit the use and enjoyment 
of private property outside of a park, that that landowner is entitled 
to the fifth amendment protections of just compensation.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. POMBO. Madam Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has 15 seconds remaining. The gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. POMBO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Madam Chairman, I want my colleagues to pay real close attention to 
what the Pombo amendment is saying. It simply says, if they are a 
landowner and they are next door to Federal land, then their property 
rights should not be diminished.
  For crying out loud, this is a no-brainer. Is this not the United 
States of America? I know Cuba has been in the news a lot lately. Are 
we starting to emulate what goes on in other countries or imitate it?
  We are saying, if they own private land next to private land, their 
rights should not be diminished and this is being rejected by people 
who have sworn an oath of loyalty to the Constitution of America? This 
amendment is being rejected by fellow Americans?
  For crying out loud, all we are saying is that if they own land next 
to the Federal Government, they get their constitutional rights. But I 
cannot believe it. My friend and colleagues are saying, no, no, no. We 
are the Government and there are things the common people do not 
understand, because we are Washington and we have the franchise on this 
intellectual elitism that is going to run the country in the new world 
order and we do not want fellow Americans to enjoy the right of pursuit 
of happiness and property.
  This is a sad day, my colleagues. I may say this speech with a little 
flippancy. But all the Pombo amendment says is that, if their land is 
next to the Federal Government land, they can enjoy their private 
property rights constitutionally given to them, written at the 
Constitutional Convention in 1789.
  We are saying, no, the Congress of the United States in the year 2000 
is too advanced to accept those long-standing principles.

[[Page 7581]]

  This amendment should be accepted without a vote.
  Mr. POMBO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Madam chairman, I would like to bring us back to what we are doing 
here today. We are approving legislation which will shove almost a 
billion dollars a year into land acquisition every single year.
  What I am saying is that, if under this act, because we are shoving 
so much new money at new land purchases, if the Federal Government goes 
in and goes after land that is around their property or adjacent to the 
land that they own, that the Federal Government is not going to control 
the land that they own, as a private property owner and as an American 
citizen, that they are not going to take away their property rights 
just because we are shoving another billion dollars a year into land 
acquisition.

                              {time}  2100

  This is one of my major complaints with this legislation. The Federal 
Government goes in and through adverse condemnation takes away property 
rights through regulation, away from private citizens. They do not pay 
for it. They do not sit down and negotiate a fair price. They just take 
it.
  Now, let us just say that you happen to know a little inn on the side 
of a river somewhere. It is a beautiful place. The government comes in 
and buys the land around you and they tell you, ``We don't want you 
there anymore.'' Under current law, they can shut you down. They can 
say, you cannot improve your place anymore, you cannot discharge 
anymore, you cannot put a fire in your fireplace anymore, all because 
they came in and bought land around you. This bill has a provision for 
a willing seller in it and I will be damned if you are not going to 
become a willing seller under that provision. That is exactly what is 
going to happen.
  All I am trying to do is to protect those property owners that end up 
because of this bill getting stuck inside some green area, not because 
of any action of their own but because of an action of this Congress. I 
just want to protect those property owners. That is all this amendment 
is trying to do. Darn if Members should not accept it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume. It is very interesting rhetoric. He says if you 
own some land inside of a green space. Yes, if you have an inholding 
inside of Yellowstone Park or Yosemite Park or Grand Tetons or the 
Everglades, there are other laws on the books that keep you from strip 
mining inside of that park, from oil and gas development inside of that 
park, because of the impact on the parks, the national park system of 
this country. Waste disposal. You do not get to just create waste 
disposal. You do not get to create a toxic site and have it run off 
your land.
  The fact of the matter is under this legislation, CARA gives no 
authority to regulate as the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) 
pointed out in his opening remarks. No authority to do that. There are 
other laws. There are other laws on the books such as Clean Air and 
Clean Water, the mining act, mining in the park lands. Those laws still 
continue to apply. That is just a matter of a good neighbor. All we are 
saying is that there is nothing in CARA that expands that authority. 
They cannot shut down your inn. If they do, they owe you just 
compensation. That is the way the Constitution of the United States 
exists.
  This amendment ought to be rejected because it is designed to 
undercut the other basic laws of the land that might apply to those 
lands that have nothing to do with CARA.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let 
me read to my colleagues what is in CARA again. CARA says right now, 
Federal agencies using funds appropriated by this act may not apply any 
regulation on any lands until the lands or water or an interest area is 
acquired in effect by the government. Until it is acquired, no new 
regulations. As far as other acts that apply regulations to those 
lands, they still apply. We do not change that. But we do protect 
against CARA increasing any regulatory authority on any land located 
next to any park. This amendment ought to be rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POMBO. Madam 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 California 
(Mr. Pombo) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 2 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula); amendment No. 3 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich); amendment 
No. 4 offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo); amendment 
No. 6 offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg); amendment 
No. 7 offered by the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage); and 
amendment No. 8 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Regula

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 109, 
noes 317, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 160]

                               AYES--109

     Archer
     Armey
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Chabot
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coburn
     Combest
     Cook
     Cubin
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Ney
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Schaffer
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Whitfield
     Wicker

                               NOES--317

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement

[[Page 7582]]


     Clyburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bateman
     Berman
     Campbell
     Coble
     Franks (NJ)
     Lucas (OK)
     Martinez
     Wise

                              {time}  2126

  Messrs. BLILEY, KINGSTON, EVERETT, ROYCE, McNULTY, GOODE, 
SCARBOROUGH, DREIER, and YOUNG of Alaska, and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON 
of Texas and Ms. DUNN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. LEWIS of Kentucky, GANSKE, MURTHA, WHITFIELD, ORTIZ and 
HINOJOSA changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
497, the Chair announces that she will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes 
the period of time within which a vote by electronic device will be 
taken on each amendment on which the Chair has postponed further 
proceedings.


               Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Radanovich

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Radanovich) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 153, 
noes 273, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 161]

                               AYES--153

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Berry
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--273

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Callahan
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skelton

[[Page 7583]]


     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bateman
     Berman
     Campbell
     Coble
     Franks (NJ)
     Lucas (OK)
     Martinez
     Wise

                              {time}  2134

  Mr. HOLT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SWEENEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Tancredo

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The pending business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 109, 
noes 315, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 162]

                               AYES--109

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Berry
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Gibbons
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Johnson, Sam
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Manzullo
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ose
     Oxley
     Paul
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Wicker

                               NOES--315

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Callahan
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shows
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bateman
     Berman
     Camp
     Campbell
     Coble
     Franks (NJ)
     Istook
     Lucas (OK)
     Martinez
     Wise

                              {time}  2143

  Mr. POMEROY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HOBSON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment No. 6 Offered by Shadegg

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Shadegg) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216, 
noes 208, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 163]

                               AYES--216

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler

[[Page 7584]]


     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Isakson
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--208

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Callahan
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bateman
     Berman
     Campbell
     Coble
     Franks (NJ)
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Lucas (OK)
     Martinez
     Wise

                              {time}  2152

  Messrs. HILL of Indiana, EHRLICH, GEKAS and COOKSEY changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Ms. RIVERS changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


             Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The pending business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160, 
noes 265, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 164]

                               AYES--160

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Berry
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--265

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Callahan
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor

[[Page 7585]]


     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bateman
     Berman
     Campbell
     Coble
     Franks (NJ)
     Istook
     Lucas (OK)
     Martinez
     Wise

                              {time}  2201

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered By Mr. Pombo

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The pending business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Pombo) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 253, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 165]

                               AYES--171

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--253

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Callahan
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bateman
     Berman
     Campbell
     Coble
     Franks (NJ)
     Hall (OH)
     Istook
     Lucas (OK)
     Martinez
     Wise

                              {time}  2208

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 9 printed in House Report 106-612.


        Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania

  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. 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. 9 offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania:
       Page 18, after line 15, insert the following:

     SEC.    . FEDERAL ACQUISITION OF LANDS ONLY WITHIN DESIGNATED 
                   BOUNDARIES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     amendments made by this Act, or any other provision of law, 
     amounts made available by this Act (including the amendments 
     made by this Act) may not be used for any acquisition by the 
     Federal Government of an interest in lands except lands 
     located within exterior boundaries designated before the date 
     of the enactment of this Act of an area designated by or 
     under Federal law for a particular conservation or recreation 
     use, including lands within such boundaries of a unit of--
       (1) the National Park System;
       (2) the National Wilderness Preservation System;
       (3) the National Wildlife Refuge System;
       (4) the National Forest System;
       (5) the national system of trails established by the 
     National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1241 et seq.);
       (6) federally administered components of the National Wild 
     and Scenic Rivers System; or
       (7) national recreation areas administered by the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) and a Member opposed each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

[[Page 7586]]


  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us this evening will help us to 
focus on our land purchases. It is my view, in America, we have not 
focused on what we are purchasing. It is like we purchase everything 
that we possibly can purchase; and sometimes it is appropriate, and 
sometimes it is not. We own one-third, over 700 million acres of 
America at the Federal level. When we add the States, we are 
approaching 45 percent land ownership by government. When we add local 
government, we are approaching 50 percent of America owned by 
government.
  So I think it is important now that we are going on a track where we 
are going to be purchasing a mandated amount each and every year 
hereafter that will be mandated through this legislation. This 
legislation will focus to purchase within the boundaries and including 
the National Park System, the National Wilderness Preservation System, 
the National Wildlife Refuge System, the National Forest System, the 
National System of Trails established by the National Trail System Act, 
federally administered components of the National Wild and Scenic River 
System, and the national recreation areas administered by the Secretary 
of Agriculture. It will keep us busy for many years finishing the 
projects we have started.
  I think it is important that we focus. Just a few weeks ago, at a 
hearing in the Subcommittee on Interior, it was obvious that the Fish 
and Wildlife Service is focused. They are starting five new refuges 
each year without legislative authority, without any approval by 
anybody. One was with two-thirds of an acre.
  In the last 6 years, they have started 30 new refuges without 
legislative approval. Those refuges must be maintained by the taxpayers 
of this country. We do not get even adequate reporting on how much it 
costs to maintain them and to complete them.
  So I think it is important in this legislation that we focus on our 
priorities and that we finish the projects we have started.
  Should we pay our current taxes before we buy more land? We had that 
argument earlier, and we lost it. I do not think any of us would advise 
our children if they could not pay their taxes to buy more land. But 
this Congress has never paid its taxes, which is PILT, as legislated by 
law to the county and townships and the boroughs across this land that 
lost their tax base. It is not urban America. It is not suburban 
America. It is rural America that continues to lose its tax base.
  We buy more land, and we do not pay our taxes or PILT. It is our tax 
payment. We should pay PILT first. We should focus on our inholdings. 
We should have some sense as to why we are buying what we are buying. 
We should put our resources to complete the projects we started.

                              {time}  2215

  That is the reason I have offered this amendment, and I ask for your 
support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to divide my time 
with the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the business of the amendment limits Federal 
acquisitions to in-holdings, unless the property is within the 
boundaries of an existing Federal property an in-holding, there can be 
no new acquisitions. In doing so, of course, it says, in effect, that 
if a willing seller wishes to sell property that is partially in, 
partially outside the boundaries of an existing Federal facility or if 
he wants to sell property that is adjacent to, if the government is 
interested in launching a particular reserve or wilderness area and 
there is willing sellers willing to sell that property, this amendment 
would prohibit that sort of a purchase.
  In a sense, it inhibits the property rights of the landowners who 
want to sell, who want to sell their property for the expansion of a 
park.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) makes much of the fact 
that under current law, agencies are creating new parks in wilderness 
areas by acquiring an acre, or some acreage, without ever coming to 
Congress, without every notifying Congress.
  The beautiful thing about CARA is that that can no longer happen. 
Under CARA, every land acquisition has to be reported to Congress, 
whether it is from a willing seller or not, and Congress makes a 
determination by specific grant of authority through the appropriations 
process to acquire a piece of land.
  The argument that the gentleman makes that current law is failing 
counties and States of America is correct, CARA fixes that by 
requiring, in effect, that any new acquisitions be approved by 
Congress, not just approved by Congress in some report language, 
approved by Congress in specific line item appropriation by the 
committees of Congress. Not only does CARA provide for that, but it 
provides that the government must notify all the local officials, 
including the Congressman, that a land acquisition is proposed, so that 
there is full notice, the government has to go through the full process 
of saying it really would like to have this property.
  Congress has to come in and say that it wants to acquire it and it 
has to appropriate a specific line item to do it. To limit the 
acquisition to in-holdings severely restricts the ability of this 
program to, in fact, work to build a refuge, a wilderness area or 
reserve where there are willing landowners prepared, and, in fact, 
anxious to sell their property to do so.
  I hope Members look at it that way. It is a limitation on the 
property rights of the landowner who wants to sell, who happens not to 
be completely an in-holding property within the Federal Reserve. This 
amendment ought to be defeated, and I hope it will be.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
this legislation, let me tell the Members why. I hope the Members will 
follow this along, this is really strong anti-property rights 
legislation.
  If we look at the bill, it prohibits the government from buying land 
that people may want to sell to the government, so you are a landowner 
next to a national forest, there is a lot of rural America that is in 
that, and I happen to represent one of those districts. And I actually 
have many people, more people want to sell their land because it is 
rural. They do not want to see it developed, they protected it as 
families, and their number 1 interest is selling that land to the 
National Forest Service; they are not an in-holding, but they are next 
to the line.
  Under this legislation, they cannot be a seller. They are prohibited 
from selling, and why that affects property values is there may not be 
another buyer around. So we are curtailing the free market, a lot of 
people have been arguing in legislation like this that it ought to 
always be one where there is only willing sellers. Well, here is the 
case where the willing sellers are there, the line is longer than the 
money we have appropriated, and we are denying them under this 
legislation, even when the money is there.
  Secondly, look what it is, it is not against cities that want to do 
this or Washington, D.C. that would like to expand in the urban area, 
this strictly limits recreational areas, the places where people in 
America like to go, the place that makes this country grand, this 
country magnificent, this country bold. It is our national resources 
that

[[Page 7587]]

make people want to take pictures of and postcards of. This limits 
national parks, national wilderness preservation system, national 
wildlife refuge system, the national forest system, the national trail 
system, the national wild and scenic river system and the national 
recreation areas. That means if you are a private landowner around any 
of these areas, under existing law, you would be allowed to sell your 
land if you wanted to at a price agreed to by you, you could not do it.
  This is anti-property rights. I urge a strong no.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting, to listen to the last speaker, 
you would think that every person that owns a land next to Federal land 
who wants to sell it, the Federal Government should buy it. When the 
Federal Government owns a third of America, I believe we ought to focus 
on completing the parks, completing the areas that we have already 
started, completing our State parks, national parks instead of having 
in-holdings that are valueless to people in them. We ought to be 
focusing there.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, but I am really curious as to 
how the authors of the bill do not quite seem to understand their own 
bill yet, because they keep saying if this bill passes, we will not be 
able to purchase more land. Well, the distinguished chairman of the 
Interior Committee on Appropriations is here, and he will tell us the 
committee can continue buying land as it is. It is just that $2.8 
billion becomes a land entitlement, which I know is the goal of the 
Democratic party to create a new entitlement. The Republicans seem to 
be going in agreement with that. Some of them are. The reality is you 
can still, on top of this, buy land.
  If Members do not believe me, go back to 2 hours ago, where you 
accepted the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and 
the gentleman's amendment says that the CARA funding will simply 
supplement annual appropriations for activities of the National Park 
Service.
  Now, that is making it clear. It is just a supplement, a $2.8 billion 
supplement. It is one that unfortunately a lot of our Members seem to 
want to put in front of Medicare and Social Security, I am very upset 
about that, as I know seniors are, that some people are still concerned 
about putting land acquisition in front of Medicare and Social 
Security, which seems to be one of the purposes of CARA.
  One of the other points that was mentioned earlier tonight is that 
this fixes something that is broken. Let us. The Federal Government 
owns 32 percent of the land in the United States of America, not 
counting military posts, but it is broken. The purchasing mechanism is 
broken? I do not follow that. It does not make sense to me. I would say 
it is working real well.
  Then this concept of any willing buyer, as the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) said, what is this, a garage sale? Somebody 
has got some land and the Federal Government is obligated to buy it?
  What about the vision and the question that still remains unanswered 
by the proponents of CARA; how much land in the United States of 
America should the Federal Government own? 25 percent, 30 percent, 50 
percent. I would love to hear that answer from the CARA people so we 
can put a cap on this.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me read the amendment, it says, in effect, that 
notwithstanding any other provision of the act, amounts made available 
by this act may not be used for any acquisition of the Federal 
Government of an interest in lands, except lands located within 
exterior boundaries already designated.
  It says you cannot spend the money to buy anything but an in-holding. 
Now, I did not argue that the government ought to have to buy every 
land from every willing seller who lives adjacent to a wilderness area. 
I simply argued if the government wants to buy it and if the Congress 
actually considers an appropriation and passes an appropriation under 
CARA to buy that property and it is not an in-holding, but it is 
adjacent and a willing land owner willing to sell it, that we ought not 
prohibit that transaction.
  This amendment prohibits that transaction by simply saying that none 
of the funds are in CARA. Of course, Congress, if it wishes to, can 
change CARA, it can also amend CARA next year. It can pass a special 
bill changing this provision that says you can now buy in-holdings, or 
this particular in-holding if it wants to, but this language going into 
CARA says as a principle of the expenditure of these funds, that only 
in-holders need apply when it comes time to selling land to the 
government anywhere near a Federal Government reserve wildlife system 
or national forest service.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, the point of the Peterson amendment is 
that it limits CARA funds, but it does not limit the ability of the 
Committee on Appropriations or the authorizing committee.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is exactly what I 
just said, that it certainly does not limit future Congresses to change 
CARA. It does not limit future Congresses to make a special 
appropriation for an in-holding if it wants.
  It sets down as a principle of law in CARA, that CARA funds cannot be 
used where there is a willing seller and the government is interested 
in purchasing the property and the Congress follows all of the steps 
outlined in CARA for its acquisition.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the gentleman's 
amendment. If we are going to have this $2.8 billion annually, it seems 
to me that the focus ought to be on the in-holdings. Obviously, there 
are other funds available as was brought out in the earlier statements 
by the Members, but the Federal Government can still purchase land if 
it feels it needs to, but in-holdings are a big problem throughout our 
Nation with the national parks, and the wilderness areas and so forth. 
This bill, if it is going to provide this kind of funding, it would be 
well used to start there.
  I represent a mountainous and rural district in parts, and I can tell 
the Members that it would be helpful to focus on the in-holdings.
  I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) has made a 
very valid point. I think his point about getting full funding for PILT 
is key. We debated that issue and lost on it. We hope somehow we can 
get that addressed in the future, but the Peterson amendment is a good 
place to start. And I urge an aye vote.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, how much time is 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Peterson) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has no time remaining.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance 
of my time to close.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Peterson) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, we just had a vote on an amendment that I offered which 
would have protected the property rights of those in-holders that we 
are talking about in this particular amendment, unfortunately that 
amendment

[[Page 7588]]

was defeated. My friends voted against it. They said that the Federal 
Government could come in and control the land that they did not own; 
that they could tell private property owners what they could do or 
could not do with their private property, and the will of the House was 
that that would proceed; that we would do that to those private 
property owners.
  Now, having voted that way, having made that decision and told those 
property owners that we were going to control their property, even 
though we did not know own it, the least we can do at that point is to 
approve this amendment, because this amendment now says that that is 
our priority, we have to go in and buy out those in-holders. We have to 
go in and pay those people for their land, because see we do not want 
to protect their property rights, we voted against that, we said we 
want to control them.
  Now, the least we can do is pay them for the land that we are taking 
from them. That is the only consistent vote that we can cast now in 
terms of protecting those private property owners, unless, of course, 
we just want to say we do not care. We want to take your property; we 
do not want to pay you for it. We want to expand all over the country 
and create more in-holders and never pay for the land that we are 
taking through adverse condemnation.
  It is a very simple amendment. It is very straightforward. The 
decision was made on the previous amendment. Now, I believe we have no 
choice but to support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) has the right to close with his time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as we conclude this discussion on this legislation, it 
is one thing that is obvious to me; there is no plan, there is no 
focus, and that enough land is not enough land for the government to 
own. But the Federal Government owning a third, when we combine State 
and local, we are close to half.

                              {time}  2230

  The strength of America has been private property ownership. We 
certainly have enough Government ownership.
  The example I gave of the Fish and Wildlife Service will continue. 
They have their own pot of money. Congress somewhere along the way 
erred and gave them the ability to buy land without Congressional 
approval. And they are going to continue to do that, five refuges a 
year, growing them into thousands-of-acre refuges. This we to maintain.
  We are building a backlog. We already have a backlog on Federal land 
owned from 30 to 50 billion dollars. And we just wink at that and we 
take every nickel and dime we have to buy more land, as if we do not 
have enough public land.
  Now, we may not always have the right land, because we do not want to 
trade. We do not want to have no net gain. This body has resisted 
anything that would bring common sense to this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to think seriously that, as we obligate the 
taxpayers of the future, we ought to focus on what land is appropriate, 
and inholdings seem they ought to be first, and when we complete our 
inholdings we can change it and do something else, but we ought to 
complete what we start, we ought to inventory what we own, how much it 
is going to cost to maintain it, and we ought to pay for it and we 
ought to pay our taxes before we buy another acre of land that is PILT.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this kind of simple prohibition simply is unworkable 
and takes the thought processes out of setting priorities and making 
determinations about different values, about different emergencies, 
about different situations.
  The fact of the matter is very often we buy some private property to 
relieve pressure on other private property owners. We know that a 
number of endangered species problems have been solved because the 
Federal Government was able to aggregate some areas for protection that 
then freed up other landowners so that they could put their lands to 
the productive use or the changes or whatever that they wanted to 
participate in. So now we would say, no, they cannot do that.
  We know very often that we buy property sometimes because it 
threatens the values and the purposes of the national preserve, whether 
it is a park or whether it is the forest. We buy some lands so that we 
can then swap those lands for some other lands that private property or 
a city or a county wants to put to use. They want us to buy certain 
lands and swap different lands with them.
  Those are all determinations made by elected officials at local 
levels and in the Congress and in the Senate and city council members. 
They use their judgment.
  Yes, there is a backlog. But let us not pretend like this Congress 
has been working it off recently, because the Congress has not funded 
that. But we should not take away those kinds of determinations.
  Under this thinking, what they would say is that they could not build 
three fighter planes at the same time or they could not build a new 
class of submarine until they finished the old one.
  No, we have different situations that emerge in the running of this 
Government; and the fact of the matter is that we make determinations 
and we use our best judgments. And so, now they want to say that they 
can only use this money for inholdings. But, in fact, if an emergency 
comes up or they have to protect a Federal asset, then they have to go 
through a lot of rigmarole.
  The fact is that this system has worked very, very well. Because we 
have purchased inholdings. We have purchased lands contiguous to these 
lands where we think they have a particular value or in some cases 
where landowners want out because they want to do something to the 
land, they want to go into some other business and the Federal Reserve 
is inconsistent with that.
  These people use it. They do not run around willy-nilly. Most of 
these purchases from the Land and Water Conservation Fund are made 
because Members of Congress go to the Committee on Appropriations and 
ask that they be made.
  Every year we trudge down there, we send letters, we get all the 
people in our delegation to sign them. And they come from both sides of 
the aisle, and they come from most of the Members who have spoken here 
tonight asking for the Federal Government to buy these lands. And they 
want to posture and put a straitjacket on these Federal agencies so 
they cannot provide the kind of stewardship that the Nation's lands 
deserve.
  I ask for a no vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 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 Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 printed in House 
Report 106-612.


               Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Chambliss

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

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Chambliss:
       Page 19, line 3, strike ``without further appropriation'' 
     and insert ``subject to appropriations for fiscal years 
     before fiscal year 2006 and without further appropriation for 
     fiscal year 2006 and each fiscal year thereafter''.
       Page 30, line 12, strike ``without further appropriation'' 
     and insert ``, subject to appropriations for fiscal years 
     before fiscal year

[[Page 7589]]

     2006 and without further appropriation for fiscal year 2006 
     and each fiscal year thereafter''.
       Page 48, line 8, strike ``without further appropriation, in 
     each fiscal year'' and insert ``, subject to appropriations 
     for fiscal years before fiscal year 2006 and without further 
     appropriation for fiscal year 2006 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter''.
       Page 56, line 6, strike ``without further appropriation'' 
     and insert ``, subject to appropriations for fiscal years 
     before fiscal year 2006 and without further appropriation for 
     fiscal year 2006 and each fiscal year thereafter,''.
       Page 63, line 5, strike ``without further appropriation'' 
     and insert ``, subject to appropriations for fiscal years 
     before fiscal year 2006 and without further appropriation for 
     fiscal year 2006 and each fiscal year thereafter''.
       Page 64, line 17, strike ``without further appropriation'' 
     and insert ``subject to appropriations for fiscal years 
     before fiscal year 2005 and without further appropriation for 
     fiscal year 2005 and each fiscal year thereafter''.
       Page 70, line 10, strike ``without further appropriation'' 
     and insert ``subject to appropriations for fiscal years 
     before fiscal year 2006 and without further appropriation for 
     fiscal year 2006 and each fiscal year thereafter''.
       Page 71, line 20, strike ``without further appropriation'' 
     and insert ``, subject to appropriations for fiscal years 
     before fiscal year 2006 and without further appropriation for 
     fiscal year 2006 and each fiscal year thereafter,''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that addresses the concerns of a number 
of my colleagues, along with myself, have with respect to a budget 
issue with this bill.
  CARA sets up mandatory funding mechanisms whereby $3 billion in 
mandatory spending is annually taken from the Outer Continental Shelf 
revenues to the various programs and it goes to the various programs 
under the bill.
  This means that if the requirements are met under each title of the 
bill that that money automatically goes to the State, the grantees, or 
whoever the recipients may be in the form of mandatory spending. The 
appropriators would play no role in controlling how a vast amount of 
the money is spent unless this amendment is adopted.
  Now, the problem with the bill is that it requires this $3 billion in 
mandatory spending and 4 weeks ago we adopted a budget that simply 
makes no provision for this $3 billion.
  Now, if this bill becomes law as currently structured, the amount of 
debt paid down or available for tax relief as assumed by the budget 
resolution will be reduced by this $3 billion every year, or roughly 
$15 billion over 5 years. Such a bill is at odds with the budget 
resolution that was adopted 4 weeks ago.
  Now, my friends, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), who are my dear friends and my 
hunting buddies, they have done a great job of putting this bill 
together and bringing in an awful lot of folks in support of this bill. 
I think the bill is a good bill and I think, with some addressing of 
concerns, we are going to make it a better bill.
  As they know, my amendment does not gut the bill. My amendment simply 
ensures that we are consistent with our budget resolution. This 
amendment makes sure that the integrity of the budget process is 
protected, because the ink is not even dry on the budget resolution and 
already we are trying to unravel some of the key commitments and 
assumptions that are laid out in the budget resolution.
  It is not like we are not going to be able to fund the provisions of 
this bill if my amendment is adopted, because all we are saying is that 
the appropriators will have to deal with the funding in this bill 
because there is no provision for it in the budget. It would go through 
the normal appropriation process.
  In our budget that we did adopt, over the next 5 years, we have 
approximately $1 billion in Function 300, which is the resources 
provision, that is available for funding programs that are included 
within CARA.
  Then starting in the year 2006, the bill moves forward just as laid 
out in the base text today; and that will, thus, give us time to make 
plans for the spending of this money.
  Now, I appreciate the fact that my friend the gentleman from Alaska 
(Chairman Young) took the off-budget language out of the bill in his 
managers amendment. Now, that somewhat helped improve the situation, 
but it did not resolve the budget issue. Because when we take it off 
budget, then that means that it is subject to the budget law, which 
means that we are subject to pay-go rules, we are subject to 
sequestration rules, and that we have got to have either offsets or we 
are going to run into those sequestration rules.
  Now, as I have said, the bill addresses that problem by simply 
shifting the year in which the mandatory spending begins from fiscal 
year 2002 to year 2006. After that, then we can fit it within the 
budget resolution, hopefully. At least we will be able to plan for 
that.
  If my colleagues are conservation minded and want to support the bill 
without gutting it, this is a good amendment. If they are a fiscal 
conservative and care about maintaining the integrity of the budget 
process, this is a good amendment.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller) for the purpose of controlling the time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, each of the gentlemen 
will control 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, CARA is financed from the receipts of the Outer 
Continental Shelf oil and gas production. It is not coming out of 
general revenues. Since the inception of that OSC program, Congress 
always intended that a portion of these receipts would be reinvested in 
conservation purposes through programs like the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund.
  Now, I do not know if my colleagues are aware of it, but there are 
nearly $13 billion now in the Land and Water Conservation Fund and over 
$2 billion in the Historic Preservation Fund in unappropriated balances 
that already have been authorized by Congress.
  Congress has fully intended to do this. We just have not been doing 
it. And the source of the funding has always been intended for this 
purpose. It has just never been spent. Well, not all of that after all.
  We are talking about a total program that costs about 2 cents out of 
every $100 of the Federal budget. And Congress has been, in fact, 
spending a good portion of it in. In fiscal year 2001, for example, 
there is a $1.4 billion request in the administration's budget. That is 
half of this program right there.
  In other words, we are talking about one penny out of every $100 of 
Federal spending, a minimal effect on the budget, but a maximum effect 
on the purposes of this act if this amendment is adopted.
  Now, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) and I come from a State 
that is losing 25 square miles a year. That is 125 square miles in the 
next 5 years that we are going to have to endure that is in our 
district gone every year while we wait for somebody to recognize that 
the OSC obligation is real and ought to be funded and ought to be 
provided for.
  Now, in the next 5 years, interior States are going to receive the 50 
percent allocation from interior production on lands located in their 
States. I do not see them suspending that because of the Budget Act. I 
do not see them telling us do not make those mandatory spending 
allocations to interior States, States that have been collecting 
billions and billions of dollars for Federal Reserve production on 
Federal land in interior States.
  But they would tell the coastal States they have to wait another 5

[[Page 7590]]

years before they get any help, they have got to wait another 5 years 
before the lands located right adjacent to their State that produce all 
this revenue for the Federal Treasury, not in general funds but in OCS 
funds, are not used for the purpose Congress said they intended them to 
be used when the program was started.
  No, this amendment is just basically unfair. It says, let us not fund 
this extra penny out of the $100 that we spend on the Federal accounts 
to do what Congress said we ought to do a long time ago and to begin 
remedying the wrong on these coastal States that have endured and 
sacrificed in order to produce those billions and billions, $127 
billion, to their budget efforts.
  This amendment ought to be defeated.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Udall) will control the time allocated to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a pretty incredible story here tonight. I 
think of how the Congress has acted in the best interest of the 
American people. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Alaska 
(Chairman Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), 
the ranking member, on how they pulled together what were two very 
different, divergent bills. It took the leadership of both of these 
gentlemen, working long and hard over 30 hours with Members and testing 
I think all of our patience. These were very tough-minded sessions, no 
doubt. We listened to each other, and I think we really acted in the 
best interests of the American people.
  But what this amendment does here this evening is delay funding until 
fiscal year 2009. And so, what we are talking about, as the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has said, is $13 billion, $13 billion that 
was spent from the fund and other places and who knows where. But this 
one amendment would make us wait once again.
  The programs that need to be funded now are important programs. They 
are programs that need adequate funding in this fiscal year. Park 
plans, farmland, open space are under tremendous development pressure 
now. Coastlines and marine resources are highly stressed now. Wildlife 
need habitat now. Inner city kids need recreation areas now.

                              {time}  2245

  Why would we want to wait until the 109th Congress to fund these 
programs?
  I think it is about time that we move on with the legacy that Teddy 
Roosevelt talked about when he talked about conservation and when he 
set such a great example. He said at the time, and I quote, of all of 
the great questions which can come before this Nation short of the 
actual preservation of its existence in a great war, there is none 
which compares in importance with the central task of leaving this land 
even a better land for our descendants than it is for us. That is what 
I think those of us that are supporting CARA are trying to do under the 
leadership of the gentleman from Alaska and the gentleman from 
California. This amendment would gut that effort, it would delay the 
funding, it would set us back in terms of urgent needs.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I flatly disagree with those who say we do 
not need substantially more land acquisition. We are going to have 35 
million more people knocking on the doors of national parks in 10 years 
and we need to buy a lot more land in order to preserve it for 
posterity. But I also support this amendment.
  I am uncomfortable being here. I do not like to oppose my friends, 
and I do not like to be standing in the way of this legislation. But I 
think there are some substantial problems with it. The Federal 
Government has the responsibility to take care of our national parks 
and our national forests and our national wildlife refuges in dealing 
with national environmental priorities. This bill takes almost $3 
billion of national resources and locks them into a handful of 
projects, many of them focused on dealing with State parks, State 
forests and State priorities.
  Every year for the next 15 years that money is steered to acquisition 
of land, to specific wildlife programs, to coastal environmental 
projects. Those programs are good, and I strongly support them, but 
they are not the only priorities we have as a Nation and they are not 
even the only priorities we have on the environmental front. They are 
important to me, but they are not any more important than is education 
or health care or some others.
  I do not understand why we are taking Federal money and using it to 
fund State priorities when many of our States have been running budget 
surpluses. I did not come here to be my governor's tax collector. I 
came here to deal with responsibilities that could not be dealt with at 
any other level of government. I simply do not believe in insulating 
even my favorite programs from congressional oversight for 5 years. I 
believe in a much larger land acquisition program. But I do not put 
land acquisition ahead of other priorities like education and health 
care.
  I want to make it very clear, I will work to the fullest extent of my 
ability to make land acquisition a much higher priority of this 
Congress. But I will not support the idea of making it an exclusive 
priority. That is not fair to other environmental problems, it is not 
fair to our other national obligations. We sit here and see, for 
instance, that half of our national wildlife refuges have no staff. I 
do not think that we should make it more difficult to correct that 
problem by something we do tonight on this bill.
  I congratulate the gentleman for his amendment. I think it is a 
responsible middle ground. I intend to support it when we vote on it 
tomorrow.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I also rise as 
an appropriator. I hate to dispute my own chairman on this and my 
ranking member, but I think we forget where this money comes from. It 
also comes from sale of public resources. The oil and the mineral 
rights under the land owned by the public is sold and the revenues 
therefrom have been promised to the people of the United States for the 
history of this legislation. Only we in Congress have never fulfilled 
that promise. We have collected the money, we have promised it would be 
spent for these purposes and we have withheld it to use for other 
things. The same kind of argument we hear with the Social Security and 
other things.
  Now, this is not the only program where we have devised a formula to 
give moneys to States and local governments. We also do that with 
community development block grants. That is Federal money. We give it 
out there without a lot of strings attached. Look at what we do in 
transportation. The national Federal sales tax on gas sales at the 
pump, we collect that money, and we block-grant it back to States and 
cities and counties.
  It seems to me, if we adopt this legislation, what we are denying is 
a promise made to the people of the United States that the funds that 
we collected would be used for preservation of farmlands, would be used 
for improvement of camping facilities, would be used to help inner 
cities buy parks, would be used for habitat protection, would be used 
to enhance that growing America that is demanding recreational 
resources. This amendment continues to deny the promise made. That 
promise is that these moneys would be returned to the people in a way 
that they could enjoy the natural resources. It is a bad amendment. As 
an appropriator, I would argue against it.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  What my friend apparently does not understand about this amendment is

[[Page 7591]]

that we are not saying we do not carry out every single provision in 
this bill, all we are saying is that we need to be consistent with the 
budget resolution and be fiscally responsible and take the time to 
allow the administration and Congress to work on a plan to find the 
funding for it.
  Now, this funding, the source of this funding that was intended in 
1953 when these revenues were first found and generated were to go into 
the general treasury. They have been in the general treasury from 1953 
into the 1970s, I think is when they were taken out and dedicated for 
other purposes. But in any event, it gets back to the point of we have 
got $3 billion in mandatory spending.
  I spoke in favor of the bill earlier today, because I think the bill 
is a good bill. But the funding aspect of it needs to be better planned 
for than what we have done within the framework that we are operating 
under tonight. All I am saying is that we need to take the time and be 
judicious and find the $3 billion to fund it rather than being 
inconsistent with the balanced budget resolution that we passed 4 weeks 
ago.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Without objection, the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) will control the time remaining of 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In respect to my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Chambliss), I have to keep reminding everybody that this is on-budget. 
We did do that. This is money that we have collected for this program 
that has not been spent. I frankly, as one of my biggest loves, is for 
fish and wildlife do not want to have them wait for 6 years. I think 
that is a terrible, terrible blow to this bill.
  If you believe in conservation, if you believe in the establishment 
and protecting endangered species that are endangered or will be 
endangered if we do not act these next 6 years, there will be a lot of 
areas shut down. I honestly will tell you, I think this 6 years would 
be a terrible detriment. I did request from the leadership prior to 
this bill before the budget was acted on to have this included. That 
was denied. They said, ``Don't worry about it. We'll make sure if the 
bill passes that the money will be there some way.''
  If we pass this bill, which I hope we will, we will find that money. 
This bill will go to the Senate. The President has a plan of his own. 
We have a plan of ours. Eventually we will reach a solution. But to 
have us wait 6 years, in fact, will defeat the purpose of the whole 
bill. Animals will not be around. The parks that these kids need will 
not be there. The crime rate will rise. Lands that were destroyed by 
the government on Indian reservations will not be reclaimed. Farmers 
that want to remain farming will not be able to farm because they will 
not have the easement provisions. Coastal States that are losing acres 
of land every minute will not have any recourse. Six years from now, 
probably most of us will not be here, in all due respect. I will be 
because I am going to be chairman of another committee. But I am just 
suggesting that to wait 6 years is a bad precedent to be set. I urge 
the gentleman to consider that. Keep in mind this process is begun. Let 
us finish it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment. The base text of this legislation would create new mandatory 
spending for: impact assistance to coastal states; Conservation and 
Reinvestment Fund activities; wildlife conservation and restoration 
activities; Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program activities; 
Historic Preservation Fund activities, Federal and Indian lands 
restoration activities, Farmland Protection Program activities; and 
endangered and threatened species recovery activities. The currently 
authorized version of these programs are funded through annual 
discretionary appropriations.
  Without getting into the merits of the authorizations, the funding 
mechanisms included in this proposed legislation would represent a huge 
increase in backdoor spending if it were adopted by this House. The 
amendment before us would return the funding for these authorizations 
to discretionary appropriations for fiscal years 2002 through 2005. 
This is the right way to approach funding these activities, and this 
amendment should be adopted.
  Establishing mandatory spending for these activities is exactly 
contrary to what this House has been attempting to do in getting 
control of the runaway spending of the past and establishing controls 
and priority setting mechanisms for all spending. Mandatory spending 
should only be used for programs whose needs are paramount and nearly 
absolute. Even though many activities are funded by trust funds or 
other direct revenue sources, this is not justification to pass through 
these funds to program beneficiaries year after year without annual 
review.
  For those of you that think that the programs in this proposed 
legislation deserve funding compared to other discretionary programs, 
there is a way to make that happen. It's called the appropriations 
process. It's the best priority setting mechanism in the government. It 
reflects better than anything else the annual spending priorities of 
Congress. For those of you that say the overall discretionary levels 
are too low to accommodate funding these programs, there is a way to 
address that. It is called the congressional budget resolution. If you 
think the overall level discretionary level is too low, you can make 
your feelings known in the budget resolution process.
  For those of you that think the discretionary levels are about right 
but you want these activities funded anyway, you can put pressure on 
the appropriations process to do so. But, it would be extremely 
inconsistent with the established budget process to create this type of 
new mandatory spending while supporting tight discretionary spending.
  This mantra of ``unlock the trust funds'' has got to be recognized 
for the bad budget process that it is creating. One of the reasons that 
we have trust funds is so that we can review the spending needs placed 
on them, not so that there is just an automatic pass through mechanism. 
They are trust funds, not revolving funds. The people that pay the 
money into them need to be reassured that the Congress is continuously 
reviewing spending priorities. It is the rightful purview of Congress 
to decide to reduce or increase trust fund spending as it sees fit 
based on priorities, not based on the fact that the revenue source is a 
trust fund.
  Without the fixes proposed by this amendment, this is bad 
legislation. Members shouldn't think that this is a free vote to 
support your particular program interest and ignore the financing 
mechanism. Don't think that the budget problems will get sorted out 
later. There is a very bad track record being developed in that regard. 
Don't think that the Senate or the President will do the right thing 
later even though we won't now.
  Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2001 appropriations process is getting 
into full swing. We have a lean overall allocation. We will be bringing 
lean bills to the floor. We will have high priority needs that those 
bills won't be able to fund. It just seems to me that if we defeat this 
amendment and allow new mandatory spending at the same time we are 
trying to establish priorities on a discretionary allocation, things 
are out of whack. That would be an insult to the process. We need to 
adopt this amendment and get back to a rational priority setting 
system.
  Vote ``yes.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. 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 Georgia (Mr. 
Chambliss) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 printed in House 
Report 106-612.


            Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage

  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. 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. 11 offered by Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage:
       Page 23, in line 18, strike ``except that a coastal 
     political'' and all that follows down through line 3 on page 
     24.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the 
gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs.

[[Page 7592]]

Chenoweth-Hage) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-
Hage).
  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This amendment strikes a provision in title I of the bill which 
treats one county in California not eligible to receive impact 
assistance as if it were eligible to receive funds. The actual effect 
of this amendment is somewhat complex and obscure, but its premise is 
basic. No county or other governmental entity should receive a special 
carved-out privilege when it is not eligible to receive funds in the 
first place. So to do so would establish an unprecedented mandatory 
line item for one county in one Congressman's district and quite 
frankly, this is irresponsible legislating.
  Mr. Chairman, the county in question is Contra Costa, California, and 
is more than 200 miles from a leased tract for oil drilling, making it 
ineligible otherwise for funds under title I. However, H.R. 701, as 
strange as it is, provides a special exemption to one California 
political subdivision which has one or more oil refineries, treating it 
as if it were only 50 miles from a leased tract. The provision violates 
the very intent of title I which is to provide impact assistance for 
mitigation of offshore oil drilling. In short, there is no real reason 
for this provision other than to establish a very special porky cash 
flow specifically for one county in California.
  But, Mr. Chairman, this provision also exemplifies the underlying 
problem with this bill. It establishes a massive fund, taking from 
revenue which would normally be allocated by Congress and specially 
designates money to a select few while at the same time empowering 
government to impose its agenda on others. This is not how we should 
legislate in this body. This is not how our Founding Fathers intended 
for us to handle the power the people have given us, the power of the 
pursestring. I urge the House to adopt this amendment which restores 
some fiscal sanity to this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  First of all, let me state that Contra Costa County, which I 
represent is, in fact, qualified as a coastal county. The issue was 
whether or not they got that portion of funding under the legislation 
that dealt with the burdens, and the question there was the proximity. 
As the gentlewoman points out, this is not proximate to the production 
of the oil, but the fact of the matter is it is the home to six oil 
refineries which produce all of the various products from offshore oil 
that is drilled in California, Alaska and elsewhere. This is an area of 
the country that has been impacted by explosions, by leaks, by toxic 
leaks, by toxic pollution and so it is a part of the cycle, if you 
will, of developing energy in this country that goes from exploration 
to refining to marketing.

                              {time}  2300

  Because it happens to be located in one central area that is not on 
the coast, and the reason it is not on the coast is because it is on 
the bay in the deep water harbor. Otherwise it would be on the coast 
like in Los Angeles, Long Beach or elsewhere. It ought to be treated 
the same, because the citizens are there, and this is what the offshore 
oil revenues were about, was to deal with mitigation of burdens that 
communities suffer as a result of that kind of activity. Here are all 
of the press clippings of all of the explosions, all of the toxics 
spills, all of the spills in the bay, the ships that have run aground, 
the barges that are broken open, the pipelines that have broken open, 
and this is just simply to provide the same kind of resources that a 
county would get if we had production and it was that proximate.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the purpose of it. I think it is clearly 
justified because so much of the West Coast and the Alaskan oil is, in 
fact, refined in this one county of California. So I would urge a 
defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, now we peek behind the curtains of the 
back room of the great CARA brain trust and we find, behind the 
platitudes of all of this fairness and this need for consistency which 
seems to be driving CARA, we find a special interest exemption for one 
particular county in California. How curious. How curious that we keep 
hearing the need for CARA is for consistency, to get away from 
politics, and yet we find one county outside the 200-mile limitation, 
cut out a special little special interest, a cherry stem. Let us bring 
it in.
  Well, this is one of the problems with CARA. It is a bill, and it is 
probably full of other sweetheart deals for counties. Yet, under their 
own CARA rules, if CARA was such a big deal, such a great bill, such a 
consistent bill, such a fair bill, why would we need to have a special 
little cherry stem for a county. It does not make sense. If this county 
deserves special emergency or Federal funds or assistance, then let it 
come out in the daylight, not in some little amendment. Let them go 
through the appropriations process, the authorization process.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that that is just typical of what the whole 
bill is full of, particular little special interest things. We have had 
the opportunity to peer behind the curtain and see what is really going 
on.
  We keep hearing this bill is so good for the States. Well, California 
is one of those States with a $3 billion surplus. Yet, under CARA, we 
are going to send them Federal tax money, and as the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) says, we are the national Congress, we are not the 
State of California Congress. It is our job to look after the national 
picture, not special interest in California. Let the California 
legislature, with its $3 billion surplus, spend money on the needs of 
this county.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I want to suggest two things. One is, I know this county; I was 
raised just about 75 miles above it. It was one of the larger refinery 
areas that refined oil. They have lost a lot of those refineries. They 
have 2 major refineries left, and I will be right up front with 
everybody, they happen to refine Alaskan oil. That gasoline that is 
produced is really burned in the State of the gentlewoman that is 
offering this amendment. If we think gas prices are high now, we should 
just try driving those refineries out of that area.
  It does not increase the amount of money for California. It does 
allow monies for this area; it is heavily impacted. Like the gentleman 
mentioned, now that California has different areas along the coast, 
some of the refineries are right on the coast, this happens to be about 
75 miles inland or a little further.
  So I want to suggest that the amendment is aimed towards the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), there is no doubt about 
that, but the justification I do not think merits the offering of the 
amendment.
  I believe that the area which is identified in this amendment is an 
area that is highly intensified by refineries and should get some of 
this impact money.
  Now, as far as California having a surplus of $3 billion, I have 
heard this over and over and over again, States having surpluses. Are 
we going to condemn the States that have surpluses because they have 
managed their money well? The money that comes from this bill comes 
from the Gulf States or for specific reasons that should be spent. I 
believe, very frankly, we ought to commend the States that have the 
surplus. I thought this was a Republican policy, to make sure those 
that reward themselves and work well

[[Page 7593]]

should be rewarded, not those that do not. So I am a little bit 
confused by the offering of this amendment, when it would not, in fact, 
address the issue of an impacted area.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentlewoman from Idaho 
(Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage) has 30 seconds remaining, and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) has the right to close.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  I did not mention that this bill had to do with a county in the 
gentleman from California's district, but the fact is that there are 
many counties throughout this Nation that are on their knees for one 
reason or another, but they do not ask for, nor do they receive special 
treatment, special pork treatment like this county is receiving. It is 
pure pork, it is the kind of legislating that Americans dislike, and it 
leaves a great distaste in the hearts and minds of the American people 
to see this kind of special interest legislation.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  I would say this is not about pure pork, this is not to be hidden. 
The gentlewoman should have stood up when she opened her remarks and 
said that it was aimed at me and then everything would have been on the 
table, but we have discussed that.
  Many people in this county would be happy to be rid of these 
refineries. We have had hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people go 
to hospitals; we have had millions and millions of dollars in lawsuits. 
But the fact of the matter is, that is where the refineries are. We 
could never locate them in any other part of the United States and that 
is why they are treated as an impacted area. If they were on the coast, 
they would be treated as an impacted area. They are 30 miles from the 
coast on San Francisco Bay, so they are not treated as an impacted 
area, and this is to treat them the same as we would treat refineries 
in Long Beach or southern California or Louisiana or Alabama or 
wherever. If my colleagues do not think this is a coastal area, this is 
where the Naval base is. This is a coastal operation.
  If my colleagues want to take a potshot at me, they can take their 
potshot. But the fact of the matter is this is about an impacted area 
from offshore drilling; this is about an impacted area where many, 
many, many accidents have taken place. That is part of the price we pay 
for energy development in this country, and I ask for a no vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Idaho 
(Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 12 printed in House 
report 106-612.


         Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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. 12 offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington:
       Page 31, after line 24, insert:
       ``(3) Apportionment for maintenance.--Not less than 50 
     percent of the Federal portion shall be used by the Secretary 
     of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture only for 
     purposes of carrying out maintenance operations on Federal 
     lands managed by such Secretaries.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) control half of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I rise in support of this amendment that is offered jointly by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and myself.
  As the last several hours in this debate have made clear, fewer 
issues inspire a more contentious debate in this Chamber than Federal 
lands policy. There is, however, one aspect of the Federal lands policy 
on which I believe every Member of this House can agree. We simply must 
do a better job of maintaining our national parks, our wildlife 
refugees, recreation areas, and our national forests.
  Our constituents know, and so do we. Every one of us have heard about 
families from our district that have visited these natural resources 
and found shabby facilities and deteriorating conditions when they 
arrive at these places that are, in many cases, the crown jewels of our 
park and recreation system, this legacy that was entrusted to us by 
past generations.
  Yet, tragically, Mr. Chairman, the unfunded backlog of deferred 
maintenance work in this country at these facilities has reached the 
tens of billions of dollars.

                              {time}  2310

  As a matter of fact, it is growing every year. Just 2 months ago, on 
March 21, this House voted 392 to 2 to underscore our concern about 
this backlog. Unfortunately, that vote was largely symbolic because it 
was a House Resolution and it committed no actual funds to address this 
problem.
  Tonight by voting for the Hastings-Regula amendment we can back up 
our rhetoric with real resources. Our amendment would provide a 
dedicated funding stream to meet the maintenance needs that have been 
deferred for too long, and it would do so without adding one penny to 
the bottom line on this bill.
  Simply stated, our amendment requires that for every dollar spent 
from the Federal share of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to 
purchase land, $1 must also be spent to maintain the lands that we 
already own. After all, to me it is just common sense to stop buying 
more of something unless one is ready to maintain what they already 
have. The Hastings-Regula amendment makes it possible to do both.
  Our dollar-for-dollar approach is a simple, straightforward, and 
balanced approach to at least one problem that the American people 
really do think that the Federal government should address. Whether one 
is from the East, West, rural, or urban areas, the public has 
consistently ranked maintaining parks and recreation facilities among 
the top priorities for public funding.
  Tonight let us show our constituents that their priorities are our 
priorities. Mr. Chairman, no Member of Congress has worked harder on 
this than the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). I am honored that he 
joins me in this endeavor. I am sure his remarks will explain much 
better than I can the need for this.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young) is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as much as I respect my good friend, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings), this bill does what he asks to do.
  Last year, the ratio was 3 to 1, $3 for every $1, $3 for every $1 
spent for purchase. If we are not doing this job as we should be, it is 
the appropriators' fault. If they appropriated the money as they should 
have from the monies

[[Page 7594]]

that were derived from offshore, we would not have this problem. But it 
has not been done. It has not been done.
  Under this bill, we put $200 million additional maintenance into the 
program for the maintenance. So really, this amendment is not 
necessary. It is really not necessary, unless one wants the 
appropriators to do all of the work. If they want the appropriators to 
make the decision, then support the amendment. If one wants 
appropriators writing legislation, then support the amendment. If we 
want the appropriators running this House, then support the amendment.
  The appropriators have been making legislative action every end of 
the session without any through-put through this Congress, without 
anybody having anything to say about it, without going to the 
authorizing committee. Those who voted for last year's final bill voted 
for $600 million, and the year before that, $420 million, and the year 
before that, without any through-put from the authorizing committees.
  In this bill, though, we say okay, if they want maintenance, we will 
give them an additional $200 million for maintenance. That is not 
appropriated. It should have been appropriated, but it was not 
appropriated. Three to one, though, for maintenance. If we have a 
backlog, it is because the appropriators did not use the money for the 
maintenance part.
  I am going to suggest that although the amendment sounds good, we 
recognize the maintenance problem in this bill. We recognize the need 
to take care of our parks and refuges. We added $200 million. If 
Members adopt this amendment, they are back where they started from, 
$450 million, just about where we were last year. We are letting the 
appropriators run the program. I do not think that is what this 
Congress wants.
  I do not have any particular fight with the appropriators, other than 
the fact that they missed the idea that the authorizers also have a 
role in this body. Does anybody know what the money was spent on last 
year? No. Did they come to us and ask us? No. It was given to the 
President.
  I say, maintain them, yes. We are going to do that. But let us use 
this bill, with the additional $200 million. If we do not defeat this 
amendment, we are going to end up right back where we were last year 
with no maintenance, other than about $450 million. If that is what 
Members want, then fine. If they want their parks to fall apart, fine, 
or refuges not to be maintained, fine. I do not think Members want 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I regret that I do not have a copy of the letter that I 
received from the chairman of the authorizing committee last year 
requesting me to put in a number of authorizing provisions in our bill, 
since he seems to feel that we abused that privilege. But I am pleased 
that he feels we should address the backlogged maintenance. It seems to 
me if the gentleman is saying he wants three to one, he certainly 
should be supporting this amendment, which is only one for one.
  All we are saying in this amendment is that as we buy land, for each 
dollar we spend on land, we should spend $1 on maintenance. Certainly 
that makes a lot of sense.
  Here is the list: The National Park Service, $3 billion: toilets that 
do not work, roads that are not safe, bridges that are not safe, 
campgrounds that are not safe; Bureau of Land Management, $100 million; 
Fish and Wildlife, $790 million; the Forest Service, $8.9 billion.
  Yet, all of these agencies, and particularly the Forest Service, they 
have tripled the visitor days of the Park Service, and look how this 
maintenance has been neglected. We have been working at it, but if we 
take the money away from the Committee on Appropriations, they are not 
going to be able to address this. The amount the gentleman provides 
does not help to solve the problem, because we will have many other 
demands that will be made on the money available to us.
  What I want to read is a poll that was done by Vox Populi 
Communications. They did a poll on CARA. I want to read just one 
paragraph: ``Even more adamant,'' and this is speaking of the people 
who responded, ``Even more adamant was the opposition to new land 
acquisition and park creation in the face of a massive maintenance 
backlog. Simply put, by more than six to one, voters want the 
maintenance backlog addressed before more money is spent on acquiring 
additional lands or creating new parks. This desire to address present 
needs was consistent across gender and party lines, and even Gore 
supporters saying that we needed to work on current problems before 
buying more land.''
  Yet, this bill would propose us to buy more land. It proposes to give 
the States money, free money, that they can spend as they choose. We 
keep hearing a lot about how this will enhance the resources. Maybe it 
will, maybe it will not. We do not know what the States will do with it 
once they get it. They are not that restricted under the terms of this 
bill.
  As the gentleman from Wisconsin pointed out so very eloquently, our 
responsibility is to take care of the 379 parks, the 200 million acres 
under the Bureau of Land Management, the probably almost 150 million 
acres in the Forest Service, and all the refuges. We created something 
like five last year, 30 in the past several years.
  We have an enormous backlog of maintenance, but we cannot do it 
without having money available. The bottom line of this bill is that it 
is going to take that money away, it is going to send it out to the 
States, and leave us with the lack of ability to meet these very 
significant needs.
  It seems to me as responsible government at the very minimum, if we 
are going to buy more land, as the amendment proposed by the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Hastings) would provide, for every $1 we spend on 
land, let us spend $1 on maintenance. It makes a lot of sense in view 
of this $13 billion deficit. Those are safety issues. Those are the 
enjoyment.
  Go to a park, and as it was in Yellowstone, one of the campgrounds is 
closed because of lack of maintenance of the sewer system.

                              {time}  2320

  That could be repeated many times over. So at least with this 
amendment, we get a beginning and we make sure that we are balancing 
off land acquisition with maintenance.
  I urge support for this amendment. And in view of the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) endorsing the idea of maintenance so emphatically, I 
would hope that he would be very supportive of this amendment because 
he believes in maintenance.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that in 
the last 5 years, while the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has 
chaired the subcommittee, that the appropriations for maintenance have 
been $54 million below the President's request; is that correct?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we have been below the 
President's request for, overall, a billion dollars because he 
requested but did not provide any money. But I would also point out 
that if the gentleman will look at the last time the minority party was 
in control, we have increased maintenance very greatly.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I must rise in vigorous opposition to the 
attempt of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) to cut one leg 
off a two-legged bill, because a 50 percent reduction in this 
acquisition, I think, cuts against three very important principles.
  One, I would allude to some basic American values that are inscribed 
in the bar of the House. And if my colleagues have never come down to 
take a look at them, they ought to sometime. Starting on the left, 
those basic American values are peace, liberty, tolerance, and justice. 
And the one we are

[[Page 7595]]

talking about tonight is union. Because in a very rare display of 
bipartisanship, we have crafted a union of people across party lines 
and ideological lines that is embodied in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will dismember that union that has been 
so carefully built and vigorously built under the leadership of the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller), the ranking minority member. We ought to stay with 
this bill as it is. It is a union and it ought to pass.
  The second rule that is being violated by this amendment is one of 
physics, the rule pavement does not wait. Concrete does not wait. It 
does not wait for Congress. It will not wait if we cut 50 percent out 
of the acquisition funds of this land. That land will be gone. Ask what 
would have happened in the days when Yellowstone was considered by this 
Chamber if this Chamber missed the opportunity to save Yellowstone 
National Park from the Coney Islands that would have been built up 
along the geysers if we decided not to make that acquisition because, 
in some way, the Committee on Appropriations had not previously 
appropriated enough for maintenance somewhere. Imagine if we missed 
that opportunity. Pavement and concrete do not wait.
  Third, I just want to say that we talk a lot about the Grand Canyon 
and Yellowstone Park, but I want to suggest those are the grand jewels 
of this country. But there are little jewels in every district in this 
country that need acquisition today. I went to the Grand Canyon last 
week. I took Friday off. Do not tell anybody. I went down to the Grand 
Canyon. The first time I have been there.
  Mr. Chairman, Teddy Roosevelt was right. He said every American 
should go to the Grand Canyon before they die. But there is a little 
place in my district on Bear Creek where the water pools underneath the 
cedar trees and the salmon used to spawn that if this amendment passes, 
the salmon will never spawn again because we will not preserve that 
little tiny piece of the Creator's handiwork, and that little jewel of 
this country, which will never be a Grand Canyon and may be known only 
to my neighbors will be gone.
  Let us act tonight for union, let us beat the pavement and let us 
protect all the little jewels that deserve protection in this country.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) has 2 minutes remaining. The time of the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula) has expired. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) 
has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Udall) has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The gentleman from Alaska has the right 
to close?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Yes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, on March 8, 1964 The New York 
Times ran the following editorial:

       Behind the effort to enact the Wilderness bill and the Land 
     and Water Conservation Fund bill--the two most vital pieces 
     of conservation and recreation legislation before Congress 
     this year--is recognition of a dread alternative: once the 
     primeval lands fall under the bulldozer's blade, they are 
     forever lost. . . . Secretary of the Interior Udall has 
     rightly called these bills ``pieces of landmark legislation 
     which will be remembered for years to come.''

  My father is still right. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act as 
well as the Wilderness Act is still remembered. And, I believe it is as 
important today as it was when he was Secretary of the Interior.
  I will let you in on what I think the secret is to the continuing 
importance of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. My father and 
others working on this bill were successful because these initiatives 
were the result of bipartisan input that looked ahead to the 
generations yet to come. Even the idea for creating a Land and Water 
Conservation Fund came from a bi-partisan commission. On Lawrence 
Rockefeller's Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission were: four 
Senators, 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans, four Representatives also 
split 2 and 2, and 7 presidential appointees including groups as 
diverse as the Wilderness Society and the American Cattlemen's 
Association.
  This bi-partisan foundation translated its work into sound proposals 
and Congress then passed the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act with 
virtually unanimous support.
  In the year 2000 we need to pass that secret along. As you well know, 
H.R. 701 is sponsored by both Chairman Young and Ranking Member Miller 
and has broad bi-partisan support in the House. This gives us the 
opportunity to take the secret of the 88th Congress' success and 
demonstrate that the 106th Congress can also work together to pass 
landmark legislation.
  Because they had joined with each other in a meaningful, bi-partisan 
dialogue, individuals like my father and his colleagues were able to 
leave all of us the invaluable gift of protected wildlands and 
wildlife. It's now our turn as the heirs of their generation to do the 
same thing for our children.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund has helped all of us in our 
respective states by protecting invaluable lands and resources. For 
example, in my district in New Mexico over $25 million in federal and 
$10 million in state funds have been awarded for some of the following 
projects:


                            federal funding

  Chaco Culture National Historic Park.
  Bandelier National Monument.


                          state/local funding

  Chama--Chama Playground.
  Las Vegas--Rodriguez Baseball Park.
  Raton--High School Recreation Park.
  Zuni--Recreation Park Development.
  Gallup--Red Rock Campground.
  As you can see from these examples, not only are the provisions of 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund aimed at helping support federal 
projects, they also help much needed state and local programs.
  That is why I support CARA and invite all of my colleagues--
regardless of which side of the aisle they sit--to participate in this 
legislative effort.
  As I conclude, I'm reminded of John Chafee who loved to quote Teddy 
Roosevelt's observation that ``of all the great questions which can 
come before this nation, short of the actual preservation of its 
existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance 
with the central task of leaving this land even a better land for our 
descendants than it is for us.''
  Thank you for supporting this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, we just heard some eloquent remarks about small little 
jewels being preserved and not being able to wait a few more years for 
lack of funding because of the advancing concrete. If we could picture 
in our mind the East Coast of the United States and then picture from 
Boston to Richmond. It is almost a constant corridor of buildings and 
highways, a megalopolis. And in the midst of that constant corridor is 
a tiny little space viewed from space that is still dark.
  It is called the Delmarva Peninsula, made up of Maryland, Delaware 
and Virginia. What we have done is worked with the three States on that 
tiny little peninsula to retain its rural character by creating a 
Habitat Conservation Corridor for those three States on the peninsula 
for wildlife. We are working to produce and preserve and make 
profitable agriculture. And we are going to restore 10 percent of the 
original historic number of oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, which will 
do tremendous things for water quality.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment for those jewels 
in this country that still can be preserved.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate what I am talking about with this 
amendment is for maintenance. It is not for acquisition at all. It is 
for maintenance. We already have the Grand Canyon. We already have 
Yosemite. We already have Rainier National Park. They are already in 
place. We are talking about maintaining these facilities.
  Now, I commend the gentleman from Alaska for at least putting some 
maintenance dollars in this bill. But here is

[[Page 7596]]

the problem. We know we have about $18 billion of a backlog. We have 
about $180 million in this bill. If we were to appropriate that all of 
the way through this year, it would take us 100 years just to make up 
the current backlog. We cannot wait that long. We propose in this CARA 
bill to spend another, roughly, billion dollars for acquisition. We 
would add to that, obviously, the maintenance needs in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot wait that long. We have 100 years, for 
goodness sakes, just to take care of what we have. That does not make 
any sense at all. We have an opportunity because CARA develops a 
funding stream for these crown jewels that we are talking about. Some 
of that ought to go for maintenance. And that is all this amendment 
says.
  Obviously, if this money is put into the process, maybe we can reduce 
this and then those that support buying more land would have that land 
in the future. But is the first principle not to maintain what we have? 
That is what this amendment does, is simply says let us maintain what 
we have. We cannot wait 100 years just to take care of the backlog that 
we already have right now.
  I urge my colleagues to support this common sense amendment because 
to me, it addresses the issue that the American people understand 
obviously better than we do, or it would be in the bill without having 
to go through this amendment process.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am one who supports the maintenance. I will say this, 
that if the appropriators had done their job, the maintenance would 
have occurred and should have occurred.
  I am a little bit concerned and I would like to ask those that oppose 
this bill, where would the maintenance money be for this program if we 
did not have CARA? Where would it be? It would not happen. There would 
be no maintenance. It would be the same minimal type maintenance that 
has existed the last 6 years, and before that in the other 
administration.
  And if we go back and check the units that were created, we will find 
out a large percent of those units were created without authorization 
by this Congress, but through the appropriating committee.

                              {time}  2330

  Just check the record.
  So I ask a lot of my colleagues, where would they be when they offer 
these amendments. If we did not have CARA, would they have any more 
maintenance? I say, no, they would have the same old thing. Just keep 
that in mind.
  So I think this amendment is unnecessary. We do recognize the need in 
this bill. I respectfully reject the amendment. Keep this package 
together. Let us go forward and accomplish what we set out to do: 
maintain, take care of our species, take care of our urban parks, take 
care of our easements, take care of destroyed land, and, yes, maybe buy 
some land. But nowhere in this bill says there shall be land bought. 
Nowhere.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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 Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) will be postponed.
  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. 
Hastings of Washington) 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.

                          ____________________