George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin raised the issue of the coastal zone and the inadequate funding in this legislation so that those States on our coast will have the ability to put in place the programs that they have now developed over many, many years, expending a lot of money to protect the coastal zone and to make sure that that coastal zone, which is of great importance to 50 percent of the population in this Nation and to the jobs that are related to marine coastal zone, the commercial and recreational fishing activities that take place there, and the economy that is driven by the economy of that area can properly be protected. One of the major assaults on the coastal zone and on the economy and on the use of the coastal resources is nonpoint source pollution. This legislation just completely inadequately deals with that problem. Polluted runoff closes shellfish beds and increases harmful algae blooms and dead zones; it closes beaches and causes fish contamination advisories and much more that we now have to put up on a weekly and daily basis in the coastal zones on the East Coast and the Gulf Coast and on the West Coast of the United States. It is the single biggest problem dealing with water quality, whether it is in the Chesapeake Bay or whether it is in Puget Sound or San Francisco Bay or Santa Monica Bay. We now have dead zones that extend off of the Gulf of Mexico that are thousands and thousands of square miles that are creating dead zones in the area, killing off the fish, killing off any kind of economic activity that can take place there. In my own State of California, officials in California closed beaches 3,273 times in the State of California. Certainly, last summer's economic disaster in Huntington Beach, California, which was a direct result of beach closure due to water contamination from polluted runoff, underscores the kinds of problems that we were hoping that this legislation would, in fact, deal with; the continued problems of runoff from logging areas from the interior parts of our States and other States throughout the coastal zone in California. We were poised to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Federal statute that regulates these activities and provides for the States to develop the plans. The States, many of them, have been fully qualified, as is the State of California, to now go forward with these plans, and yet this legislation is so meager on its resources for those activities that we will be unable to do so. This is a huge, huge segment of the environment of the United States. In just the State of California, we have over 1,600 miles of shoreline and 645,000 acres of estuaries, harbors, and bays. We have industries that are totally dependent upon this situation: the recreation, the tourism industry. We now have beaches that have been closed for 6 to 12 weeks and a number of beaches that have been closed permanently. This legislation is inadequate. It ought to be rejected. We ought to turn this legislation down and go back and get the kinds of funds that are necessary to protect the coastal zones of the United States of America.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join Senator Barbara Boxer in introducing the California Reclaimed Water Act for the 21st Century. The recent string of wet winters in California should not let us forget that water shortages and drought are quite normal in our State. I strongly believe that investment in reclaimed water technology--water recycling--can help us ``drought-proof'' any of our community water supplies in California. Projects that recycle water result in a net increase in available local water supplies and can decrease the need for water that must be supplied and often imported from other sources. Because wastewater for recycling is available even when other water supplies are diminished, recycled water can assist in providing a long-term, reliable, local source of water even during droughts. Our farmers, urban dwellers, sport and commercial fishing interests, tribes, mountain communities and environmentalists all seek a more reliable and a more certain water future. Recycled water plays an important part in meeting California's water needs today and will play an even more important role in the next several decades. About 3% of the water supply in the San Francisco Bay Area is now recycled. Water managers hope that eventually as much as 40% of the water will be recycled, perhaps as much as 500,000 acre-feet per year. California cities need planning help and financial assistance to find markets for the recycled water, and to construct the treatment and conveyance facilities needed to get the treated water to identified markets. Recycled water can be used for irrigation of golf courses, parks, school lands, business campuses, and highway medians, and for groundwater recharge, wetlands development; and industrial purposes. We have to start thinking about recycled water as a critical component of the water supply picture in California. Californians and government agencies have recently affirmed their support for water recycling, first with the passage of the California water bond last March, and more recently with the approval of the CALFED water agreement which broadly sets a course for California's water future. Water recycling and reuse is a major element of both these new actions and policies. The Federal government's support for water recycling was initially authorized in the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992. The Bureau of Reclamation's so-called ``Title XVI'' program originally approved financial assistance for planning, design and construction of four water recycling projects in California. More projects were approved in 1996. The legislation I introduce today builds upon these Congressional efforts, voter ballot initiatives and agency studies. Senator Barbara Boxer has today introduced identical legislation in the U.S. Senate. The bill authorizes a series of new Title XVI water recycling projects and directs the Secretary of the Interior to work with various water districts throughout the State on water recycling activities. Specific projects included in the bill are: Castaic Lake Water Agency; Clear Lake Basin Water Reuse Project; San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Project; Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Project; San Pablo Baylands Water Reuse Project in Sonoma, Napa, Marin and Solano Counties; State of California Water Recycling Program; Regional Brine Lines (salt removal) in Southern California and in the San Francisco Bay and the Santa Clara Valley areas; Lower Chino Dairy Area Desalination Demonstration and Reclamation Project; and the West Basin Comprehensive Desalination Demonstration Program. These projects will have the capacity to produce hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of useable water. Each acre-foot of recycled water produced by these projects will reduce the demand in California for imported water from the Bay-Delta and the Colorado River. Unlike traditional Bureau of Reclamation water projects, these water recycling projects require a majority of funds to be locally provided. Consistent with Title XVI limitations on recycling projects as authorized in 1992 and 1996, the projects proposed in my bill require 75% local funding. Federal cost sharing is limited to 25%. Moreover, this bill specifies that none of the funds can be used for annual operation and maintenance costs. Those annual expenses are the responsibility of the local water districts or management agency. I strongly believe that water recycling will continue to play an important and growing role in total water management strategies to provide a safe and sustainable water supply in California and in many other parts of the country. The water recycling projects authorized by the legislation I am introducing today are part of a long-term solution to some of California's most difficult challenges. Water recycling is not the only solution. But, water recycling and water reuse can play a significant part as these projects can be designed, built, and placed in service within a short time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the decline of estuary habitats--especially in the San Francisco Bay estuary--has been well- documented in the scientific and resource management literature for over 30 years. Tragically, San Francisco Bay has lost over 95% of its tidal wetlands and continues to be besieged by invasive and aquatic nuisance species. Fortunately, S. 835, the Estuaries and Clean Water Act, will provide a reasonable, balanced approach to both preserve remaining estuarine habitats and to facilitate effective, locally-driven estuary restoration in estuaries like San Pablo Bay and Suisun Bay in my district. I am particularly pleased that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will be eligible to participate in this new program. NGOs, such as Save the Bay and The Bay Institute in the Bay Area, embody the locally driven focus of this legislation and provide local expertise and support. Amendments agreed to in conference also enhance the role of the Estuary Habitat Restoration Council in the selection of projects and the delegation of oversight responsibilities for project implementation. This will bring additional expertise and provide direct ties to other successful Federal-State partnership programs for protecting the estuaries, such as the National Estuary Program, the National Estuarine Research Reserve Program, and the National Marine Fisheries Service's Fishery Habitat Restoration program. This conference report is good environmental legislation and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support its passage.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4656 authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to convey for fair market value approximately 8.7 acres of land in a parcel in the Tahoe National Forest in Incline Village, Nevada, to the Washoe County School District for the use as an elementary site. The parcel has been valued at between $2 million and $4 million. However, because of the deed restriction directing the use of the school site or a reversionary clause, the Forest Service believes that the appraised value would be reduced by 75 percent, or approximately $500,000. This bill requires the proceeds of the sale to be used for acquiring environmentally sensitive land in Lake Tahoe. This all sounds good, until you examine this deal. The deed restriction, this land was purchased because it is environmentally-sensitive land. I realize that there has been development around it, but that was the purpose and the priority for which it was purchased by the public. Now, because it has a deed restriction, they say that they want it transferred to the school district for $500,000, as opposed to fair market value. Well, if you are a school district and you are using it for that purpose, and that is the purpose of the deed restriction, it is like getting a full-valued piece of property, because that is all you are going to use it for. But now we have worked in a discount in this property, and then we are told we can take this $500,000 and we can take that and go out and try to buy equally environmentally-sensitive land somewhere else in the Tahoe Basin, when in fact we are talking about some of the most expensive land in the State. In many parts of the Tahoe Basin, $500,000 will not buy you a 50-by- 100 building lot, much less a school site or environmentally-sensitive land or anything else. The fact of the matter is that this land is valuable for that very reason, because either people want to enjoy it for their own homes or recreational benefits and/or because there is so little land left in the Tahoe Basin, given what we have to do. Yesterday we passed a bill here to spend $300 million of Federal taxpayer monies to protect this very same basin, and yet we are giving away environmentally-sensitive land here, with the belief that somehow we are going to replace it, and I object to that. I think that this is a continuation of a misuse of public resources, when in fact the local entity has all of the wherewithal to purchase the land at fair market value. Certainly they ought to purchase it for, at a minimum, what they just sold their own school land for, which was, I guess, about $850,000. They could take that and buy this site, which they believe to be a superior site, but they would rather have a discount paid for by the Federal taxpayers. The gentleman from Nevada suggested that somehow this is the same as other legislation that we have done. The fact of the matter is that is not the case, because in most instances, as we do with little disagreement on a bipartisan basis, we transfer land from the Federal Government to public agencies all the time. In most instances, that land is sort of generic Federal land, if you will. It really in some cases has no other value other than to be transferred to a local agency, whether it is a city or a school district or a sanitation district or whatever, as we have done now in a number of instances in the Committee on Resources. But this bill is simply bad policy, and it is bad economics for the taxpayer; and I think it is bad for the environment in the Lake Tahoe Basin. I think this bill also points out a continuing problem that we have in the Committee on Resources; and although this is not technically a land exchange, it is part of the same parcel where, once again, we just continue to dip into the Federal land base and we parcel it out on less than a fair market value, less than equal basis, when we engage in land exchanges. This committee and the Congress was just recently again put on notice by the General Accounting Office as to the problems that we are having in these exchanges. A number of them exist in the gentleman's home State, where the Federal Government, through, I think, bad policy on behalf of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, but especially the Bureau of Land Management, has engaged in real estate practices on behalf of the taxpayer, where the taxpayer ought to just scream to high heaven that they want a new real estate agent. We have seen properties that have been flipped on the same day of sale, where the Federal Government got its ``value'' of $763,000 in Nevada, only to find out that the same day that property was resold for $4.5 million. In another instance we got the ``value'' of $504,000, only to have that property sold for $1 million the very same day. I think it calls into question. So when the Forest Service makes a determination that because this land has a deed restriction, but it happens to be a deed restriction that allows you to use it exactly for that purpose, of a school, of which you want it, land which you cannot find suitably elsewhere, for the Forest Service now to step forward with a straight face and suggest that the value of this 8.5 acres of land in the middle of Incline Village, somehow the value here is $500,000, is simply not true. If the school district went out on the open market and sought to purchase 8.5 acres in the Tahoe Basin, the land value would exceed $500,000 in any instance. For those reasons, I think that the Congress ought to reject this legislation. This is not a declaration against all land swaps, because we have done land swaps, we have done land exchanges and done outright grants of land, as we did yesterday in a number of instances. But in those cases, the value of the land was essentially de minimis, other than the purpose for which some local agency wanted to put it to use. So I think at some point you have got to cry ``halt'' here to having the Federal taxpayer just continuing to subsidize these kinds of arrangements, where in fact we simply cannot look our constituents in the face and suggest to them we got fair value or in any way did we get market value. The fact of the matter was that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) tried to offer an amendment to provide for fair market value. That was rejected in the committee, and now we are operating under a closed rule so that he cannot offer that amendment so that we will have an opportunity to find out whether or not we can get fair market value for the taxpayers in the use of this land for the school district. I think that would be a much fairer way to go, but it is obvious that the proponents of this legislation do not want to engage in that public process of determining fair market value. They simply want the Forest Service, which I might add, the proponents here who show such great support for the Forest Service evaluation are the same people who are usually beating the hell out of the Forest Service on a daily basis, but all of a sudden they become outstanding appraisers of the public land in the Tahoe Basin. But I guess it is the end of the session. Mr. Speaker, I would hope Members would vote against this rule and that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) would get an opportunity to offer his amendment, and we could square the books on behalf of the taxpayer.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, S. 700 completes an important designation. We join the administration in supporting the passage of this measure introduced by Senator Akaka and the Hawaii delegation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, S. 938 is supported by the administration, the Hawaii congressional delegation, and I support the measure as well, and I urge its adoption. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, S. 1694, as amended, includes important provisions that affect programs and water management activities under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation. Most of these provisions have previously been considered by the 106th Congress, and none of them are controversial. Section 507 of S. 1694, as amended, addresses the issue of how the costs of the Sugar Pine Unit of the Central Valley Project are to be accounted for. A guiding principle of my approach to Reclamation law has been that the beneficiaries of a project or program should bear their fair share of costs. Generally, this equitable concept that meant increasing the costs or repayment obligations of project beneficiaries so that they bear a fair share for the public benefits received. In the case of the Sugar Pine transfer being considered here, Section 507 of the measure relies on the same principle, but for the opposite purpose of relieving numerous Central Valley contractors, both municipal/industrial and agricultural, from project cost allocations where they received no benefits whatever. In short, the authorization for Sugar Pine Dam and Reservoir in 1965 (P.L. 89-161) specifically directed that the project be integrated, both operationally and financially, into the Central Valley Project. As a factual matter, operational integration never occurred, yet the costs of Sugar Pine have nonetheless been included in the pooled costs of the CVP, to be recovered from all CVP contractors through cost of service rates for water which are now in the process of being implemented. My remarks here are intended to clarify the intent and meaning of Section 507 of the Sugar Pine transfer legislation, which relieves CVP contractors of this inequitable financial obligation until operational integration occurs. Section 507 reflects the recognition of Congress that the Sugar Pine Project is not integrated operationally into the CVP, as well as the principal that there was and is no authority, in the 1965 authorization of Sugar Pine or elsewhere, for these project costs to be included in the pooled reimbursable costs of the CVP in the absence of operational integration. The exclusion of ``all costs'' by Section 507 is meant to ensure that not only principal, but also interest charges on unpaid principle, are excluded from pooled reimbursable costs. This is intended to be consistent with the treatment provided in similar legislation related to the Sly Park Unit of the CVP, which was passed recently by the Congress in the Energy and Water appropriations bill soon to be signed by the President. The Sly Park provision was drafted in the other body, but the Sly Park language addressed similar facts and had the same purpose as the Sugar Pine bill. Both involve transfers of project ownership for small California Bureau of Reclamation projects which originally were directed to be integrated into the CVP but never were, and both provide for the exclusion of costs which were improperly included in the obligations of CVP contractors even though the project was never operationally integrated into the CVP. With respect to the costs to be excluded, the Sly Park bill terms them ``non-reimbursable and non-returnable,'' the same result which is intended here.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we support this legislation, and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) has explained it well, and I would urge Members to support the bill. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1804 would authorize the Pyramid of Remembrance Foundation to establish a memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs to soldiers who have lost their lives during peacekeeping operations, humanitarian efforts, training, terrorist attacks, or covert operations. H.R. 1804 is being brought to the House under unusual circumstances, by way of discharge of the Resources Committee. We have had no hearings or mark-up of the legislation in the Committee, despite the fact that this bill has been pending before the Committee since May 1999. H.R. 1804 differs markedly from the bill (H.R. 1608) that was before the Committee in the 105th Congress. We have not heard testimony from the Foundation nor do we know the views of the Administration on this legislation. In fact, it has come to our attention that the Foundation may not be a functioning entity. Madam Speaker, while H.R. 1804 may well be a noncontroversial measure the procedure being used to consider this bill has left us with very little information on this measure. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) has quite properly explained the legislation, and I am pleased that the legislation will finally establish a National Marine Sanctuary System to elevate the stature and importance of the Sanctuary Program both inside and outside of NOAA. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues in support of this legislation, and thank them for bringing it to the floor, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) for his support and Senator Schumer for drafting this legislation. I urge Members to support the bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman. I have made my views known on this matter. I have a difference of opinion with the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) on whether or not this is a sale at fair market value. I realize the restriction. But I have been over that. It is pretty clear the gentleman has the votes and, so, I will not belabor the point. I would hope that before this bill finishes its journey that we could do a little bit better by the taxpayers. H.R. 4656 authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to convey for fair market value an approximately 8.7 acre parcel on the Tahoe National Forest in Incline Village, NV to the Washoe County School District for use as an elementary school site. The parcel is valued at between $2-4 million. However, because of a deed restriction directing use as a school site and a reversionary clause, the Forest Service believes that the appraised value would be reduced by 75% to approximately $500,000. The bill requires the proceeds of the sale to be used for acquiring environmentally sensitive land in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The parcel, although in a developed area, was originally acquired by the Forest Service in 1981 under the Santini-Burton Act for approximately $500,000. That act authorizes the acquisition of environmentally sensitive land in Lake Tahoe thru sales of BLM land in and near Las Vegas. While the Santini-Burton Act allows transfer of lands or interests in land to state and local government, deed restrictions must protect the environmental quality and public recreation purposes of the land. Legislation is needed in this instance because this conveyance does not fall within the parameters of the Act. While local ordinances may protect the stream on the parcel, nothing in the legislation explicitly protects the stream area from development. The town sold off a potential school site in 1995 for $855,000. That money, plus a $7.2 million bond issue for construction of the school facility and environmental remediation, would pay for the project. H.R. 4656 was introduced by Representative Gibbons on June 14, 2000. A companion measure, S. 2728, was introduced by Senator Bryan (D-NV) on June 14, 2000. At the September 12, 2000 Committee mark-up, Adam Smith offered an amendment that would have removed the deed restriction and reversionary clause thereby allowing the federal government to get full fair market value. The amendment was rejected, the bill was reported out, and the minority filed dissenting views. Over our objections, the bill was placed on the suspension calendar on October 10, 2000 and when a recorded vote was requested, failed on suspension 248-160 on October 12, 2000. In retaliation, the Majority killed Mr. Kildee's noncontroversial suspension bill (H.R. 468). Now being brought up under a closed rule, we are foreclosed from offering the Smith amendment. The administration opposes the bill as is, but would support it if it were amended so that the federal government could get fair market value for the land. Were it allowed, the amendment we would have offered simply removes both the deed restriction and the reversionary clause thereby allowing the federal government to get full fair market value for the land. The closed rule prohibits offering the amendment that would get full fair market value for the taxpayers. This is unfair. It's also unfair that the majority killed a noncontroversial bill and failed to reschedule it. The taxpayers deserve fair compensation for this land in particular, because they purchased the land under a federal program (Santini- Burton) to buy environmentally sensitive land around Lake Tahoe and because the proceeds of the sale will be used to purchase additional environmentally sensitive land in the Lake Tahoe area. Like other land around Lake Tahoe, this land has appreciated considerably in the last 20 years (from $500,000 to several million), and full market value would ensure the government has the ability to replace the land with comparable property. To offset the fiscal and environmental loss of this environmentally valuable property, the federal government should get full value. The Majority argues that there is precedent for conveying land at less than FMV with a reversionary clause. But in H.R. 695 (San Juan College-T. Udall) and other bills, the land conveyed was simply public domain land or surplus land. H.R. 2890 (Vieques-Crowley) returns land to Puerto Rico that has been used as a bombing range in an effort to restore its environmental integrity. In H.R. 2737 (Lewis and Clark Trail to State of Illinois-Costello), National Park Service land was conveyed for a purpose wholly consistent with the purpose for which the land was acquired (land went to the state to build an interpretive center). Finally, H.R. 1725 (Milwaleta Park Expansion-DeFazio (passed October 23, 2000 on suspension)) conveys park land to be used as park land. In this bill, the land is not surplus, and it is not being conveyed for a purpose consistent with the purpose for which it was acquired. The land is Santini-Burton land which the public purchased specifically for its environmental value and whose protection represents a federal priority. This bill undermines that act, which, thru restrictions on disposal of property, aims to protect the lands' environmental quality and public recreation purposes. It is sound fiscal policy for the public to receive full value for its public assets. This bill is a sweetheart deal for one school district and is yet another example of using federal lands to subsidize local interests. This is not the solution to school construction problems. It is a rip-off for taxpayers and the environment. The school gets an added windfall because it recently sold a potential school site for $855,000. It also gets not just the property, but the development rights. Unfortunately, this land conveyance is not just an isolated example of a giveaway. It is representative of public lands bills and policies that benefit a few people at the expense of the public. I have long been concerned that land deals--especially land exchanges--are being cut behind closed doors with tremendous special- interest pressure and limited public input. A General Accounting Office report that I requested confirmed my fears: too many of these exchanges lead to environmental damage and taxpayer rip-offs. The GAO report, ``Land Exchanges Need to Reflect Appropriate Value and Serve the Public Interest,'' released in July found that the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars swapping valuable public land for private land of questionable value, and the report concludes that the BLM may even be breaking the law. The GAO reported that the agencies ``did not ensure that the land being exchanged was appropriately valued or that exchanges served the public interest or met certain other exchange requirements.'' GAO went on to state that ``the exchanges presented in our report demonstrate serious, substantive, and continuing problems with the agencies' land exchange programs.'' In addition, GAO found that the BLM has--under the umbrella of its land exchange authority--illegally sold federal land, deposited the proceeds into interest-bearing accounts, and used these funds to acquire nonfederal land (or arranged with others to do so). These unauthorized transactions undermine congressional budget authority, GAO said. Specific findings of the GAO report include: Private parties in one Nevada exchange made windfall profits, in one case acquiring land ``valued'' by BLM at $763,000 and selling it for $4.6 million on the same day and in another instance acquiring land ``valued'' at $504,000 and selling it for $1 million on the same day. In the DelMar exchange in Utah, the BLM paid more than seven times the appraised value. The Forest Service acquired lands in three exchanges in Nevada that were ``overvalued by a total of $8.8 million'' because the appraised values ``were not supported by credible evidence.'' In the Cache Creek exchange in California, the BLM failed to ``present the reasons for acquiring'' the land. In another Nevada exchange, the Del Webb exchange, BLM removed an agency appraiser and violated the BLM's own policy by hiring a non- federal appraiser recommended by the exchange's private party. The GAO said the problems were so bad that Congress should consider eliminating the programs altogether. I believe that the appropriate step is to halt the programs and then fix them. in light of the GAO's report, I asked the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to immediately suspend their programs while they evaluate the best method to achieve exchanges' laudable goals. Both agencies declined my request for a moratorium but have begun to review their exchange programs. Although, the reviews may prove to correct many of the problems, I will watch the efforts closely, especially because the BLM continues the land transactions that GAO said were illegal. So now what does this Congress do when faced with a clear demonstration of the problems of the exchange program? Instead of supporting efforts to ensure that taxpayers and the environment are protected, Congress has passed some of the worst land swaps I have seen in my 26 years of Congress. Since the GAO report was released: The House passed and the President signed into law, S. 1629, the Oregon Land Exchange Act, which mandated the exchange of 90,000 acres without sufficient NEPA review or public disclosure of appraisal information. The House and Senate passed H.R. 4828, the Steens Mountain exchange bill. The bill contains 5 legislated land exchanges. The exchanges were negotiated behind closed doors among a select group of participants. No appraisals were done. Further, while the exchanges themselves are unequal, the ranchers asked for even more and the bill includes nearly $5 million in cash payments to them. As if that was not enough, the bill directs the Secretary to provide fencing and water developments for their grazing operations. Finally, these trades involve the unprecedented transfer of more than 18,000 acres of wilderness study areas (WSAs) to the ranchers. While it is true that the BLM would receive more than 14,000 acres of private land within WSAs, this is not only a net loss but it also sets a bad precedent of trading wilderness for wilderness. Further, significant private inholdings will remain in the proposed wilderness areas even after these trades.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1725. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this is a very good bill or not, to tell you the truth. There is no Federal connection to this project at all. None of the facilities, the land, are federally owned or operated; and I do not quite know why the Federal Government is spending money here when we have a multibillion dollar backlog in maintenance and construction on our Federal lands and our national parks, and why we would now be spending money on a completely non-Federal project here to construct recreational facilities and design of a visitors center. I know that the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and Senator Feinstein support this legislation. I do not know if it is the best idea, but we will let it go at that. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4794, the Washington- Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Heritage Act of 2000. I want to commend our colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), for all of the work he has done on this legislation. There is bipartisan support by every Member who represents the areas crossed by this road.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S. 1211. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control program is one of the most successful water control programs in the West. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 2300 would amend the Mineral Leasing Act to increase the maximum acreage of Federal leases for coal that may be held by an entity in any one State. The administration supports this legislation. CBO estimates, however, that enacting this legislation will not have any significant impact on Federal receipts from coal leaseholders or subsequent payments to the States for their share of those receipts. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) properly explained the legislation, S. 1088; and we have no objections to the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We do not know what bill this is. The gentleman has explained it. It is not on the calendar that I can see. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 1894 provides the conveyance of 190 acres from Park County, Wyoming. Park County will pay the assessed fair market value for the parcel. It is my understanding that the administration has expressed some concerns regarding the fair market value of this parcel, but we do not oppose the bill at this time. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As the gentleman has explained, this is an exchange of land or the direct sale of land in Wyoming, and while the administration is concerned that not all of the lands have been identified, we have no objections to the bill at this time, and we urge its passage. S. 610 (Enzi) is a Senate passed measure that directs the sale of 16,500 acres of public land in Wyoming to the Westside Irrigation District. Mineral estate would remain with the United States. District required to pay fair market value for the lands. Prior to any sale there has to be completed an environmental analysis under NEPA. Bill allows the Secretary and the District to add or subtract lands if necessary to satisfy the mitigation requirements of the NEPA analysis. Administration had raised a number of concerns with the bill as introduced. While the bill was amended in the Senate to address some of these concerns, the Administration still does not support passage. Administration concerned that they are required to sell lands that had not been identified for disposal. The lands contain significant paleontological resources and provide important wildlife habitat. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 1030, introduced by Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming, would require certain lands acquired through exchange in Gillette, Wyoming, to be segregated from entry under the mining laws until appropriate land-use planning is completed for the land. This provision is necessary to override existing laws that would otherwise require the land to be opened up to mining 90 days after the completion of this exchange. The administration is in support of this legislation. We have no problems. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.