George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, the Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee. This amendment, would authorize the conveyance of over 8,000 acres of the land at the western end of the island of Vieques for conservation and economic development to improve the lives of Vieques residents. Vieques is a small island of Puerto Rico comprising approximately 52 square miles, two thirds of which is controlled by the US Navy. The Naval Ammunition Facility covers the western end of the island and the Inner Range of the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility controls the eastern side. Sandwiched between the two facilities, over 9,300 American citizens have resided for twenty five years in extremely close proximity to frequent military live-fire weapons testing. From the beginning, relationships between the US Navy and the residents of Vieques and Puerto Rico have been strained. Numerous times the Navy has made promises to assist with local economic development, work to improve the welfare of the people of Vieques, assure the protection of the environment, and utilize the absolute minimum necessary of explosive ordnance. By all accounts the Navy has not lived up to its commitment. The Navy has made it clear that they do not need the western side of Vieques and support transferring it to the people of Puerto Rico who in turn can use it to protect the environment and benefit the expansion of their economy. As is the case with all US insular areas, isolation and limited resources are stumbling blocks to economic development. Freeing up land, which is key to economic development, is one of the best gestures we can offer to Vieques. It is hard to fathom that if Puerto Rico had full voting representation in Congress we would be debating this issue today. The current language in this legislation is a bribe and a slap in the face to the residents of Vieques. It forces them to continue putting their families at risk in order to receive a small portion of land from which they might be able to better their lives. It is an offering that we would not demand of any other community in the US. Mr. Chairman, clearly we all understand the need for a strong military. Communities which give up so much to ensure readiness should be commended and not threatened or bullied into submission. I encourage all my colleagues to support the Skelton amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute to Frederick Bold, Jr., one of the most distinguished and talented attorneys to ever practice the complex craft of water law in California. For fifty years Mr. Bold has provided expert and reasoned advice to the Contra Costa Water District and many others, and I know that many throughout California join me in honoring his many years of service. My own relationship with Mr. Bold goes back many years to his work with my father, State Senator George Miller, Jr., when much of modern water law in California was being developed. I learned from both of them that water law and water politics can be complex and treacherous, but also fascinating and, for our state, critical to our economic growth and environmental quality of life. Mr. Bold grew up in San Francisco and graduated from Stanford University magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. He received his law degree from Harvard University, and served as a professor at Hastings Law School and San Francisco Law School. Mr. Bold began his legal career with the distinguished firm of Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro, and was for two decades a partner in the Richmond law firm of Carlson, Collins, Gordon and Bold. He later was senior partner of the firm now known as Bold, Polisner, Maddow, Nelson and Judson. For 44 years, he served as general counsel for the Contra Costa Water district which serves many of my constituents and has long been in the forefront of the often fractious battles over water policy in California. He has also served as general counsel for the Diablo Water District. Mr. Bold worked closely with my father in the drafting of the Delta Protection Act, which was a key part of the Burns Porter State Water Project Act and which has formed much of the legal basis for defending the quality of Delta water from degradation over the years. He also was involved in many other legal, legislative and regulatory actions that helped form the framework for modern water policy in California including Delta Decisions 1379 (1972-72), and 1485 (1977-78). Mr. Bold has been very active in a wide range of community services including serving as a cofounder of Richmond Brookside Hospital, president of the Richmond Memorial Youth Center, the Richmond Chamber of Commerce, Richmond Kiwanis Club, Exalted Ruler of the Richmond Elks Club and president of the Richmond Bar Association. He is also a skilled sailor and horseman. On May 19, 2000, many friends and leaders in the water community will be joining Helene and Fred for his recognition dinner. I know that all members of the House will want to join me and Congresswoman Pelosi in wishing Mr. Bold the very best, and in thanking him for his many contributions to public service over the years. He has helped lay a strong foundation to protect the water and environment for our region for many decades to come, and we all owe him a special debt of gratitude and appreciation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has clearly made the case. The rights of landowners are dramatically, dramatically improved under this legislation in the event that an agency would seek condemnation. The rights of the Members of Congress are dramatically improved under this legislation. The rights of the mayors and the city councils, the boards of supervisors, county government are dramatically improved. The governor, for the first time, has full notification. Every political subdivision in and around the considered land has full notification. None of that is required under today's law. And why is that there? Because people concerned about these issues in the negotiating sessions and in the committee expect a very deep and serious concern about what is a very serious power of the Government to condemn. But the fact of the matter is, in some instances, very, very rarely, the Federal Government may resort to condemnation. My colleagues would not think for a minute of putting this requirement on the U.S. Army as they want to deal with Ft. Irwin and they want to start acquiring property lands for bombing ranges. My colleagues would not think for a minute of putting this in the Department of Highways as they acquire land for the development of highways. They would not think for a minute of putting this in the Department of Energy if they were seeking to locate a lab or expand one of our national labs that we have in California. But they sure as heck want to make sure that the property owners, them as Members of Congress, their local officials are not identified and aware of that. And then the Secretary has to say why, and this is the superior route, that there is not an alternative, that there is not comparable lands. All of those things today at the insistence of people advocating the rights of private individuals. The other thing the gentleman does here in his amendment is he now steps over and tells the States what to do. I mean, this is a real mixed bag here. I can understand the concerns of the gentleman on the Fed, but he also now moves on to the States. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If the gentleman will yield, where it says ``in general.'' Lines 7 through 12.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Let me reclaim my time. The man sitting next to the gentleman has the authority to do this. If the study has been done and you want to review it and you want some action on the study, the committee is available for that. I do not pretend to speak for the chairman. But putting in this prohibition just is not going to work.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Yes.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think it is a strange turn of events that we end up with CARA discussing these trust funds, but it is very clear that to all Members of this House on both sides of the aisle, as we have evolved in the Social Security-Medicare debate in this Congress over the last decade, we have made it very clear to ourselves, I hope, and to our constituents that we would not once again go back to an old habit of invading Social Security trust funds and the Medicare program as we had in the past. What the DeFazio motion to recommit does is make an absolute prohibition against that, so that we cannot gimmick up estimates, we cannot gimmick up certifications. We have all been there before. We have all had these estimates. If Members remember, 8 years ago we were going to have $300 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. Now we are telling people we have $300 billion surpluses as far as the eye can see. The bottom line is whether or not you have invaded the trust funds. This assures that CARA goes forward, it goes forward with permanent funding, but it will not, under the prohibitions in the DeFazio amendment, invade those trust funds. I think this serves the best interests of all Members of the House on both sides of the aisle. I thank the gentleman for offering his amendment and I would hope that it would have strong bipartisan support because it does, in fact, speak to the issues that all of us have addressed throughout our careers in the Congress of the United States while affording us the opportunity to meet one of the very, very important concerns that the American public has, and, that is, about the conservation of America's great natural resources and assets.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I think the House of Representatives can be very proud of itself over these last 2 days of debate. I think our constituents are going to be very proud of us because, as the beginning of our summer vacation season starts, as millions of Americans will travel to its National Parks to its wilderness areas, to its forests, to its wildlife refuges and to its beaches, they will know that the House of Representatives once again restored a promise that the Congress made to them 36 years ago and then broke; that this House of Representatives had the courage to put the money back that it had borrowed from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, almost $13 billion, just as we have had the courage to put money back into the Social Security Trust Fund and into the Highway Trust Fund, because that is what we told the people we were going to do with their money. I hope all Members feel very proud about their work product as we defeat this substitute and pass the bill. I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) for all of his effort and for his courage in working with this legislation; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for all of the work, all of the talent, all of the history that he brought to our considerations; the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin); the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John), who made it possible for us to understand the needs, the needs of what was happening in the Gulf Coast, as was witnessed here in their closing arguments, and with the threat to wildlife, the threat to their cities, the threat to their economy; to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), who sat there during negotiations and was terribly, terribly helpful; and even the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), who I disagree with on many, many issues, but kept after us, kept after us and kept after us and wanted a set of language here on behalf of property rights that is not in existing law that strengthens the hands of individual property owners. I want to thank him for his participation. I want to give special thanks to a person in this body that probably knows more about public land than anyone else and anyone else I have ever served with, and that is the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento). The gentleman from Minnesota is going through very difficult times now. But he has been here for every vote. He was there for all of the negotiations. His retirement from Congress is going to be a great loss on public lands. I am very, very proud to be associated with this bill. This will be a historic bill. This will be a landmark bill. We will be addressing one of the very highest priorities of the American people. We are going to do it on a bipartisan basis. We are going to send it over to the Senate. The Senate leadership has met. They are waiting for this legislation. The Senate Majority Leader is a cosponsor of similar legislation, along with many Democratic Senators. The White House has pledged its effort to get this bill passed and get it enacted into law. At the end of the year, Charles Kuralt, before he died, used to have at the end of his Saturday morning shows during the holiday season, he had what he called ``the gifts we gave to ourselves.'' The camera would go out in silence for 2 or 3 minutes and visit a wildlife refuge in Louisiana or the North Slope, and we just panned the vistas. It would pan the vistas of the Grand Canyon and of the Everglades. This is about a continuation of the gift that this Congress gives the people of the United States in perpetuity and to the people of the rest of the world who come here to see these grand, grand environmental assets.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong opposition to this amendment for its elimination of the Federal Land and Water Conservation Act and for the straitjacket that it puts local communities in when exercising their own judgment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I really would simply just concur with what the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has said. To set up the regime to do as the amendment suggested is something we may want to do, but I do not think that that is what the amendment does. In fact, it is much broader than those lands which are identified. I think that this legislation as it is currently written, the CARA bill, will, in fact, increase the inventory of those lands as we go through the process with the Secretary of the Interior, and then maybe at that point the gentleman could decide if the gentleman wants to auction those off according to how the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) has written his amendment. Mr. Chairman, I concur with the notion that I think the committee ought to direct some time, as I said to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill) in his amendment, direct some time to see how to do this and get on with it, maybe even more so in a State like the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), which is growing so rapidly. We are seeing more and more proposals come for land transfers, exchanges and the rest of it, because the cities' needs, airports and all the rest of it, are growing so rapidly that this may be absolutely worthy of our consideration in the committee to develop it, because some of our western States are starting to fill up and the land base that was there at one time may not serve the best needs of this State or even of this country. I know sometimes it is harassing to say that we would reconsider the land bases that exist today, because it should always be that way. The fact is no, we should, we should reconsider it in light of what is taking place in the western United States, but I would hope that we would reject this amendment. I would hope that the committee might use this as a way to initiate some of the questions that have been avoided for many, many years about lands that may have little value to the Federal Government, that may have great value to localities in terms of their needs. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, in all likelihood you are not going to have Federal land acquisitions. So if you struck section 1, then you would get your cake and eat it, too, because you get your study under the terms and conditions that you have set forth. Modification to Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Hill of Montana

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, is there a way to get the gentleman 30 seconds so he could respond?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman may be able to have his cake and eat it too. As the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has read the language, it is highly unlikely that there is going to be condemnation or Federal purchases in Montana.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Montana and I have talked about this problem for some time. Again, this is a problem that I think Members from other parts of the country have to be sensitive to. But the idea of prohibiting any Federal land acquisition until this study is done and that the outcome of the study has to be a de minimis change. As the gentleman knows when he did the Gallatin, we worked very hard on the Gallatin exchange because we were exchanging some really good timberlands for some cutover lands that needed a lot of rehabilitation and restoration, stream restoration and all those other things. The Federal Government ended up with a lot more land than it gave because of the value of those lands. I do not know if that is de minimis or not. I do not think we should get into that argument. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to give him the study. If he wants a study of land patterns and land ownerships and disposals and all the rest of it, that would be fine. Right now I do not know of any plans for Federal acquisition, unless there is something right on the edge of Yellowstone that has to do with some church-owned property that may be for sale, some of the farmers think we should buy because the bison would go there. I do not know that much about it. He does not have any bills in and I do not think we have any other bills in front of our committee. If he wants to have the department make a full-blown study here and tell the people of Montana what their plans are, I do not have any problem with that. But prohibiting this, in all likelihood, he does not need the prohibition and he could still get the study done.