George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 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. 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. 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.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from Idaho.

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.

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.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Is the gentleman yielding me the balance of the time?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I want the right to close.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I believe I have the right to close. Are there any remaining speakers?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).

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 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. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a member of the committee.