George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. A match from the State runs to the Federal government, but later if that money is used with foundation money, that is not a concern because the State put up real dollars to match the Federal share, is what you are after?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Let me ask, that is an important point, that would not prohibit them from also using foundation money, if that was real money? In our case, we have some big foundations that are dedicated to land acquisition. If the State put up $10 million out of its acquisition fund that the gentleman talks about and that was going to matched with $10 million of local money, it would be all right?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, it is unclear, because that is the process by which local Stateside land and water conservation has done. Local people make applications to the State and say will you help us out, a partnership to purchase this or rehab this or restore it or whatever the local project would be.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman if the local subdivision is a city, then it would be up to the city to veto this, not the county. If the local subdivision was a park system, it would be up to the park system. Is that what the gentleman is saying?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. In California it is. We have a park system that goes across 5 or 6 counties.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. So it would be up to the park?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, and then the same would be true if somebody wanted to sell the land to the Federal Government, the locals could veto that if some landowner wanted to sell their land for whatever reason?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, no, there are not seven new programs.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this is part of that money. That is what we are trying to tell the gentleman.

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. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, yes.

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. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, no. Up to, whatever it takes to get to full funding.

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.

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. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, it is $247 million I think.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, CARA obligates us to match the appropriation to take them to full funding.

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

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. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I will then yield the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) 2 minutes.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If the gentleman would like to split the time in opposition, that would be fine.

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. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, 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.)