Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1291) to prohibit the imposition of access charges on Internet service providers, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of controlling time, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me refer to the section of law that the gentleman referred to, on page 32 and 33. The only reason it is there is to make sure we all get notice so that Congress knows if any agency wants to take any property and there is an unwilling seller. That way the Congress ends up making that decision under the bill. We end up deciding in a line item whether we are going to authorize any agency to move or not. The bill, in essence, says, and let me say it again, willing sellers have total control of any proceeding, unless Congress, by direct action in a direct separate line item, appropriates and authorizes a taking. The notice is simply to make sure we know what is going on. It is a good provision of the law, not a bad one. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, let me rise in opposition to this substitute and recognize that the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) basically restates the Chambliss amendment, which would delay this bill for 5 years. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) has showed us what 5 years in Louisiana means, 125 more square miles of Louisiana loss we cannot ever recover. The answer, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) said one can come to the legislature and get some money, because the other budget priorities are too important for this bill. But he has not offered, as many other States have not offered, to sacrifice their revenue sharing from Federal lands inside the State while we do other budget priorities. Those go forward. States like Wyoming, which have collected $7.4 billion in revenue sharing from Federal lands inside their State, or New Mexico which has collected $5.3 billion, those programs have not been asked to wait until other budget priorities are matched. This substitute needs to be defeated, as was the Chambliss amendment defeated by 281 votes. But let me tell my colleagues why this bill needs to be passed when we defeat this substitute. Now, there is a reason why the National Lands Rights Alliance is against this bill. They are the ultimate property rights organization out west. They are against it because the Federal Government owns much too much of the land out west, and they know it, and one has a right to be offended by that. There is a reason why Green Peace and Sierra and the Defenders of Wildlife and the Environmental Defense Group oppose this bill, too. They oppose this bill because we have got property rights built into this bill. See, this has been very much of a very difficult but well-negotiated, balanced project. It is a great environmental bill that finally includes some property rights for landowners, great environmental protection for this country, but finally some property rights for landowners. Willing sellers only. A commandment to the agencies that the first priority ought to be land swaps and easements rather than acquisitions, provisions to make sure no land is regulated until it is bought. It is about time. This is a great compromise. Let us defeat this substitute.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, the problem is that the amendment specifies entities that are incorporated and counties having a population of 100,000 or more. So I think the problem is we have got a situation where one has got to be incorporated and be a county of 100,000 or more.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, first of all, strips away all funding for the National Parks and the National Wildlife Refuges and the National Forests from the bill. Keep that in mind. It is all gone. The amendment also allows only incorporated cities and counties with more than I think 100,000 people to qualify, especially when one has to be incorporated to qualify. I do not know about my colleagues, but I have got a lot of unincorporated communities that are quite urban. I have got a community near New Orleans called Metairie, which is as urban as any community in the country, certainly not rural America. It is located between New Orleans and the airport. If one ever comes to New Orleans and drives through Metairie, one knows one is not driving through the country. One is driving through a very urban area, but it is unincorporated. I think it is one of the big unincorporated areas of America. It would not qualify under this bill. So I think my colleagues have got to look at what this amendment does if it were adopted and realize that it has two main purposes; and that is to limit the support in this bill to incorporated communities only. That is going to leave out some very important places in America that are just as qualified for assistance as any other place, such as Metairie, Louisiana. Secondly, it does strip away all the national funding for the National Parks, the Wildlife Refuges and the National Forests. So I urge that this amendment be rejected. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me urge the Members to reject this amendment. While many parts of this actual bill are worthwhile, the bill is before our committee. The committee has filed a bill similar to this, I think, before the committee and, therefore, it is under consideration of the committee. And I am sure the chairman of the Committee on Resources would be more than willing to work with the gentleman in regards to working on that bill. The problem is adopting this bill in this package means that we would be making a lot of decisions that the committee would probably want to look at. For example, in this bill there are exceptions in the land sales from fair market value for perhaps socially good purposes, low- income housing, but nevertheless there are exceptions from receiving fair market value in this act. There is even an exception on page 6 that allows the Secretary to determine that he can waive the competitive bidding requirements for the sale of public lands. I am not sure that is a good idea. We ought to have a good discussion and a debate as to why that would be necessary and why the Secretary should ever waive competitive bidding when we are selling public lands. Mr. Chairman, in addition, on page 7, for example, there is a distribution of the proceeds, which splits it half and half, 50 percent to the Federal Government, 50 percent to the local government and to the State in which the land is located. These are Federal lands and perhaps the money ought to be split up between the State and local governments and the Federal Government, but that is the kind of discussion that ought to be raised in the committee as this bill was addressed and as we debate for pros and cons of it. I would urge the rejection of the amendment. At the request of the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) in the committee, we included language on page 33 of the bill that requires the Secretary of the Interior to actually transmit with the list transmitted under subsection (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 by law. There are laws now covering the disposal of public lands and we dispose of public lands pursuant to those laws. We actually even update each list to be transmitted as land management plans are amended and revised. So we have added language at the request of the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) to literally make sure that we have a list of disposal lands available. I would simply urge that this bill be considered in the full committee where it belongs and all of these intricate provisions debated in full committee. This amendment should be rejected. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of controlling time, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me first thank my friend for the great work he did at the committee level and with all of us in trying to negotiate as many pro-property rights provisions in this bill as I think we have been able to negotiate. Let me secondly concede to him that the checkerboard land ownership pattern in the west is something that, frankly, I hope this bill helps in a big way to end and to ease. Third, to indicate to him that he knows that I have favored, in fact we have included language in the bill that will encourage land swaps and surplus land sales as opposed to new acquisitions in States that are already heavily owned. But what is good for Montana may not be exactly as good for Nevada, or Nevada as good for Montana, but the problems are common in all those States in terms of the high percentage of State and federally-owned property. That is why when the bill was written, we set as a top priority that the government must seek, number one, to consolidate Federal land holdings in the States with checkerboard Federal land patterns. That it must, two, consider the use of equal value land exchanges where feasible and suitable as an alternative to land acquisition. That it must consider easements over acquisitions wherever possible. And even on page 33, we require the secretary to submit to us annually a list of those lands that the secretary has identified as surplus and eligible for disposal. There is a lot of language in the bill that moves in the direction the gentleman wants without setting up a special case of no net gain for one State. I would encourage, therefore, that this amendment be rejected, because, in fact, the bill provides relief for all States commonly situated rather than setting up a special plan for Montana with, in effect, a no net gain provision. Again, I sympathize with the gentleman's problems in those States as we all have and we have written language, I think, that addresses in a large way a resolution of many of those problems. I urge a rejection of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. The list the administration is required to submit each year through CARA is only a request. The Committee on Appropriations will have the final say for Federal Land and Water Conservation projects and acquisitions when it decides whether or not to approve each new tract requested by Federal LWCF acquisition.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, let me first answer my friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo). Look at page 31. It provides that the money may be not expended except for those acquisitions that are specifically referred to and approved in an act of Congress. The bill requires that every act of purchase be specifically identified in an appropriation by an act of Congress, in fact, in a line item specifically referred to, not in any kind of a report language but in the bill, in the act of Congress. Secondly, the bill contains a statement of our basic property rights in the fifth amendment that no property can be taken without compensation. But do not be kidded about that. It is in the bill. Third, let me read the clear language of the bill. The clear language of the bill ``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,'' and that means the owner can object to any condemnation, ``or, Congress itself decides to take the property.'' Congress always has that right whether the amendment of the gentleman passes or not. What we have done is given the willing seller total control of the situation unless Congress supersedes it with a direct appropriation and taking. The willing seller has total control, can object to the condemnation or use it if it helps him get a better selling price. The amendment should be rejected.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me say simply to my friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) that the line he refers to on page 33 is a notice requirement of the lands that are requested of Congress to act upon, the lands in which in fact Congress is being asked to appropriate money and to take. In those cases, it helps us to know what they want to do. They cannot do it without Congress knowing. They have got to notify us. That is all this section does. Even if the language of the gentleman was adopted, Congress would have the right, as the gentleman knows, next year to approve an expropriation of some property with Federal money. It is not going to stop that. The bill protects willing sellers completely, gives them the right to use this process to get the best deal. It is a much better version of what the gentleman is trying to do than the language he has submitted. I urge Members to reject this amendment.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object just to make sure. If what remains of the bill is section 2, the language says that not only do you get a study, it has to result in a certain outcome. I just want to point that out in terms of the negotiations here. I realize that the gentleman is saying our friend from Montana ought to have his study, but I would caution the chairman to look at the language in section 2 that says the study has to produce a specific outcome.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me first assure my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) that his language was considered in the negotiations on this bill. Language protecting willing sellers was eventually adopted in this bill. It is contained in the bill today. It is done in a better way than the language the gentleman proposes, however, and that is why I suggest you reject the gentleman's amendment. Under current law, agencies can condemn property through adverse condemnation proceedings. They can also take your property through regulation, that is called inverse proceedings. So there are two ways that property can be taken. CARA changes that. CARA says, and let me quote the language to my colleagues, on page 31, line 18, 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) the acquisition of the property is specifically approved by an act of Congress. In other words, the bill provides that unless a seller is willing to sell the property, the only way the government can take that property is to come to Congress and get a specific line item authorization authorizing the taking of that property through adverse proceedings. Now, the reason we chose this language instead of the language my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), is offering, is for two reasons: Number one, this language does not interfere with State law, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) wants to. I do not think we should. I do not think we can. When a State takes Federal money under our program, it has to match it with State money. And if a State law allows condemnation, that is a State's business. When a State uses its money in that mix, or the Federal money, it is all fungible. Any attempt to interfere with that is meaningless and would be inconsequential. It would not have any effect anyhow. But the attempt to interfere with the State law in this Federal statute is, I think, something we ought to avoid. If my colleague does not like his State's laws on condemnation, he should appeal to his legislature in Sacramento and get those laws change, as we appeal to ours in Baton Rouge and arrange for our laws on condemnation. Again, this CARA statute protects willing sellers, but it does it in a way that is even better for willing sellers than the Calvert amendment, and here is how. There is no such thing a nonadverse condemnation. All condemnations are done in an adverse fashion, unless it is through regulation. In an adverse condemnation, sometimes willing sellers get together and ask the court to help them. They want to sell the property, but they want to do it through a condemnation proceeding in order that they can get best value, or perhaps there is some dispute over the property ownership or some limitations on the property that have to be settled by the court. So condemnation proceedings are used very often by willing sellers to get the job done in the best way for the willing seller. The Calvert language would eliminate that capability, that process for willing sellers. Let me say it again. Under the bill, the willing seller can object and the condemnation is over. There is no taking of his property under any circumstances under the bill's language, unless the willing seller agrees or unless my colleagues and I, and all of us in Congress, after all kinds of notice to everyone locally and federally, eventually agree in a line item to do otherwise. So, in essence, the current bill is stronger for the landowner, gives the willing seller more options than the Calvert language, and so the Calvert language ought to be defeated.

Mr. TAUZIN

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.

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. 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. 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.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to divide my time with the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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.