Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. We claim there has been no land purchased, number one, under my program. There has been land purchased under the other program, about $480 million a year, which you voted for, by the way, $480 million a year for the last 6 years which we have been in control. I just want people to remember that.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. We are attempting to make sure that any lands that are acquired, it takes it off the tax roll, that there is full reimbursement for those small communities. I understand the problem. We have gone from 7.5 in 25 years to 1.5 of rural community. I understand the problem, because I have this affecting me in Alaska. But we were trying to do something correct. Very frankly I think we did do something correct. We fully funded it.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would tell the gentleman I am very sympathetic and would support his amendment if we had not reached this agreement in the delicate balance which we did arrive at. I want to, again, stress that last year the Committee on Appropriations, by the way, because there are certain individuals in the Committee on Appropriations that do not like this bill, if they had been doing their jobs, they would have fully funded it. In fact, the Committee on Appropriations owed this America $13 billion which was collected in offshore development that we said we were going to spend, we spent it for other reasons. This is what I am very concerned with. I want to remind the gentleman that last year the Committee on Appropriations only funded $135 million for PILT, $10 million for the refuge sharing program. What we tried to do and, by the way, this was insistence from one of the Western Caucus members that we consider the PILT. We tried to take and say, all right, we will fully fund it with the help of the Committee on Appropriations, which we do. After we did that, the National Association of Counties supports the bill. It is their interpretation that it is the full funding. I can assure the gentleman, I may not be on this committee next year, I will be the vice chairman of this committee, it is my intent to make sure that this does occur. I hope he has a little faith in what we are trying to do here because I think he is absolutely correct. To have a small community have to shoulder the burden for the national good is wrong. They ought to be reimbursed for those lands that are taken out of production. But we thought we were doing it. We really thought we had a formula here. Really this idea came from the National Association of Counties. That is who we were working with.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I had 2 minutes left for closing. I did not know the gentleman was closing, that he was speaking on the remaining 5 minutes he had. Do I still have the right to close or do I have to use up the time?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It eliminates the incentives claim. It more clearly defines the State plan within title I, and ensures the coastal impact assistance uses adhere to the State and Federal laws. It creates a multi-State competitive grant program. It removes a typo error within title II. It clarifies a provision within title II. It is supported by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone). The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I have agreed to this amendment, and it is in the manager's substitute. I urge the passage of the legislation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank those that participated in the debate, those for and against this legislation. There is a lot of concentration on the first part, the Land and Water Conservation Fund. But there are six other parts of the bill that mean a great deal. Wildlife conservation, which is really my sweetheart; urban park and recreation, very important to urban areas; historic preservation, if one does not know one's past, one will never know one's future; Federal and Indian lands have been destroyed by this government that need restoration; conservation easements. The gentleman from California mentioned this. I have my brother in California. I have people in California who want to farm that are actually threatened by the growth of the communities that, under the easement program, can still farm and keep that land for open spaces so people could enjoy it, yet he could have his livelihood. We have payment in lieu of taxes, fully funded, the payment in lieu of taxes. Those are the things that are in this bill besides that second title. But keep in mind it is my true belief that, under my bill, there is a much better protection for private property owners under our legislation than in existing law. Last year alone, this Congress spent $480 million to purchase land with no input from authorizes in the Congress, with no identification to the seller of the land, unwillingly, using condemnation. Under my bill, none of those things can occur. So keep in mind, if my colleagues wants to protect private property, they should be voting for this legislation. But beyond that, as the gentleman from California had mentioned and other people have spoken to, this is a changing society. If we do not keep those open spaces, if we do not have the farmers available who can keep their lands, we will lose that. We will not have the species which we are trying to protect under the Endangered Species Act. There is so much in this bill for the future that we ought to consider the long haul, the long gain for the betterment of our society. I am the Private Property Owners Award recipient all my years in Congress, and I still am rated 91 percent because I believe in it. But this bill does not hurt private property owners. It helps them, and it helps this Nation's future.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), a good friend. I wish I had more time, but I understand I cannot get it. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), one of the instigators of this great piece of legislation, and I am proud to say one that will support and actively chair this meeting tomorrow for a short period of time. (Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), my good friend.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as much as I respect my good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), this bill does what he asks to do. Last year, the ratio was 3 to 1, $3 for every $1, $3 for every $1 spent for purchase. If we are not doing this job as we should be, it is the appropriators' fault. If they appropriated the money as they should have from the monies that were derived from offshore, we would not have this problem. But it has not been done. It has not been done. Under this bill, we put $200 million additional maintenance into the program for the maintenance. So really, this amendment is not necessary. It is really not necessary, unless one wants the appropriators to do all of the work. If they want the appropriators to make the decision, then support the amendment. If one wants appropriators writing legislation, then support the amendment. If we want the appropriators running this House, then support the amendment. The appropriators have been making legislative action every end of the session without any through-put through this Congress, without anybody having anything to say about it, without going to the authorizing committee. Those who voted for last year's final bill voted for $600 million, and the year before that, $420 million, and the year before that, without any through-put from the authorizing committees. In this bill, though, we say okay, if they want maintenance, we will give them an additional $200 million for maintenance. That is not appropriated. It should have been appropriated, but it was not appropriated. Three to one, though, for maintenance. If we have a backlog, it is because the appropriators did not use the money for the maintenance part. I am going to suggest that although the amendment sounds good, we recognize the maintenance problem in this bill. We recognize the need to take care of our parks and refuges. We added $200 million. If Members adopt this amendment, they are back where they started from, $450 million, just about where we were last year. We are letting the appropriators run the program. I do not think that is what this Congress wants. I do not have any particular fight with the appropriators, other than the fact that they missed the idea that the authorizers also have a role in this body. Does anybody know what the money was spent on last year? No. Did they come to us and ask us? No. It was given to the President. I say, maintain them, yes. We are going to do that. But let us use this bill, with the additional $200 million. If we do not defeat this amendment, we are going to end up right back where we were last year with no maintenance, other than about $450 million. If that is what Members want, then fine. If they want their parks to fall apart, fine, or refuges not to be maintained, fine. I do not think Members want that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I have a well written statement here that will be submitted for the Record. But in light of the time, I would like to suggest that this is a fair and good rule. It allows 27 amendments which will be adequately discussed and I am sure will be voted on. This is a great piece of legislation, bipartisanly supported by 316 cosponsors. It is on budget, it is not off-budget, contrary to someone who just reported it is off budget. We have over 4,000 groups in this Nation of ours who support this legislation. The rule is fair. We are going to have a long night tonight and a long day tomorrow, but I would like to see us out of here in time for everybody to catch their planes back home. I am going to try my best as manager of the bill on this side of the aisle to make sure that does happen. I urge the adoption of the rule and adoption of this historic legislation. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the House leadership for bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor. H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 (CARA) is a seven-title comprehensive conservation and recreation bill that has endured a long legislative life. CARA was first introduced in the House in the 105th Congress. Since CARA's reintroduction this Congress, the Resources Committee has had five days of legislative hearings on H.R. 701 and our consideration ended with a bipartisan vote of 37-12 to favorably report the bill out of Committee. Since then, two referrals have lapsed. The Agricultural Committee's referral resulted in substantial changes regarding what agency would administer the conservation easement program created in Title Seven. In addition, due to several Budget Committee Member's concerns, we have removed the provisions that made CARA off-budget. In our opinion, an on-budget CARA allows the critical funding to occur on an annual basis, but allows for this important priority to be included as part of future budgets. The coalition of Members that support this initiative have always worked to find consensus and continue the bipartisan spirit upon which this bill was created. The changes we have made accommodate many Member's concerns and has resulted in the broadening of our support. The manager's amendment represents a fair compromise with Congressmen Boehlert, Markey, and Pallone that addresses some remaining concerns and put to rest the notion CARA would create incentives for new oil and gas drilling. However, with the consensus building and after more than two years of CARA's legislative development, we can only go so far. Today, we will discuss over twenty amendments. Most of these amendments are offered by well-intentioned Members, but many amendments are offered by those who choose not to understand this bill. I continue to feel a great deal of frustration at the fact that many of the arguments we are likely to hear today have little to no basis in fact and, quite frankly, many of these amendments are solutions in search of a problem. Members involved with the legislation and the Resources Committee have repeatedly negotiated on many of these topics and arrived at the consensus agreement under consideration today. I am confident that many of the authors of these amendments have no intention on voting for this historic bill, regardless of whether or not their amendments pass or fail. With that fact in mind, I ask all Members to vote with the coalition that support the House's approval of CARA and vote against these damaging amendments. If we allow damaging amendments today, it will be a great disservice to the communities who stand to benefit from the bill and those Members who have labored to produce this balance. The fact is the Conservation and Reinvestment Act is a great bipartisan bill that provides critical funding for local conservation and recreation projects. Whether you live in rural Oklahoma or urban New York, this bill provides substantial benefits. That is why you find support spread across the Nation with all our governors, a majority of county leaders and mayors joined by the U.S. Chamber, Realtors, and countless conservation organizations. With 316 cosponsors, a super- majority of this House, a majority of both Republicans and Democrats support enactment of this legislation. These Members and the constituents they represent have read the bill carefully and have considered the provision within. With this broad coalition assembled, I ask that we not allow meritless amendments written only to divide this diverse National coalition. As the House considers these amendments Members need to be aware of the impressive local grassroots support this bill realizes. CARA is a historic opportunity to provide annual funding for important conservation and recreation programs. I again want to thank the House leadership, who have given us the opportunity to rally around this widely supported bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during the consideration of bill, H.R. 701, pursuant to House Resolution 497, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) be allowed to control 20 minutes of my time for the general debate in the Committee of the Whole, with the understanding that I get the remaining part of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, may I ask if the Chair designates the time that is split up, or do I have to ask for that?