[Page: H2821]---
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 497 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 497
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 701) to provide Outer Continental Shelf Impact Assistance to State and local governments, to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978, and the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (commonly referred to as the Pittman-Robertson Act) to establish a fund to meet the outdoor conservation and recreation needs of the American people, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 90 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Resources now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 4377. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments printed in the report are waived. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1)
[Page: H2822]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. GILLMOR). The gentleman from Washington (Mr. HASTINGS) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. SLAUGHTER), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 497 is a structured rule waiving all points of order against the consideration of H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999.
The rule provides 90 minutes of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. The rule makes in order the text of H.R. 4377 as an original bill for the purpose of amendment in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill, which shall be considered as read. All points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.
The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying this resolution.
The rule further provides that the amendments made in order may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, and shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments printed in the report are waived.
In addition, the rule permits the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000 creates a mechanism by which the funds from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leases are made available for offshore drilling mitigation, land purchases, historic preservation, wildlife conservation and endangered species recovery at the State, Federal and local levels.
The Conservation and Reinvestment Act provides annual funding of $1 billion to coastal States to mitigate the impacts of offshore drilling, $900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is its fully authorized level, $350 million through existing Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson programs for wildlife conservation, $125 million for urban parks; $100 million for historic preservation; $200 million for the restoration and improvement of Federal and tribal lands, $150 million to protect farmland and promote the recovery of endangered species through the purchase of conservation easements; and it makes available up to $200 million in interest generated by these revenues to match appropriated funds for payments in lieu of taxes and refugee revenue sharing.
While providing substantial funds for additional Federal land acquisition, the bill also requires for the first time that Congress specifically approve each new Federal land acquisition. The bill also includes a number of important new private property protections, including a requirement that all purchases, pursuant to the provisions of this act, be made from willing sellers.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will result in a $7.8 billion increase in direct spending through 2005. An additional $3.7 billion in discretionary spending is authorized over the same period, subject to appropriations.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule that makes in order 26 separate amendments in order that Members who have concerns about H.R. 701 might have an opportunity to improve it. Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to support this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we have an extraordinary measure before us today. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act, CARA, H.R. 701, is the most sweeping commitment to the protection of America's public land, marine and wildlife resources in over a generation. Utilizing the proceeds from offshore oil and gas development, this measure will provide steady funding for the preservation of our natural resources for decades to come. These offshore revenues were promised for this objective 36 years ago, and this bill fulfills and builds on that commitment.
Mr. Speaker, this has been a critical program for many areas of the country. In just a few years' time, from the late 1970s, early 1980, my district in Monroe County received over $2 million for recreational areas, neighborhood parks and historic preservation. Today, more than ever, our Nation's natural resources are under enormous pressure from development, congestion, pollution and competition. Communities like Rochester, New York, are fighting to preserve the open spaces that exist. I am delighted that my district will once again have the tools to preserve our community for future generations.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 701 provides Federal, State and local communities the ability to work cooperatively with private organizations and citizens to preserve these resources for the future. This legislation contains no incentives for additional offshore oil development. Supporters have built a nationwide coalition ranging from State and local officials, sporting organizations, environmental groups, wildlife and recreation organizations, historic preservationists, professional sports teams, police, and many, many more. Mr. Speaker, 316 Members of Congress, of the House, are sponsoring this measure, and I am proud to be one of them.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 701 includes many environmental goals my colleagues and I have worked towards for years, including full and permanent funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, increasing funding for State fish and wildlife programs, increased incentives to conserve endangered species by private landowners, and increased support for coastal conservation programs.
The San Francisco Chronicle said it best when it urged Congress to ``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 would accept no substitutes or weakening amendments, and a deal is a deal, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund is a particularly good one.'' That is a quote from the San Francisco Chronicle, May 8, 2000.
Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is a structured rule, and while the rule makes in order numerous amendments, it still restricts full and open debate. An open rule would have allowed Members the opportunity to consider all germane amendments, but nevertheless, I will not oppose this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. REGULA), the
[Page: H2823]
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I am in opposition to the rule because I do not think this is the kind of legislation we should be considering for a number of reasons. First of all because it creates a new entitlement program.
[Time: 16:15]
We are elected by the people to make judgments. We are elected to take the revenues that are available to the Federal government and make priority judgments as to how best to use those revenues. An entitlement takes away the responsibility that is ours as elected representatives of the people.
I recognize that the proponents have amended--changed--the bill because originally it waived the Budget Act. Now it does not. Nevertheless, it takes $2.825 billion and deposits into a new CARA fund. It does that regardless of any other needs we might have. It does this for a period of 15 years. This body would no longer be able to make priority decisions in terms of that particular amount of money for coastal protection, State and Federal land acquisition, urban park funding, historic preservation, and monitoring and protection of species under the Endangered Species Act.
We have to decide whether we want to go down the path of continuing to create entitlements. We fund a number of these programs, but when we look at the Federal budget, we are only dealing now with about one-third of it as discretionary funds. About half of that goes to defense. So we are left with one-sixth of the Federal budget to meet all these needs: to properly maintain and expand, when appropriate, our 379 National Parks, our National Forests; our national wildlife refuges; our other lands, about one-third of the United States.
That is just part of it. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is a responsibility of this body. The facilities, schools, hospitals are deteriorating. But we are going to take this money out of the budget of the Committee on the Interior and commit it to the States.
Every State has a surplus. The State of California has a $3 billion surplus. The State of Alaska has a $3 billion surplus. In Ohio, there was a news story the other day that they are contemplating reducing taxes. The State of New York is enjoying a very substantial surplus. I could go on and on.
Yet, by the testimony of Secretary Babbitt, by the testimony of the director, Bob Stanton, by the testimony of the Secretary of the Smithsonian and other agencies, we are faced with a bill for backlog maintenance of anywhere from $13 billion to $18 billion. That means we have neglected taking care of these properties. Yet, here we propose to create a new entitlement to reduce the amount of discretionary funds that we have.
We have not neglected these programs in the Interior bill. We have put in $300 million to $400 million in Federal land acquisition, $40 million in State land acquisition, and other programs, such as urban parks and endangered species. But with the amount of backlog that we are facing, I think it is not a good government matter to take $2.8 billion and take it off-budget, in effect, by making an entitlement of it.
Of this amount, about $2.4 billion of the CARA fund would go directly to the States. Let me point out something that is not well known. Under the present law, States receive about $1.7 billion of money that is generated by Federal leases, by Federal activities such as harvesting of forests, such as the various mining interests that take place on Federal lands and other activities. We already distribute to the States $1.7 billion, yet the CARA bill would give them an additional $2.4 billion, while we sit with all this backlogged maintenance.
The end result is to take the Congress out of the decision-making process for funding natural resources programs, and it would certainly create a lot of problems in the future.
Most of all, I think the principle that is involved here is wrong. It is wrong to continue to expand entitlement programs. Next year it will be some other group that says, we should have a guaranteed revenue stream, and it goes on and on. Already we have a very limited amount of the Federal budget that we have available to meet the responsibilities that we are elected to meet in terms of the natural resources of this Nation.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. STENHOLM).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I, like the previous speaker, rise in strong opposition to the rule on the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 because it allows the continuation of the pattern of fiscally irresponsible legislation that will squander our opportunity to retire the national debt and deal with social security and Medicare.
The legislation that this rule will allow is the latest in the series of bills that will drain the projected budget surplus drip by drip without regard for the consequences.
In setting national priorities, Congress has the responsibility to carefully assess each program. Creating a new Conservation and Reinvestment Act fund with a mandatory spending stream will exempt these funds from the scrutiny that all other programs must endure. This would further erode the integrity of the budget as a tool for fiscal accountability and constrain the options of future policymakers by locking in an ever-increasing share of Federal spending.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 701 would increase mandatory spending by $7.8 billion over the next 5 years without offsets, as required by budget rules. As a result, the spending in this bill places yet another claim on the projected budget surplus before we have established a plan to pay off our debt and deal with the challenges facing social security and Medicare.
Despite all this, the rule for this legislation casually waives the Budget Act to allow us to rush forward with fiscally irresponsible tax and spending legislation. Regardless of one's views of the merits of the provisions in the bill, all Members who care about fiscal responsibility should oppose this rule, oppose this legislation, vote no on the rule, and let us stay on track for protecting social security, paying down our national debt, and maintaining a fiscally sound direction for our country.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. YOUNG), chairman of the Committee on Resources.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
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
[Page: H2824]
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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. KIND).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Resources, I rise today in support of the rule. I thank the Committee on Rules and the chairman of the committee for accepting my amendment in the spirit and understanding in which it is offered.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act will dramatically increase funding for Federal, State, and local conservation efforts in all 50 States.
In my home State of Wisconsin, a very proud and progressive history has been established regarding land stewardship. Land conservation programs and the protection of the environment are not a part-time casual interest in Wisconsin. Instead, bipartisan governmental leaders, from former Democratic Senator Gaylord Nelson, the father of Earth Day, to former Republican Governor Warren Knowles, have been national leaders in the environmental and conservation movement.
Two of the great founders of the conservation movement, Aldo Leopold and John Muir, called Wisconsin their home. It was in Vernon County, in my congressional district, in an effort to preserve and protect precious topsoil on farms, that farmers initiated contour plowing, which provided a wonderful model across the Nation.
Throughout our history, the citizens of Wisconsin have been responsible stewards who have sought to conserve and expand on our extensive investments and recreational and environmental resources. While I still hope that this legislation will ultimately provide Wisconsin and some of the other upper Midwest States with a more equitable share of the Title I funding, this bill nevertheless is a good start to help restore imperiled species, conserve wild places, maintain recreational access, and educate our children about the wonders of our natural world.
I urge today support of the rule. Depending upon the amendment process as this legislation moves forward over the next couple of days, I also urge passage of H.R. 701.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. CHAMBLISS).
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule. As cochairman of the congressional Sportsman's Caucus, I am very supportive of the base text of this measure. I have testified before the Committee on Resources.
I want to commend my friend, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. YOUNG), who I think has done a very admirable job of getting a consensus of people, both inside and outside the House, together on this very important piece of legislation that covers so many areas of the outdoors and is going to be so beneficial to so many people. The gentleman has just done a great job of this, and I commend him on that.
As vice chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, honestly, though, I have some observations about the level of the mandatory spending that has been set on this bill. I have an amendment that is going to be coming up later tonight or tomorrow that will address that issue and I hope will receive broad-based support.
As cochairman of the Congressional Sportsman's Caucus, I am very supportive of this bill. This bill is going to give our State fish and wildlife agencies the resources to adequately address their wildlife conservation funding problems.
I am specifically talking about title III of the bill of the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman YOUNG) which is the section that deals with wildlife conservation and restoration. Folks all around the country are going to benefit from this because it does provide a steady, dependable stream of revenue that is going to help fund both game and nongame wildlife conservation programs and, more importantly, or just as importantly, it is going to provide the States with the flexibility to tailor their programs to their particular needs.
It is not going to make any difference whether one likes to hunt and fish, whether they hike or bike on trails, whether they bird watch, or whether they are concerned about the coastal regions of this country. This bill is going to provide our States with revenue and flexibility to make decisions, to tailor the needs of their States and the individuals in their States in those areas, as well as many other areas.
One of the most exciting parts of this bill that I have been working on with the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman YOUNG) is the wildlife associated education portion of the bill. We need to ensure that our future generations are educated about wildlife, and recognize that hunting and fishing are valuable management tools.
One of the great pleasures I get in life is hunting. I hunt with my son, and I hunt with my son-in-law. My grandson is 4 years old, and I hope one of these days that he is going to be able to enjoy the outdoors with me. We have to continue to educate people all across the country about the value of wildlife-associated education.
I appreciate the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. YOUNG) incorporating some language that we asked to be incorporated that will protect wildlife education funds from being used by programs that oppose hunting and fishing. Helping replenish renewable sources with funds derived from nonrenewable resources is simply good policy. CARA accomplishes this without raising taxes by one single penny.
[Page: H2825]
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. BLUMENAUER).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, as a person who came to Congress interested in support for the Federal government being a better partner to work to make communities more livable, I am exceedingly pleased that this bill is before us today. It is an important restatement, a recommitment, after 35 years of partnership that is frayed lately, of the trust fund concept; for example, the lands and water conservation fund and UPAR, which have not been funded on the State side since 1995.
It will have key impacts in Oregon, the State that I represent, and in communities around the Nation. It means creating long-term investments that will create value for generations to come.
[Time: 16:30]
I plan on speaking on the merits of this bill and a number of amendments as we proceed in the course of this debate. But I would like to make one brief comment because, as a Member here for the last 4 years, it seems to me we have occasionally lost our ability to legislate, to work together, to cross party, regional, and ideological lines.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is important legislation not just as a tool for livable communities, but it is one of the clearest signals I have seen that we can send to one another in Congress that we can play the historic important role of debating, of listening to one another, of compromising and making decisions. I hope it sets the tone for bipartisan cooperation and progress for the remainder of this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to supporting the rule and the legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE), who has worked diligently in her time in Congress on these issues.
Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. HASTINGS) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 701. I will support the rule, but I want to make it very clear that I admire the ability of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. YOUNG) to work across party lines, and I think it is important to be able to agree with one another and work together, but not at the expense of our constituents out there, our private property owners. I am deeply concerned about our private property owners.
Mr. Speaker, I have carefully read and studied this legislation, looking at not only its actual language but how it will be interpreted and implemented in the future by the Federal agencies. See, sad experience has proven that well-intentioned laws have had their purposes twisted and even tortured by a Federal Government that seems to be hungry for more power and control over the resources and lives of our citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge my colleagues, even those who have joined as cosponsors of this bill, to read and study very carefully this bill. Consider its real impacts not on this body, but on the people of this Nation. Consider what this legislation will do to our ability to control the pursestrings, our ability as a Congress, our sacred responsibility under the Constitution.
It does leave only $1.6 billion on budget, but it does take $2 billion off budget to become mandatory spending. $2 billion is a huge amount of money. So consider where this legislation will truly take us and what kinds of precedents it will set in terms of additional mandatory trust funds taken from general revenue streams. Consider what it will do to our fiscal priorities such as paying down our debt and shoring up Social Security, building up our national defense, and providing tax relief.
Mr. Speaker, we are fully aware of the thousands of organizations and entities, including Federal, State and local bureaucracies and nongovernment groups and Indian tribes, who will monetarily benefit from this bill. Indeed, this legislation will establish a permanent revenue source for these entities, much of which will bypass the congressional budgeting process for years and years to come.
So for that reason, legions of representatives and lobbyists have canvassed this Hill to promote this mandatory fund and, quite frankly, I do not blame them. CARA represents a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for them.
But, Mr. Speaker, along with the litany of well-represented special interest groups who support this legislation, somebody needs to represent the interests of the main target of this bill, and that is, the private property owner. I am reminded that next year, along with all of our constituents, I, too, will be a regular working person and property owner living under the laws of this Congress. I think that sometimes with all the lobbying, pressuring and inside games that go on here, we forget that the laws we pass truly affect the people we serve. One small provision passed in return for a political favor can destroy the life's work of many people.
Our vote should reflect this possibility more than anything else. So the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the very foundation of our Nation was built from individual liberty derived in part from the ability to own and produce from one's own property.
In contrast, the legacy and prosperity of this Nation was never created by the Federal, State or even local government, and this is why John Adams proclaimed very clearly that property must be sacred or that liberty cannot exist. He also said that there must be a form of law to protect private property.
We are not only doing violation to that form of law that John Adams referred to, but violation to the rights of private property with this bill. That is what this debate is all about, Mr. Speaker.
So when considering how to vote on CARA, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues, please, consider the views of the average taxpayer who will end up paying for this bill.
I would like to just share with my colleagues some of the results of a survey conducted in a poll just recently. When asked about land acquisition and park creation, it came out to be a very low priority, more land acquisition. Only 1 percent of the people really wanted to see this kind of bill. But by a margin of six to one, 80 percent to 12 percent, voters wanted us to address our maintenance backlog of $5 billion before acquiring additional lands.
Once the American people learn that the Federal Government already owns in excess of one-third of the land in this Nation, or all of the government owns about 43 percent, they oppose additional land acquisition by a wide margin of 53 percent to 34 percent.
Voters oppose any proposal that works to take money away from Social Security and debt reduction by a 72 percent margin to only 13 percent.
Mr. Speaker, not only does the clear language in this bill threaten private property rights, but the American people really are not thinking in the same manner as this bill would represent.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. GEORGE MILLER).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Committee on Rules for the rule that they have reported on this legislation. I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. SLAUGHTER) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I think it will provide a fair and open debate on the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, H.R. 701, that is before us today.
This legislation is really about redeeming a promise that the Congress of the United States made to the American people 36 years ago. We said as a trade-off for drilling offshore, for some of the environmental damage that occurred from time to time, we would take a portion of those royalties that this Nation receives from the offshore oil that belongs to all of the people of this Nation and we would reinvest them in America's irreplaceable resources. That would be the trade-off.
We did that and we started to do that, and then little by little, little by little Congress started dipping into the fund. They started dipping into the fund for other reasons for whatever it
[Page: H2826]
That is why we have this kind of list of sponsors and cosponsors. Thousands of organizations from all across the country who support this legislation. Some will call them special interests, but if we read the list we will see our governors, our mayors. We will see our next door neighbors. We will see the soccer moms of the Soccer Federation. We will see the Pop Warner coaches and the people who play Pop Warner Football. We will see the Campfire Girls and the Boy Scouts; people who go out and recreate, who understand the pressure of the resources are under in this Nation.
This is about our communities. This legislation is about building an environmental infrastructure so people can enjoy a quality of life as our country continues to grow, the pressures of suburbia, the pressures of new housing developments, the pressure of new growth and formation of families so that they can have bike trails and hiking trails, so they can explore the water fronts in our bays and rivers and on the oceans of this country.
We know the backlog. We know the lost opportunities. This is about making sure that we do not lose those opportunities in the future.
But we also make very sure that local communities are involved in these decisions, because they will have to match the money that is put up. And we also make very sure that we as elected representatives are involved in this decision, because this is designed so we do not have land acquisitions put in bills in the middle of the night that we do not know anything about and then just are sprung on the public. Because of the insistence of the gentleman from California (Mr. POMBO) and others, there is notifications in here. There is a recommitment recognizing what a taking meanings and the implications of that and that they have to have the approval of the Congress. They cannot do those things that are not authorized by the Congress of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, this is a balanced bill. It is an important bill. I think we have to understand that this is about making the Federal Government a better partner, and a reliable partner. We were supposed to be funding land and water conservation all of these years for our local communities. They have lost out on hundreds of millions and billions of dollars because one day we just stopped funding it, and took the money and did something else with it. That is not the promise we made to the people of this country.
So I would hope as we listen to the debate, we will have many amendments that my colleagues will understand the kind of legislation that CARA represents, its bipartisan nature. It has the support of 50 governors, the support of local government that we say we want involved in these organizations, and then thousands of citizen organizations that every year put up their own money and put up their own effort to clean up the beaches, to clean up the rivers, to build trails, to build ball fields, to provide recreational opportunity. This is to help them continue to do that.
That is why the Police Athletic League supports it. That is why the Boys Clubs and Girls Clubs, the sporting goods manufacturers, many other business organizations support this effort. They recognize this is about our communities. This is about the quality of life for our families, so we will have a place to take our son or daughter fishing, so we have a place to take our son or daughter hunting, so those places will be preserved and also the habitat will be preserved so that we can continue to do that in perpetuity.
Mr. Speaker, that is why organizations like BASS, the biggest organization of bass fishermen throughout this country, supports this effort, or Ducks Unlimited, because they know what it means if we can restore habitat, if we can provide good waterways, if we can provide refuges, that is the kind of organizations that are here surrounding this bill.
I would hope that all of our Members, all 316 people and more who are cosponsoring this bill, would recognize the kind of commitment. Because we know from data taken from polling of the American people, some 80 percent, over 80 percent of the people believe that America should be making these long-term investments in our physical heritage in the great environmental assets of this Nation.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this fair and balanced rule, which will ensure full debate on this bill. There was quite a bit of Member interest in this particular piece of legislation and the Rules Committee worked hard to ensure that Members had ample opportunity to debate a wide range of issues and offer amendments. The rule strikes a fair balance and I encourage its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 701, the ``CARA'' bill, provides dedicated funding for coastal impact assistance, land acquisition needs, wildlife conservation, urban parks, historic preservation and endangered species, all without providing incentives for future offshore oil drilling. H.R. 701 is one of the most significant conservation bills to come out of Congress in decades--and it represents the continued commitment of the current majority in Congress to responsible stewardship of our natural resources.
Mr. Speaker, while I look forward to the amendment process, I do want to speak very quickly about an amendment offered by my friend, Chairman REGULA. This amendment would prohibit funds in the bill from going to States that have moratoria on outer continental shelf (OCS) oil and gas leasing.
For the last decade and a half, the Florida delegation has worked diligently and successfully to include annually in the Interior appropriations bill a moratorium on further oil and gas leases off the Florida coast. Just about everybody in Florida remains concerned about the effects of oil drilling on our sensitive marine environment. While the annual moratorium provides a stop-gap solution to this issue, it is far from ideal and actually shortchanges all parties involved. In fact, every Member of the Florida delegation has cosponsored bipartisan legislation introduced to impose a permanent policy for Florida offshore oil drilling. H.R. 33 would call for a ``time-out'' period, during which a joint State-Federal commission of scientists and other interested parties would work to craft a
non-political, science-based decision as to which areas are appropriate for oil drilling under what conditions off the Florida coast.
Even with the support of the entire Florida delegation, civic and business groups across Florida, and current Governor Jeb Bush and his predecessor, Governor Lawton, Chiles, we have been unable to get more than a few hearings on H.R. 33 in the Resources Committee. So, we are forced to continue advocating the stop-gap annual moratorium. Florida seeks merely to be a wise steward of its natural resoruces, ensuring that any activity off our coast does not adversely affect our unique environment.
Chairman REGULA's amendment would deny Florida funding under this bill because of that moratorium. I do agree with the basic premise of his argument--the moratorium which he carries for us each year on the Interior bill is not the best solution to this issue. But I do not believe that the solution is to lift the ban and move forward on oil activity off the Florida coast absent the kind of science based approach outlined in H.R. 33. Nor do I believe Florida should be punished for trying to be a good steward of its resources. That is counter initiative and counter productive. So I would encourage Mr. REGULA to join us in support of H.R. 33. Indeed, I might even go so far as to suggest that my good friend could solve this issue once and for all by attaching H.R. 33 as a rider to the Interior appropriations bill--as a replacement for a moratorium he and I both find unsatisfactory. I look forward to the debate on the Regula amendment later today. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support both the rule and H.R. 701, but not the Regula amendment.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
END