Date: 2007-06-26
Speaker: GARY G. MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I rise to offer an amendment to restrict funding in this bill from being used to conduct the Lan Gabriel River Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study in certain cities within my Congressional district and one neighboring city. The difference between my amendment and the other amendments. everybodys been trying to strike funding in somebody elses district. Im saying. dont spend it in my district. This amendment is simple. It only affects communities within my district who do not want to be subject to a Federal National Park Servicestudy. I appreciated Mr. DICKS support of this amendment last year when the House passed it by voice vote and urge the House continued support of this amendment. In 2003. Congress authorized the National Park Service Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study to survey the San Gabriel River and its tributaries and the San Gabriel Mountains. north of and including the city of Santa Fe Springs to determine if any resources are available to National Park Service designation. Let me be clear. My district is not in the San Gabriel Mountains nor does it contain tributaries. and it is not north of Santa Fe Springs. It is east of this area that is authorized to be studied. I did not oppose the original authorization of this study because. according to my interpretation of the language. my district would not be affected. However. it appears that the NPS has interpreted this language too broadly. I strongly believe that the inclusion of cities in my district in the NPS study went beyond the scope of the Congressional authorization. Several cities have contacted me and the National Park Service in extreme opposition to their inclusion in this special resource -study. I have reached out to the NPS on numerous occasions to ask them to remove these cities from the study. They have refused. I come to the floor today to ask that you support efforts to ensure that cities are not forced to be part of a study that was not intended Jo include them. This amendment does not affect anyother city in the study other than those in my district (plus the City of Industry) that have asked to be excluded. If other Members want their cities to continue to be included in the study. then the amendment will not affect them. The bottom line is that I represent these cities. and they haye told me they do not want to be included in this study. The cities in the 42nd Congressional District. which I represent. have worked hard to address the challenges associated with rapid pace of growth in or region. including finding innovative solutions to manage future development. alleviate traffic congestion and preserve open space. These cities are in the best position to make decisions regarding land use within their boundaries. and I am opposed to any Federal action that may compromise the local authority in the future. The results of the study could ultimately be used to compromise the ability of local governments to decide what is best for their communities. Land management responsibilities and decision making should be made at the local level where officials have a clear understanding of community needs. Existing landuse management by local municipalities is preferable to Federal involyement in a rapidly growing region. I urge my colleagues to support my efforts to protect the communities that I represent by removing them from this study. A vote in favor of this amendment is a vote for local control and against Federal intervention where it is not welcomed or needed. Once again. I ask my colleagues to support this simple. straightforward amendment to ensure the Federal Government does not reach beyond congressional intent.