macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say this is not about pure pork. this is not to be hidden. The gentlewoman should have stood up when she opened her remarks and said that it was aimed at me and then everything would have been on the table. but we have discussed that. Many people in this county would be happy to be rid of these refineries. We have had hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people go to hospitals. we have had millions and millions of dollars in lawsuits. But the fact of the matter is. that is where the refineries are. We could never locate them in any other part of the United States and that is why they are treated as an impacted area. If they were on the coast. they would be treated is an impacted area. They are 30 miles from the coast on San Francisco Bay. so they are not treated as an impacted area. and this is to treat them the same as we would treat refineries in Long Beach or southern California or Louisiana or Alabama or wherever. If my colleagues do not think this is a coastal area. this is where the Naval base is. This is a coastal operation. If my colleagues want to take a potshot at me. they can take their potshot. But the fact of the matter is this is about an impacted area from offshore drilling. this is about an impacted area where many. many. many accidents have taken place. That is part of the price we pay for energy development in this country. and I ask for a no vote.
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: 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.
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: 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?
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: 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?
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I appreciate very much the concerns of the authors of this amendment. I come from the West. Most people do not realize how much land in California is owned by the Federal Government but it obviously is a problem for the other States that do not have the size that we have. But to put a mathematical equation on this business if you cannot increase Federal ownership. we just went through a situation in Las Vegas where they wanted a very valuable small piece of Federal land. but to swap it out and get a deal for the Federal Government. they went out and bought some lands to add to their Federal holdings which. would have helped the Federal Government but was not worth very much but rounded out the holdings and the net process is you ended up with increased Federal lands but the city of Las Vegas and the county and everybody else is ecstatic about what they have got. We go through this all the time. We have people in Colorado. in the ski areas that come to us. they want to buy a couple of acres of land that may be worth millions of dollars and they know that maybe down on the stream there is an area where we could get public access. they give it to us. and it is worth a few thousand dollars. We would not mind if all this land was valuable. but a lot of it is not necessarily valuable. So trying to put a mathematical equation. over the last few years. Federal ownership has been going down because I think one of the things the members of the minority have drilled into us on the committee is that people are concerned about the increase of this where it is not necessary. where it can be swapped out. where we can unify it. where we can rationalize the ownership and this committee has been doing that under the leadership of the chairman. But to put us in this position I think is to. if it does not average out. do we have to do it on a calendar year or a fiscal year? We do not have necessarily like assets. But we know. and we have tried to encourage the various land management agencies to be more attune to rationalizing patterns and ownerships. We went through a big swap in Utah. I would oppose this amendment. I like the spirit of it. but I just do not think you can say mathematically that is the situation.
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. am I correct in understanding that the purpose of the gentlemans amendment is to provide a means by which the State establishes where it is going to get the revenues from?
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Could the States if they wanted to in their normal budget process budget $50 million for matching land and water conservation funds? Would that be sufficient?
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

If they said they wanted to set aside 10 percent of their lottery. that would not bother you. or set aside 5 percent of the general fund revenues. as long as they have a real dollar match. is what the gentleman is saying?
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: 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?
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: 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?
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. the gentleman is not specifying a specific mechanism by which the State does this. But what the gentleman is saying is. when it comes time to match the money. he expects the State to be there with real dollars. not funny dollars. someone elses dollars. so they place the same priority on this that we say we place on it?
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

In theory. the State could conceivably say. we are now going to create a pool of $10 million. and we are asking local governments or somebody else to put in $10 million. That is $20 million. They may be entitled under the State side for $10 and they would have that match. The gentleman from Ohio is concerned. sometimes we get into these things and we go from real dollars to inkind contributions to work efforts to sweat equity. and pretty soon what we really have is Federal dollars matching Federal dollars. I think he wants a clarification that the State match is really a product of the State. We could talk about this later. about if they get it from private sources or not. but that it is real money. I do not think I have a problem with that. He is right.
Date: 2000-05-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

I think we should accept the amendment. but if the chairman would continue to work with us on this. obviously there are 50 different States with 50 different mechanisms. Some States will raise the bond issue and make all that available for this purpose. That is an honest mechanism which is real money.
Date: 2000-05-11
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman. I think the gentleman from Louisiana has clearly made the case. The rights of landowners are dramatically. dramatically improved under this legislation in the event that an agency would seek condenmation. The rights of the Members of Congress are dramatically improved under this legislation. The rights of the mayors and the city councils. the boards of supervisors. county government are dramatically improved. The governor. for the first time. has full notification. Every political subdivision in and around the considered land has full notification. None of that is required under todays law. And why is that there? Because people concerned about these issues in the negotiating sessions and in the committee expect a very deep and serious concern about what is a very -serious power of the Government to condemn. But the fact of the matter is. in some instances. very. very rarely. the Federal Government may resort to condemnation. My colleagues would not think for a minute of putting this requirement on the U.S. Army as they want to deal with Ft. Irwin and they want to start acquiring property lands for bombing ranges. My colleagues would not think for a minute of putting this in the Department of Highways as they acquire land for the development of highways. They would not think for a minute of putting this in the Department of Energy- if they were seeking to locate a lab or expand one of our national labs that we have in California. But they sure as heck want to make sure that the property owners. them as Members of Congress. their local officials are not identified and aware of that. And then the Secretary has to say why. and this is the superior route. that there is not an alternative. that there is not comparable lands. All of those things today at the insistence of people advocating the rights of private individuals. The other thing the gentleman does here in his amendment is he now steps over and tells the States what to do. I mean. this is a real mixed bag here. I can understand the concerns of the gentleman on the Fed. but he also now moves on to the States. .Mr. Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California .
Date: 2000-05-11
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Montana and I have talked about this problem for some time. Again. this is a problem that I think Members from other parts of the country have to be sensitive to. But the idea of prohibiting any Federal land acquisition until this study is done and that the outcome of the study has to be a de minimis change. As the gentleman knows when he did the Gallatin. we worked very hard on the Gallatin exchange because we were exchanging some really good timberlands for some cutover lands that needed a lot of rehabilitation and restoration. stream restoration and all those other things. The Federal Government ended up with a lot more land than it gave because of the value of those lands. I do* not know if that is de minimis or not. I do not think we should get into that argument. Mr. Chairman. I would be glad to give him the study. If he wants a study of land patterns and land ownerships and disposals and all the rest of it. that would be fine. Right now I do not know of any plans for Federal acquisition. unless there is something right on the edge of Yellowstone that has to do with some churchowned property that may be for sale. some of the farmers think we should buy because the bison would go there. I do not know that much about it. He does not have any bills in and I do not think we have any other bills in front of our committee. If he wants to have the department make a fullblown study here and tell the people of Montana what their plans are. Ido not have any problem with that. But prohibiting this. in all likelihood. he does not need the prohibition and he could still get the study done.
Date: 2000-05-11
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Let me reclaim my time. The man sitUSE 112917 ting next to the gentleman has the authority to do this. If the study has been done and you want to review it and you want some action on the study. the committee is available for that. I do not pretend to speak for the chairman. But putting in this prohibition just is not going to work.
Date: 2000-05-11
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. the gentleman may be able to have his cake and eat it too. As the gentleman from Louisiana has read the language. it is highly unlikely that there is going to be condemnation or Federal purchases in Montana.
Date: 2000-05-11
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. if the gentleman will yield. in all likelihood you are not going to have Federal land acquisitions. So if you struck section 1. then you would get your cake and eat it. too. because you get your study under the terms and conditions that you have set forth.
Date: 2000-05-11
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I really would simply just concur -with what the gentleman from Louisiana has said. To set up the regime to do as the amendment suggested is something we may want to do. but I. do not think that that is what the amendment does. In fact. it is much broader than those lands which are identified. I think that this legislationas it is currently written. the CARA bill. will. in fact. increase the inventory of those lands as we go through the process with the Secretary of the Interior. and then maybe at that point the gentleman could decide if the gentleman wants to auction those off -according to how the gentleman from Nevada has written his amendment. Mr. Chairman. I concur with the notion that I think the committee ought to direct some time. as I said to the gentleman from Montana in his amendment. direct some time to see how to do this and get .on with it. maybe even more so in a State like the gentleman from Nevada . which is growing so rapidly. We are seeing more and more proposals come for land transfers. exchanges and the rest of it. because the cities needs. airports and all the rest of it. are growing so rapidly that this may be absolutely worthy of our consideration in the committee to develop it. because some of our western States are starting to fill up and the land base that was there at one time may not serve the best needs of this State or even of this country. I know sometimes it is harassing to say that we would reconsider the land bases. that exist today. because it should always be that way. The fact is no. we should. we should reconsider it in light of what is taking place in the western United States. but I would hope that we would reject this amendment. I would hope that the committee might use this -as a way to initiate some of the questions that have been avoided for many. many years about lands that may -have little value to the Federal Government. that may have great value to localities in terms of their needs. Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2000-05-11
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I claim the time in opposition to the amendment. and I yield 2 minutes to. the gentleman from Louisiana .
Date: 2000-05-11
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. and I rise in strong opposition to this amendment for its elimination of the Federal Land and Water Conservation Act and for the straitjacket that it puts local communities in when exercising their own judgment. Mr. Chairman. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California .
Date: 2000-05-11
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think it is a strange turn of events that we end up with CARA discussing these trust funds. but it is very clear that to all Members of this House on both sides of the aisle. as we have evolved in the Social SecurityMedicare debate in this Congress over the last decade. we have made it very clear to ourselves. I hope. and to our constituents that we would not once again go back to an old habit of invading Social Security trust funds and the Medicare program as we had in the past. What the DeFazio motion to recommit does is make an absolute prohibition against that. so that we cannot gimmick up estimates. we cannot gimmick up certifications. We have all been there before. We have all had these estimates. If Members remember. 8 years ago we were going to have $300 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. Now we are telling people we have $300 billion surpluses as far as the eye can see. The bottom line is whether or not you have invaded the trust funds. This assures that CARA goes forward. it goes forward with permanent funding. but it will not. under the prohibitions in the DeFazio amendment. invade those trust funds. I think this serves the best interests of all Members of the House on both sides of the aisle. I thank the gentleman for offering his amendment and I would hope that it would have strong bipartisan support because it does. in fact. speak to the issues that all of us have addressed throughout our careers in the Congress of the United States while affording us the opportunity to meet one of the very. very important concerns that the American public has. and. that is. about the conservation of Americas great naturalresources and assets.
Date: 2000-05-18
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

changed their vote from "aye" to "no." Messrs. SHAYS. PAYNE. ENGEL. CONYERS and OBERSTAR changed their vote from "no" to "aye." So the amendment was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. Stated against:
Date: 2000-05-18
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri. Mr. SKELTON. the Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee. This amendment. would authorize the conveyance of over 8.000 acres of the land at the western end of the island of Vieques for conservation and economic development to improve the lives of Vieques residents. Vieques is a small island of Puerto Rico comprising approximately 52 square miles. two thirds of which is controlled by the US Navy. The Naval Ammunition Facility covers the western end of the island and the Inner Range of the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility controls the eastern side. Sandwiched between the two facilities. over 9.300 American citizens have resided for twenty five years in extremely close proximity to frequent military livefire weapons testing. From the beginning. relationships between the US Navy and the residents of Vieques and Puerto Rico have been strained. Numerous times the Navy has made promises to assist with local economic development. work to improve the welfare of the people of Vieques. assure the protection of the environment. and utilize the absolute minimum necessary of explosive ordnance. By all accounts the Navy has not lived up to its commitment. The Navy has made it clear that they do not need the western side of Vieques and support transferring it to the people of Puerto Rico who in turn can use it to protect the environment and benefit the expansion of their economy. As is the case with all US insular areas. isolation and limited resources are stumbling blocks to economic development. Freeing up land. which is key to economic development. is one of the best gestures we can offer to Vieques. It is hard to fathom that if Puerto Rico had full voting representation in Congress we would be debating this issue today. The current language in this legislation is a bribe and a slap in the face to the residents of Vieques. It forces them to continue putting their families at risk in orderto receive a small portion of land from which they might be able to better their lives. It is an offering that we would not demand of any other community in the US. Mr. Chairman. clearly we all understand the need for a strong military. Communities which give up so much to ensure readiness should be commended and not threatened or bulliedinto submission. I encourage all my colleagues to support the Skelton amendment.
Date: 2000-05-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the committee amendment to H.R. 297. the bill to authorize the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System. The Lewis and Clark Rural Water System is designed to provide replacement or supplemental water supplies from the Missouri River to areas in southeastern South Dakota. northwestern Iowa. and southwestern Minnesota serving up to about 180.000 people. This region has seen substantial growth and development in recent years. and we know that future water needs in the area will be significantly greater than the current available supply. Many residents in the project area have water of such poor quality it does not meet present or proposed standards for drinking water. Many communities rely on shallow aquifers as the primary source of drinking water. � aquifers which are very vulnerable to contamination by surface activities. including large hog farms. Why do we not clean up the hog farms? Lewis and Clark Rural Water Systemwill provide a reliable source for supplemental drinking water. I urge my colleagues to support the authorization of this project with a "yes" vote on H.R. 297. Mr. Speaker. the committee amendment includes several additional provisions affecting water resource activities ofthe Bureau of Reclamation in Northern California. I have no objection to these provisions. In fact. I want to thank the committee for including title 3. the "Treatment of Project Costs For Sly Park Unit." which will provide for the Secretary to exclude these costs in excess to be repaid by the Sly Park Unit beneficiaries- from the pooled reimbursable costs of the Central Valley Project until such time as the facilities are integrated into the water supply yield to the Central Valley project. This will provide a correction of.an inadvertent oversight that could prove costly to a number of urban water districts in California. I think that this is a proper resolution of this issue.