After two-days of debate and 26 amendments, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000 passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 315 to 102. This vote was important as it is a clear super-majority of the House and represents a majority of both Republicans and Democrats.
I am certain this overwhelming bipartisan support was possible because of the process CARA was formed within. It was a fair and lengthy process that demanded a great deal of commitment and most importantly patience. The Resources Committee held five-days of legislative hearings and hours of Member negotiations;
Ultimately, two things made our process effective. First, we had a commitment to work together in solving real problems. As you have witnessed, this initiative uncovers several problems. Some of the solutions were challenging and others are too difficult to resolve within this bill. However, H.R. 701 finds balance on issues ranging from incentives for new oil and gas drilling to providing unity for the wildlife community. CARA addresses the concern that it could create incentives for new oil and gas development, by protecting current moratoria areas. And the new wildlife program provides funding for a state-controlled wildlife conservation and education program to the benefit of game and non-game species.
The most persistent issue for CARA has been the discussion on property rights. Let me say for the record, H.R. 701 protects the rights of landowners - It does not diminish them.
If you care about willing sellers, a process to notify the public of new federal land acquisitions, a reasonable Congressional process for new federal land acquisition and federal regulatory limitations - you cannot be happy with current law. Current law falls terribly short on these issues and CARA corrects these problems to the benefit of land owners.
But don't just take the advocates word for it. I ask that you read the bill. But also listen to one of CARA's critics who voted against the bill in Committee and on the House Floor. Congressman Richard Pombo of California, a long-time champion of property rights, said the following: "I will have to also say that I do not believe that there is anything in this legislation that directly takes away people's property rights." Congressman Pombo has fought for property rights along the side of Billy Tanzin and I long before it became a popular issue.
The second issue that made our House process successful is the revelation that the most significant enemy of this good legislation is perfection. I think we all use that statement quite often, but it seems to apply to this legislation.
CARA is such a comprehensive conservation and recreation package, it is almost every Member's first instinct to see how one additional change will bring the bill closer to perfection. In the end, we found that the
negotiated bill was worth protecting. As amendments and changes have been made, we have successfully worked to protect the central components of the bill. However, by returning CARA to an on-budget framework, providing protections for Social Security and Medicare and making reasonable changes for land acquisition policy, CARA has become a more balanced package.
This conservation and recreation package will benefit the nation for decades to come and the Senate has a historic opportunity to continue the efforts of this growing coalition by passing a bill this session. I hope that your process will be one that capitalizes upon the coalition that has rallied around these issues. A coalition that has grown to 4,576 governors, local governments, national and local organizations and countless individuals across the nation.
Thank you for allowing me to testify and I ask that the list of the 4,576 supporting organizations be included in the record.