HEARINGS ON H.R. 701 AND H.R. 798

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

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 TO

ESTABLISH A FUND TO MEET THE OUTDOOR CONSERVATION AND RECREATION NEEDS OF THE

AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

‘‘CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999’’

H.R. 798, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PERMANENT PROTECTION OF THE RESOURCES OF THE UNITED STATES

IN THE YEAR 2000 AND BEYOND

MARCH 9 AND 10, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 106–14

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

56–081 CC u WASHINGTON : 1999

HEARINGS ON H.R. 701 AND H.R. 798

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

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 TO

ESTABLISH A FUND TO MEET THE OUTDOOR CONSERVATION AND RECREATION NEEDS OF THE

AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

‘‘CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999’’

H.R. 798, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PERMANENT PROTECTION OF THE RESOURCES OF THE UNITED STATES

IN THE YEAR 2000 AND BEYOND

MARCH 9 AND 10, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 106–14

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

GEORGE MILLER, California

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́, Puerto

Rico

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin

Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

JAY INSLEE, Washington

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held March 9, 1999 ................................................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Idaho, prepared statment of .................................................................... 106

Dingell, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan .................................................................................................................. 7

John, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Louisiana, prepared statement of ............................................................ 5

Maloney, Hon. James, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Connecticut .................................................................................................... 10

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11

Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 4

Press releases and background information on H.R. 798 ...................... 108

Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska . 2

Statement of Witnesses:

Caldwell, Jack, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources,

Baton Rouge, Louisiana ................................................................................ 17

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 248

Campana, Sam Kathryn, Mayor, Scottsdale, Arizona, Representing U.S.

Conference of Mayors, Washington, DC ...................................................... 53

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 97

Castro, Bernadette, Commissioner, New York State Parks, Recreation

and Historic Preservation, Albany, New York ........................................... 18

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 78

Written answer to questions from the Committee ................................. 42

Chasis, Sarah, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 85

Coleman, Hurley, Jr., Director, Wayne County Division of Parks,

Westland, Michigan ...................................................................................... 60

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 100

Hansen, Paul, Executive Director, Izaak Walton League of America, Gaithersburg, Maryland ..................................................................................... 55

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 98

Additional material submitted by ............................................................ 58

Norquist, Grover, President, Americans for Tax Reform, Washington, DC 61

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 103

Norton, Edward, Vice President of Public Policy, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, DC ............................................................ 63

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 104

Waller, David, Director, Georgia Wildlife Resources Division, Social Circle, Georgia .................................................................................................... 20

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 81

Communications submitted:

National OCS Coalition, prepared statement of ............................................ 89

Hearing held March 10, 1999 ................................................................................. 259

Statement of Members:

Christian-Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the

Territory of Virgin Islands, prepared statement of .................................... 283

Cubin, Hon. Barbara, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Wyoming, prepared statement of ................................................................. 338

Page

IV

Statement of Witnesses:

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, a United States Senator from the State of California .............................................................................................................. 260

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 262

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., Governor, State of Delaware ................................ 313

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 410

Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Georgia ...................................................................................................... 266

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 269

Chasis, Sarah, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, New

York, New York ............................................................................................. 275

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 325

Cobb, Hon. David, Mayor, City of Valdez, Alaska ......................................... 284

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 379

Cove, Thomas, Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, Washington,

DC .................................................................................................................. 290

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 330

Front, Alan, Senior Vice President, The Trust for Public Land, San Francisco, California ............................................................................................. 288

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 328

Gonzales, Hon. Javier M., Commissioner, Santa Fe County, representing

the National Association of Counties, Washington, DC ............................ 272

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 319

Grossi, Ralph, President, American Farmland Trust, Washington, DC ...... 305

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 335

Marlenee, Hon. Ron, Safari Club International, Bozeman, Montana .......... 274

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 323

McGovern, Hon. James, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Massachusetts ........................................................................................... 263

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 265

Paap, Kevin, Vice President, Minnesota Farm Bureau, representing the

American Farm Bureau Federation, Washington, DC .............................. 301

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 334

Parravano, Pietro, President, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s

Associations, San Francisco, California ...................................................... 307

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 420

Shaffer, Mark L., Vice President, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington,

DC .................................................................................................................. 303

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 402

Van Putten, Mark, President/CEO, National Wildlife Federation, Vienna,

Virginia .......................................................................................................... 286

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 391

Wallop, Senator Malcolm, (ret.), Chairman, Frontiers of Freedom, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 338

Additional material supplied:

Private Property Congressional Vote Index submitted by Safari Club

International ................................................................................................. 350

Summary of H.R. 701 and H.R. 798, submitted by Mr. Young .................... 346

Text of H.R. 701, submitted by Mr. Young .................................................... 200

Text of H.R. 798, submitted by Mr. Young .................................................... 124

Communications submitted:

Report to the OCS Policy Committee from the Coastal Impact Assistance

Working Group, Coastal Impact Assistance, .............................................. 23

Davis, Mark, Executive Director, Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 341

Hove, Hank, Mayor, Fairbanks North Star Borough, letter to Mr. Young,

submitted by .................................................................................................. 390

Letter from miscellaneous coastal and ocean protection groups and fishing industry ................................................................................................... 390

Letter to environmental groups by Congressmen Young, Dingell, Tauzin,

and John ........................................................................................................ 376

Moore, Rod, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association, letter to Mr. Young, submitted by ...................................................... 409

Paxton, Gary L., Administrator, City and Borough of Sitka, letter submitted by ........................................................................................................ 389

(1)

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 TO ESTABLISH A FUND TO MEET

THE OUTDOOR CONSERVATION AND

RECREATION NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN

PEOPLE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ‘‘CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF

1999’’

H.R. 798, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PERMANENT

PROTECTION OF THE RESOURCES OF THE

UNITED STATES IN THE YEAR 2000 AND BEYOND

TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:03 a.m., in Room

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Don Young [chairman of the Committee] presiding.

Mr. YOUNG. The Committee will come to order.

I have an opening statement. I am sure Mr. Miller and Mr. John

will have opening statements and then, hopefully, we will get to

our witnesses. We have, actually, three panels today. Unfortunately, some of the people to testify today, because of this outstanding large snowfall we have, won’t be able to be here. God, I

wish they lived in Alaska, they really would experience something.

But those that cannot be here, we will give them an opportunity

a little later on.

The hearing today will be on H.R. 701 and H.R. 798, my bill and,

of course, Mr. Miller’s bill. I want to thank you for coming today

for the hearings on the Conservation and Reinvestment Act and

the Permanent Protection of American Resources known as Resources 2000. I am going to use most of my time to discuss my bill,

2

CARA, with the anticipation Mr. Miller plans to do the same with

his legislation.

STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

Mr. YOUNG. Last summer, Billy Tauzin, John Dingell, Richard

Baker, Chris John—who is with us—Saxby Chambliss, and I circulated a discussion draft of the Conservation and Reinvestment

Act. After receiving many comments and making appropriate

changes, we introduced the bipartisan CARA bill in the 105th Congress as H.R. 4717. We continued to work with that draft as the

baseline for a reintroduction in this Congress.

On February 10, 1999, we reintroduced CARA with the 106th

Congress as H.R. 701. You may ask, why H.R. 701? Mr. Shuster,

who is the chairman of another committee, had a bill named H.R.

700 after a flight. It was delayed so, being discretion is the better

part of valor, it was a Northwest flight, so I gave him the H.R. 700

number. We are joined by more than 30 original cosponsors and

they have now grown to nearly 60 cosponsors. What is particularly

rewarding is that this bill is bipartisan. Our nearly 60 sponsors are

evenly distributed between Republicans and Democrats and this is

a sign of the bipartisanship in this legislation and the intent of this

legislation.

Not only do the supporters range in ideology, but we are widely

dispersed in geography. CARA has congressional supporters from

Alaska to Rhode Island, and from California to Florida. Cosponsors

range from urban members like Congressman Charlie Rangel of

Manhattan and Congressman Towns of Brooklyn to members from

very rural districts, like Congressman Collin Peterson of northern

Minnesota and Congressman Watkins of southeastern Oklahoma.

What brings us together? I believe the answer is twofold. First,

this bill proposes to take revenue from Federal offshore oil and gas

production and reinvest in our coastal communities while also

funding valuable conservation programs in all 50 States and territories. This revenue comes from our Nation’s nonrenewable resources and should be responsibly reinvested into renewable resources which benefit all Americans. Onshore host States share in

revenue derived from Federal production within their States. However, there is no direct revenue sharing for offshore Federal production. This bill corrects this inequity, while providing for conservation programs in all States and territories.

Second, we provide for conservation and recreation opportunities

in all 50 States and territories. Whether you are an urban or rural

resident, this bill will benefit you. CARA provides for inner-city

students to play basketball after school or a park to study in.

CARA also allows rural sportsmen the opportunity to commune

with wildlife in their natural settings. No matter where you live,

the Conservation and Reinvestment Act will provide you with recreational opportunities. Too often these needs go unmet because of

a lack of funding. Our bill works to correct that problem by utilizing funding which ought to be reinvested for these purposes.

I have mentioned before that this bill is a work-in-progress. And

I want to stress that. The gentleman from California, Mr. Miller,

and I discussed this. We will be discussing his bill as well as my

3

bill. This is a two-day hearing, certainly an aggressive endeavor

which will look at both bills comprehensively. It is only the first

hearing. We do not have a mark-up scheduled and do not anticipate holding one until late spring. In the meantime, I hope to continue to work with all interested members and groups while continuing our centrist approach to pass this important initiative.

I would like to take a moment to clarify two areas of the legislation which seem to be the focus of much attention. These areas are

incentives for additional oil and gas development and private property concerns. While we have made changes to address each of

these concerns, groups on each side continue to withhold their support. That is fine, as we do not need a quid pro quo from these

groups to validate our efforts. However, we hope that they will

work with us in a manner to help provide funding for national conservation programs and our coastal communities.

The allegation that this bill contains incentives for new oil and

gas production is simply false. Throughout our lengthy process, we

have asked for comments, specifically to address the perception

that this bill contains drilling incentives. When we began this process, the environmental community asked that we include all Federal offshore revenue, even though the MMS Policy Committee report, which we based Title I upon, included revenues only from new

production. The advantage of including only new revenue was to

lessen many of the budgetary implications. However, our friends in

the environmental community thought this would prescribe an incentive for coastal States and communities to increase OCS development. To remove this perception, our bill always included all

OCS revenues, no new incentives.

On a parallel note, there has also been a fear that the Conservation and Reinvestment Act will unravel moratoria in some areas of

the Federal OCS. For me, this bill is a revenue reinvestment measure, not legislation to provide incentives or disturb current moratoria. So, again, at the request of the environmental community, we

happily included language which would preclude areas in current

moratoria from both revenue sharing and as a factor in the distribution formula.

Also, many thought that our eligible uses for funding coastal impact assistance was too broad. To address that concern, we have

limited the eligible uses, within Title I, to five specifically contained within the bill.

The other area of controversy associated with this bill has been

with the property rights groups. To be the focus of such criticism

from individuals I have worked with for decades has been troubling

me personally and somewhat confusing. Let me explain exactly

what CARA does regarding property rights. CARA provides annual

and dedicated funding for payment in lieu of taxes, PILT, and Refuge Revenue Sharing. CARA provides funding for conservation in

all 50 States and 5 territories. CARA also allows for Federal acquisition within boundaries of areas established by an Act of Congress.

CARA only allows for Federal acquisition with willing sellers. Condemnation authority is removed for the purposes within this bill.

CARA does not provide a $1.5 billion for land acquisition. Our bill

provides near the historical average of the Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriation, $300 million. Frankly, other proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:27 Jan 29, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\56081 pfrm08 PsN: 56081
4

posals do not have these protections. And we continue to ask for

constructive comments from members and groups interested in private property rights.

Again, this hearing is only the beginning of these bills’ legislative

lives. We continue to solicit comments from all interested individuals and groups. A very real issue with this legislation is the budgetary implications. Regardless of our ideology, that fight needs to

be our unifying force. Should we make this lasting investment in

our coastal communities and for national conservation? I personally

think we should make that investment.

We currently face a unique budgetary climate here in Congress

and we are looking reinvest funds which should have been going

to the purposes within the CARA for decades. Recreation and livability are going to be buzzwords of the future. CARA is our opportunity for action. I hope this hearing provides a catalyst to continue

this progress to pass conservation legislation and create a lasting

heritage for American conservation.

And I yield to the gentleman from California.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. MILLER. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding and,

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing. In fact, for

holding both days of this hearing, to give a very diverse group of

witnesses an opportunity to be heard on these two bills. I believe

that today’s hearing is an historic step toward reasserting a legacy

of resource protection and improvement that has been largely ignored on a bipartisan basis for too many years. Restoring that commitment to use the exhaustible resources of this country to provide

permanent protection to public lands, marine and coastal resources,

wildlife, historic preservation, and urban recreation is a gift this

Committee and this Congress can truly provide to the Nation on

the eve of the new century.

It is with that goal that I introduce H.R. 798, the Resources 2000

bill. Last month, together with 50 cosponsors and the support of

several dozen major organizations, we introduced that legislation.

You and Congressman Tauzin and Congressman John and others

share a similar objective with your legislation. There are different

approaches in our bills, but the major purpose is quite similar.

While these hearings, naturally, will help clarify the differences between our two bills, I hope the hearings serve a more important

purpose, to build a national constituency for the passage of a negotiated package that achieves our common and urgent goals.

Let us not allow this debate to descend into sniping on one another’s bills or motives. We can either have a partisan debate for

a few months or permanent protection of these public lands and

wildlife resources forever. If we succeed, there will be plenty of

credit to go around.

I would note that perhaps, contrary to popular thought, we have

proven that this Committee can enact major legislation when working in a bipartisan and reasonable fashion, as we did in the last

Congress with the refuges and the parks bills. The great national

parks and the public lands system is, for many Americans, the

greatest achievement of the Federal Government, was born at the

5

beginning of the current century under Republican President Theodore Roosevelt. The environmental movement was born in mid-century by both Democratic and Republican administrations and Congresses that passed legislation ranging from the Endangered Species Act to the Coastal Zone Management Act to the National Environmental Policy Act.

Now, at the end of this century, Congress has an opportunity to

address other urgent needs. All across America, we see parks closing, recreational facilities deteriorating, open space disappearing,

historic structures crumbling, and fisheries vanishing. These losses

have a tangible impact on every American. We need to invest in

the future of America’s public resources.

We have taken the first step with the introduction of these two

bills. The President has proposed his own public lands initiative.

We take another important step with these hearings. We can and

we must continue to move forward together if we are to succeed in

enacting this sweeping but overdue commitment during the 106th

Congress. I have pledged my full cooperation to you, Mr. Chairman,

and to the cosponsors of your legislation and to the many organizations that have taken the time, the trouble, and the expenditure of

resources to be with us today and tomorrow.

I must say that many people never believed that this kind of

hearing would come to pass in this Committee with you and I sitting alongside of one another, talking about a common goal and a

common interest. I would tell them not to fret. We still bring very

diverse views and ideologies about this subject matter.

[Laughter.]

And you bring the gavel, of course, Mr. Chairman, which we all

recognize.

[Laughter.]

But in some ways, maybe, the fact that this hearing is taking

place in the manner in which it is is a welcome sign in terms of

the opportunities for the passage of comprehensive and historic legislation to deal with the most urgent problem in every region of

this country. And, again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very, very

much for calling these hearings.

Mr. YOUNG. Are there any other opening statements? If not, I

would like to have my first panel take Chair. I see my good friend

John Dingell, the chairman. I still call him my chairman. We did

more legislation in this arena than many times in the past and we

hoped to do in the future. Mr. John Dingell. And Saxby Chambliss

unfortunately is stuck in the snow somewhere. And is James

Maloney here? Is Jim here? Mr. John?

Mr. JOHN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if you don’t mind. If you would

yield. I have a statement that I would like to enter into the record

as to my support of this hearing and about the two bills.

Mr. YOUNG. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Mr. John follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS JOHN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE

OF LOUISIANA

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for demonstrating your commitment to move

forward with legislation aimed at conserving, enhancing and restoring America’s

precious natural resources by holding two days of hearings on H.R. 701, ‘‘The Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999,’’ and H.R. 798, the ‘‘Resources 2000 Act.’’

6

In particular, I want to commend your decision to make these hearings bipartisan

by including witnesses requested by our Ranking Member, Mr. Miller, for I believe

that Democrats and Republicans alike share the core objective of both bills: reinvesting revenues from non-renewable resources into assets of lasting value to our

nation.

As one of the principle sponsors of H.R. 701, I am eager to hear testimony from

the many witnesses who have taken time out of their schedules to appear before

the House Resources Committee. I believe the diversity of the participants and the

contrasting viewpoints they represent will provide this Committee with valuable insight into the needs, concerns and objectives that must be met to ensure that the

106th Congress passes legislation guaranteeing future generations of Americans the

opportunity to enjoy the commercial, social, recreational and aesthetic benefits of

our lands, waters and wildlife in the 21st century.

For the past year, Mr. Chairman, you and I have worked with Congressman Billy

Tauzin and Congressman John Dingell to craft a bipartisan bill that will create a

lasting legacy of stewardship and conservation of our natural resources. I am proud

of the effort that has brought us to this point in the process since few people a year

ago put this issue on the top of their agenda for 1999. Remarkably, today we find

legislative proposals with bipartisan support in the House and Senate, and the

‘‘Lands Legacy Initiative’’ from the Administration. I hope we can build upon this

momentum today and tomorrow with these hearings, so that outstanding areas of

disagreement can be resolved and consensus reached on a proposal that we can expeditiously move towards mark-up in the coming months.

My primary interest and involvement in H.R. 701 stems from a great need within

my home state of Louisiana to reverse the alarming rate of coastal erosion and wetlands loss that now jeopardizes communities, our economy, wildlife and fisheries

habitat, and a unique way of life that is supported by south Louisiana’s coastal ecosystem. Having witnessed first-hand the catastrophic loss of barrier islands and the

degradation of fresh water marshes due to saltwater intrusion, I know the needs

within my District alone are great.

However, while the impacts of Louisiana’s disappearing coast are being felt the

hardest by the residents of Louisiana’s coastal zone, the value of coastal Louisiana

is not limited to my constituents. Over 25 percent of the nation’s coastal wetlands

and 40 percent of all salt marshes in the lower 48 states are in Louisiana. Moreover,

Louisiana’s commercial fisheries provide 25-35 percent of the seafood catch in the

lower 48 states. Louisiana’s ecosystem is a national treasure that provides economic,

environmental and recreational benefits to our entire nation, but it requires immediate and substantial Federal assistance if future generations of Americans are

going to enjoy these benefits.

Louisiana is not alone in its coastal needs. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) recently estimated that, nationwide during the next 20

years, coastal counties’ cumulative populations will soar from 80 million to 127 million. I strongly support establishing a coastal impact assistance fund that provides

resources to all coastal states and territories so that current strains on our coastline

such as offshore oil and gas development and future strains caused by population

demographics are accounted for in our Federal budget priorities. History has often

shown that the cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of action.

From this perspective, I joined with my fellow sponsors of H.R. 701 to create a

legislative proposal that would provide a comprehensive game plan for meeting our

conservation objectives into the next century. ‘‘The Conservation and Reinvestment

Act of 1999’’ (CARA ’99) will ensure that all 50 states and territories—be they coastal, inland, upland, island or arctic—have permanent access to Federal resources for

meeting their long-term environmental goals. I truly believe that this Congress will

have fallen short of its responsibility if we do not pass legislation that encompasses

the objectives set-forth in the three titles of H.R. 701: (1) coastal protection, restoration and impact assistance; (2) Federal and state parks and recreation funding; and

(3) wildlife conservation and education.

If there is one misconception that I hope will be cleared up over the next two

days, it is that using revenues derived from Federal OCS production constitutes an

incentive for new oil and gas drilling. The sponsors of H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 have

gone to great lengths to assure people that these bills are about revenue sharing,

not oil and gas incentives. The Federal Government has used the proceeds from oil

and gas royalties to fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for over

30 years and I have yet to meet an oil executive or Federal Government official who

suggested that the LWCF had any bearing on their decision to authorize or drill

new leases. The fact is, revenues from Federal OCS leases will continue to come into

the Federal Treasury with or without H.R. 701 and H.R. 798—the only difference

7

is that without congressional legislation, these funds will not be dedicated to meet

our nation’s conservation needs.

I realize that H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 take somewhat different approaches in identifying and prioritizing conservation initiatives, but I am convinced that our Chairman and Ranking Member can use the Committee process to forge consensus. Both

bills deserve the scrutiny, commentary and constructive criticism that will arise

from these hearings and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today and

tomorrow. In particular, I want to acknowledge and thank two of the witnesses who

have agreed to appear before us.

First, I want to welcome the Louisiana Secretary of Natural Resources, Mr. Jack

C. Caldwell. Secretary Caldwell has been a champion of coastal impact assistance

for Louisiana and all coastal states and I know that he can share with the Committee a wealth of knowledge about this issue. In addition, as a member of the

Outer Continental Shelf Policy Committee which provides advice to the Secretary

of the Interior through the Minerals Management Service, I particularly look forward to his discussion of the report prepared by the Coastal Impact Assistance

Working Group on October 29, 1997 which forms the basis of Title I of H.R. 701.

I have been asked many times by Members of Congress about the allocation levels

and distribution formula for H.R. 701 and I believe Secretary Caldwell’s testimony

will provide Committee members with critical insight into these matters.

I would also like to acknowledge Mr. Mark S. Davis, the Executive Director of the

Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana. Mr. Davis will be testifying tomorrow about

the magnitude of coastal loss in Louisiana and will share with the Committee his

expertise on coastal restoration efforts and the significance of Federal intervention

to combat the challenges facing coastal states. I have known Mr. Davis since my

days as a State Representative in the Louisiana Legislature and I greatly appreciate

him making the journey to Washington to testify before the House Resources Committee.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for calling these important

hearings. It is my intention to work with you and Ranking Member Miller to move

legislation through this Committee so that the full House of Representatives can

consider a bill by the August recess. An investment in America’s natural resources

today will yield unquantifiable benefits in the future and I believe today’s hearings

are right beginning for attaining this worthwhile goal.

Mr. YOUNG. And that goes for any member that would like to

submit a written statement.

Mr. MILLER. Yes. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I have some letters

of support that I would like to put into the record.

Mr. YOUNG. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Dingell, you are the first one up. I am sorry. The

other members apparently got hung up in these snowstorms and I

am glad to see you made it here. So you have got the floor for as

long as you want it.

[Laughter.]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I learned a long time

ago, when I was a young lawyer, I should curtail my talking when

I am in a friendly forum and I don’t intend to breach that very desirable rule.

First, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and I want to thank

Mr. Miller and Mr. John and the others who have worked so hard

on this. And I want to remind all and sundry that you and I have

a long friendship which goes back through the enactment of an

awful lot of legislation, which you now guard in this Committee

and which, very frankly, Mr. Chairman, makes me feel good. And

I want to tell you how grateful I am for a chance to work with you

again on this and also with my good friend Congressman Miller

8

and Mr. John and the others who were interested in this legislation.

This is a piece of legislation which is a part of a process in which,

if we all do our jobs right, is going to result in some landmark legislation which will protect the natural heritage of this country. The

Committee has invited many witnesses to speak on a number of

issues and needs which arise from H.R. 701, your bill and mine,

and H.R. 798, the Miller bill. And I will, therefore, keep my remarks brief and address as much as I can the issues that I find

in these two pieces of legislation.

Thirty-five years ago, as you recall, Mr. Chairman, in good part

with your leadership, the Congress created a land and water conservation fund. That has created an astonishing record of accomplishment. Better than $10 billion has been spent to help conserve

7 million acres of land in 40,000 projects. The country has reason

to be grateful to you and to us for what we did on that. We preserved many areas within our Federal land systems and provided

crucial funding to States to ensure that State acquisitions continued to meet our resource conservation needs.

More than 60 years ago, the Congress started the Pittman Robertson program, which contributed mightily to the States wildlife

conservation programs. It was under this model that my old dad

worked to establish the Dingell-Johnson program nearly 50 years

ago, later to be amended for additional conservation purposes by

two good friends of yours and mine, Senators Wallop and Breaux,

both of whom, incidentally, are playing a significant role in the development of this legislation. H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, is based on the legacy of accomplishment the Federal

Government has achieved in finding workable partnerships with

the States and with local governments to solve tough problems related to wildlife diversity, sustainable growth, environmental protect, and, very frankly, the enjoyment of our natural resources by

the people of this country.

During the past few years, there have been a number of worthy

efforts by a coalition of organizations which call themselves

Teaming with Wildlife. These outstanding people are dedicated to

the idea that Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson programs

need to be expanded so that the fish and wildlife species not currently receiving biological attention may begin to receive it. It was

their push for a dedicated funding source that intrigued me and I

believe you also, Mr. Chairman, to try and find a funding mechanism by which this could pass the Congress. By dedicating 10 percent of all the Outer Continental Shelf revenues to meet unmet

wildlife needs, State fish and wildlife agencies would begin to be

able to count on about $300 million a year to protect more species

and more habitat not currently receiving the protection that they

need under the traditional approach of managing and protecting

game resources.

For land and water needs, the Land and Water Conservation

Fund has been enormously successful. During the life of the program, close to $13 billion in authorized funds have remained unappropriated. This is a serious problem and it has significantly impaired the success of that program. So by dedicating 23 percent of

all Outer Continental Shelf revenues for the Land and Water ConVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:27 Jan 29, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\56081 pfrm08 PsN: 56081
9

servation Fund, State and Federal side, Congress can take the lead

in closing that gap and ensuring that we really move forward in

this area.

Mr. Chairman, I note that H.R. 701 is a fine piece of legislation

and that any member of this body should be proud to support it.

There are other good ideas, however, that have been brought to the

table, by our friend and colleague Mr. Miller and by the President

and by the Vice President in the administration. There has been

and will be much debate concerning the use of Outer Continental

Shelf funds for impact aid to coastal States. The Committee is

going to hear testimony today and tomorrow and at other times

which will make a strong case for renewed Federal commitment to

coastal areas. Likewise, Mr. Miller has offered competing ideas for

assured funding for coastal and marine resource conservation;

farm, ranch, and open space protection; Federal and Indian land

restoration; and, quite frankly, for historical preservation.

I likewise wish to offer a word of praise to the administration,

both for what it has done and what it hasn’t done during the legislative process. First, the President and the Vice President came forward with a series of credible proposals. Second, and most important, the President has dedicated himself to working with the Congress to achieve permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Just as important, however, to this legislative

process is the fact that the administration has not laid out a series

of demands. Perhaps they are on the way, but for now it has given

the Congress a set of principles to give us room to craft good legislation.

Why is this legislation important? First of all, Mr. Chairman, I

don’t have to tell you. I think everybody is going to get plenty of

answers today, including testimony from my good friend, the director of parks for Wayne County Michigan, Mr. Hurley Coleman. A

few weeks ago in my office, I spent about an hour with Hurley as

well as with Barry Tindall from the National Recreation and Park

Association and from others who understand the tremendous benefits to our urban, suburban, exurban and rural residents that they

would receive under this legislation. We concluded that, in order to

make this happen, two things are necessary: a lot of cooperation in

the Congress, a high volume of grassroots support from as many

organizations as possible throughout the Nation. Working together,

I know we can make this happen.

And I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, and the Ranking

Member, Mr. Miller, for bringing us to this point. This is a fine example of the kind of cooperation that the Congress can show. And,

Mr. Chairman, and, Mr. Miller, I want you to know that your leadership in this matter is going to make it possible for us to work

together, to come together on a bill which will be in the broad, general, and overall public interest of this country. It is not hard to

do it and I am satisfied that you are the two who can bring this

about. I look forward to working with you and being helpful in

whatever way I can.

And I just want to say as a personal matter, I am so pleased to

work again with my old friend Mr. Young who used to work with

me a long time ago in the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife

Conservation over in Merchant Marine Fisheries in the old days

10

when we used to write good legislation. As a matter of fact, right

in this very room, as you will remember, Mr. Chairman, and the

consequences were always good from the standpoint of the public.

And a lot of that stands as a monument to what you and I and a

lot of other good people did. I am satisfied we have the same opportunity here and I am satisfied we have the people on this Committee who will do it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, John, and thanks for those kind words

that we go back a long ways and we have accomplished a great

deal. I hope we can accomplish more. Mr. Maloney, you are now at

the table so if you would like to make your presentation, then we

will have questions from any of the people who would like to ask

questions.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES MALONEY, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Mr. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Young and

Ranking Member Miller, members of the Committee, thank you for

the opportunity to testify before you this morning. I have written

testimony for the record, which I would like to submit. And, Mr.

Chairman, if I might, I would like to summarize.

Mr. YOUNG. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. MALONEY. Very good. Thank you.

I represent a 27-town district in Connecticut, a combination of

mid-sized cities and many suburban communities. It is, in fact, the

battlefront on the open space war. Every single town that I represent currently is engaged in an open space issue of major concern. Part of that is because Connecticut ranks dead last in Federal

open space. The State of Connecticut has one national park, consisting of 53 acres and has a total of 12,000 of federally owned

land. That includes everything, including the Federal prison. All of

that Federal land totals less than one-quarter of 1 percent of all

of the land in the State of Connecticut.

The open space issue is one that is of great concern. For years

and years, all of the cities and towns along the coastline outside

of the New York area were known as the Gold Coast. People lived

there, prospered well, commuted to the city. The Gold Coast has

now become the congested coast and it is having a very adverse affect, both on people’s quality of life and on the environment. A little

further to the north, which is my district, we see a huge boom in

house construction. We are happy with that. We are delighted that

the economy is doing well. But the people who live in those towns

now and the new people who will be living there want to make sure

that they maintain a quality of life. Central to that is the preservation of open space.

Congressman Miller has submitted H.R. 798, which I think is an

excellent piece of legislation and I know that there are other proposals that are on the table for consideration. The common goal is

to address this issue.

In Connecticut and, perhaps, in other communities, we face another pressure which is the deregulation of many of the utility

services means that utility companies are putting on the market

large tracts of open space. In my home town, the city of Danbury

has the largest lake in the State of Connecticut. And in ConVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:27 Jan 29, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\56081 pfrm08 PsN: 56081
11

necticut everything is to scale, so it is 14 miles by 1 mile, but it

is the largest lake in the State of Connecticut. And all of that lake,

that entire lake, is going to be sold as part of electrical deregulation. Well, if it is going to be sold, fine, but we need to make sure

that that largest lake is preserved and that we continue to enjoy

the environmental benefits that that lake has given to us.

So let me just conclude by saying that this open space legislation

is critically important to my communities. It is critically important

to the State in which I reside and to, I know, many, many States

all around the country. The central thought I would leave you with

is last year we preserved the Highway Trust Fund. We did the

right thing in my opinion by preserving the Highway Trust Fund.

We made the Highway Trust Fund do what it was supposed to do.

This year we are working in a similar direction on social security.

We are trying to make sure that social security is preserved for its

purpose. The Land and Water Conservation Fund deserves equal

treatment.

For 25 years, there has been a commitment of the Federal Government that the resources that go into the Land and Water Conservation Fund get used for Land and Water Conservation purposes. That has not been happening. Ladies and gentlemen, we

have a great opportunity in this session of the Congress to make

sure that that happens. I encourage you in doing so. I pledge you

my support any way I can be of help to do that. And I commend

the Committee’s attention to this very, very important issue.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Maloney follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES H. MALONEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Thank you Chairman Young, Ranking Member Miller and Committee members

for allowing me to offer testimony on the issue of open space.

The two bills we have come to discuss today, H.R. 798 and H.R. 701 are important

steps towards preserving our environment for future generations. Both bills take the

important step of restoring the Land and Water Conservation fund. I commend both

Congressman Young and Congressman Miller for taking this step.

Resources 2000 (H.R. 798), the bill proposed by Congressman Miller, includes provisions for preserving our nation’s open spaces. These provisions are essential to

protecting the nature and heritage of our country, and ensuring a healthy environment to host future economic growth.

My state of Connecticut is a perfect example of the need for funding directed at

open space preservation.

Connecticut ranks LAST in federally owned open spaces. We have only 1 national

park, Weir Farm, which covers a mere 53 acres, about one thousandth of a percent

of Connecticut’s total 3 million acres. In total, Federal land holdings in Connecticut

total around 12,000 acres, one quarter of one percent of our state’s total acreage.

Opportunities abound for Open space preservation. In my district alone there are

six possible projects that would utilize the open space funds suggested in Congressman Miller’s Resources 2000 bill.

Candlewood Lake: The future of this resource is brought into question by the

divestiture by Connecticut Power and Light. The possibility exists that the lake will

be sold. Open space funding could be used to purchase the lake and surrounding

land or acquire appropriate conservation easements and ensure its accessibility and

use for future generations.

Ansonia/Birmingham Utilities Property: Some of the last 80 acres of open

space in Ansonia will, like Candlewood lake, be for sale as a result of utility company divestiture.

Trout Brook/Bridgeport Hydraulic property: This resource was rescued from

becoming a housing development and purchased by the state of Connecticut, Nature

Conservancy, and other groups interested in protecting the environment. However,

they still need around $3 million to complete the project, a perfect example of an

under-funded, local effort to preserve open spaces.

12

Naugatuck River: As the State updates 7 sewage treatment plants along the

Naugatuck, the once polluted river becomes a valuable natural resource, and a

prime piece of real estate. River authorities are working with localities to purchase

land along the Naugatuck, creating a new greenway. Time is of the essence as the

land grows more valuable once the river is clean. Open space money could be used

in this situation to help localities along the Naugatuck coordinate and fund parks

and recreational areas alongside the river.

Meriden Flood Control: The Army Corps of Engineers project to create flood relief for the residents of Meriden also presents an opportunity to preserve urban open

space. Part of the draft plan includes ‘‘daylighting’’ the Harbor brook, an environmentally preferable arrangement to the current underground path the brook now

takes. ‘‘Daylighting’’ the brook will also create a scenic urban park in Meriden, a

win-win situation.

Ridgefield/Bennett’s Farm: Over 600 acres including wetlands could become

open space using Federal funding. Right now the price of this property is set at

around $13 million, as the owners are currently planning a housing community and

conference center. Only a few years back the same property was purchased for

around $8 million, an example of the time sensitive nature of our dwindling supply

of open space.

Each of these examples in my district highlights the many aspects of Open Space

needs in this country. There are so many communities taking the initiative to preserve their open space, but they lack the resources to take such progressive actions.

In conclusion, I think it is evident from the examples in my district that Americans across the nation desire and need funding for open spaces in their communities. This issue requires Federal participation so that our country as a whole has

environmental resources to offer future generations.

As the Committee prepares to act on these bills, I hope you will take into consideration the vast number of needs for open spaces in our country. Thank you for your

consideration of this matter.

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you for your testimony. John, I just have one

question for you. This is the beginning and I am going to ask you—

and I hope, because you are the sponsor of H.R. 701 that, as we

go through this process, you not only just testify today, that we

continue to have your oar in the water. Because without it, it is

going to be very difficult to achieve the goal which I am seeking

to do. So that is the only thing, are you willing to go to bat and

to work on legislation? I am not locking you in, necessarily, to a

fixed bill, but the goal here is, I think, what all of are seeking is

going to take a lot of heavy lifting. Because, otherwise this is not

going anywhere.

We had a hearing in a meeting the other day with one of the appropriators. And you would think I had him by the I don’t know

what, but he was sure squealing.

[Laughter.]

And, you know, because he is losing part of his authority to appropriate money. But they haven’t done what they should have

done to begin with, so it is going to take a lot of heavy lifting. I

just want to make sure you are on board with me on this one.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I know that you and this Committee have the ability to do that. I am, as you know very well,

sponsor of that legislation, very proud of it. I think we have done

an outstanding job in terms of meeting the concerns of everybody

and I think, as far I am concerned, we could pass that bill just as

it is and wouldn’t complain. But the legislative process is going to

require a certain amount of give-and-take.

I have got to say, in your leadership in this matter, Mr. Chairman, you have demonstrated some extraordinary bipartisanship

and it is a great example. I know you and I are not known as bipartisans, but when we get right down to it, sometimes we have

13

done some extraordinary work in that area and I want to say Mr.

Miller has come a good way in working with us. And we did a few

things like this last year and in the previous Congress, as you will

remember, and they were good for the country and they were good

for the people and I think all three of us are proud of what we did

there. So I see no reason that the process, with you two working

on it, is not going to move forward. And I certainly look forward

in my small way, outside this Committee, trying to be as helpful

as I can in what it is you are doing.

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, John. The gentleman from California.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. And I have no question. Again, I want

to echo what you said, Mr. Chairman and Chairman Dingell, to

thank you for your pledge of involvement.

Chairman Young and I met some weeks ago, quite a while ago,

and talked about this and I think we fully appreciate that this is

going to be about legislating, which means an awful lot of people

are going to have to be involved and Congressman Maloney has

been involved in this before the bill was written. And we need that

kind of involvement. It is very clear that there is very diverse

views on this. The devil is in the detail, because people do have different approaches and different views about what should and

should not be done. But that is the art of legislation is to try to

sort those things out and I think the track record of the parties involved here is pretty good, but, clearly, your sustained interest and

involvement is important to this. And I thank both of you for your

testimony.

Mr. YOUNG. Any other questions from any of the members? Any

comments? Helen.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do want to

say for the record that I believe that this chairman has gone all

out for his sportsmen. He has really worked very, very hard for

them and it is obvious in this bill. But I do have to say that rarely

would I oppose anything my chairman would do. But this bill is one

that I have to oppose because I believe that we are moving away

from the legacy of Ronald Reagan and all of those who have gone

before us in the fight for private property and the fight for the

rights of States and local units of government to sovereignly manage their own units and to carry out the people’s trust, who elected

them.

I do want to say that, in looking over the witness list, I am disappointed that it is not more balanced. And while we are holding

two days of hearings, I would like to officially ask for another day

of hearings to be held to at least include those witnesses who were

able to be heard in 1988 when this bill came up and was soundly

defeated. I do want to say that I think everyone should be heard

and I understand that there is going to be a hearing in Louisiana

on this. I would also like to ask if we could have a hearing in the

West on this particular bill, maybe in California or in Idaho.

As I look this bill over, I find that the PILT money, while PILT

provisions are in the bill, nevertheless there is already PILT authority and we are only funding PILT at 50 percent. This bill does

nothing to mandate the appropriators to fund PILT, nor could it do

that. And the condemnation authority certainly is in the bill, condemnation of private property. The only thing that isn’t in the bill

14

is, under this bill, monies generated would not go to pay for private

property that has been condemned; it would only go to pay for private property that has been transferred by a willing buyer or a

willing seller.

And I have to ask the chairman that, if a private landowner is

faced with the choice of suffering with regulations enacted by the

Federal agencies under congressionally approved statutes like this

one, does this really constitute a willing seller? I don’t think so, Mr.

Chairman. And I think that this bill that was soundly defeated and

you worked to help defeat it in 1988 is one that we should take a

long and careful look at.

In the name of the sportsmen, I think there are many ways that

we can help the sportsmen. One would be weighing in on legislation to correct the decision out of New Jersey that enforces or implements product liability on gun manufacturers, because that ultimately will affect our hunters.

But I would like to ask Mr. Dingell, who I have great respect for, you know, Michigan will receive about $45,477,000 in one year

from this, but I have to ask you, sir, how much oil and gas leasing

really takes place in the Great Lakes?

Mr. DINGELL. We won’t allow any gas leasing in the Great Lakes

because of the unique and precious character of them, but there

will be very large gas leasing and oil leasing in Michigan. Michigan

is a rather large producer of both natural gas and oil.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. But right now there is virtually none, right?

Mr. DINGELL. We don’t do it out in the lakes, themselves.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Or is there any offshore drilling or oil or gas

production off of——

Mr. DINGELL. Not in the lakes. Remember the lakes, although

there are the largest reservoir of fresh water and one of the most

precious in the world, are still rather small. They are confined. And

the interchange in water in the Great Lakes occurs very, very slowly. The two lakes that have the greatest interchange are Erie and

Ontario and I think the water changes in them in about 20 years.

So if we had a major oil spill in the Great Lakes, we would have

big problems. The clean up of it would not be anything that could

be done in any acceptable fashion.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. So if there are proposals for directional drilling, would you support that?

Mr. DINGELL. I don’t have any problems with directional drilling

if you are going to drill from offshore out under the lake, that is

not something that causes me any particular difficulty. It is setting

up the rig and having a spill that goes into the lakes.

We have just achieved, after years and years of massive problems, a clean up of Erie, which was going to be a dead sea. We

have got it now to the point where Erie is one of the finest walleye

and muskie fishing lakes in the world. We have salmon in there.

And they are enormous national treasures. Every one of those

salmon brings to the State of Michigan $70 in tourist revenues. So,

I mean, these are great things and our people want to protect

them.

And I have supported offshore drilling and have usually opposed

constraints on offshore drilling because I view that as being an unwise energy policy in the United States. That tends to differ me

15

from some of my colleagues and some of the environmental organizations, but I think those things can be done safely. And I think

the risk is unacceptable inside the Great Lakes and our people

think so. You can’t find anybody in the Great Lakes, in the United

States or Canada, that wants drilling inside the Great Lakes by

offshore platforms.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I see that my time is up and

I thank Mr. Dingell for his comments. I just simply want to say

that if there was offshore drilling and revenue generated, well then

that would justify Michigan receiving the $45.5 million per year.

And I also want to say that the salmon that is now in Lake Michigan actually came from the Pacific Northwest.

Mr. DINGELL. That is true, but we do have Atlantic salmon in

there.

Mr. YOUNG. Specifically, from Alaska if you really want to know

where I think it is.

[Laughter.]

And it is an irritation to me that they hold the world’s record

now for the largest silver salmon caught. It is not in Alaska, but

it is Alaska DNA.

[Laughter.]

Mr. DINGELL. I can’t quarrel with anybody from Alaska about

what a great place that is and what great fishing the salmon are

out there.

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. I would just like to respond for a moment. This

is a hearing and the condemnation of the bill I can understand. But

we hopefully will work together and can relieve some of the anxiety

of the lady’s concern about this legislation. If we cannot, then we

will still go forth, because I do believe that there is an opportunity

to reinvest. This is not about who gets what or where it goes, but

reinvest in the fish and wildlife of this great Nation of ours.

And I don’t do that just for our sportsmen. I will just digress little bit. Now you have heard me say this, the gentlelady has before,

if you want to retain our freedoms, if you want to retain a society

that has some sanity, you have to have the availability to hunt and

to fish. If you lose that availability, then you lose what remaining

sanity is left in this great Nation. Because we face urban tyranny.

I listen to Maloney talk about his urban sprawl. That creates

urban tyranny.

Now how we solve that problem is really what these hearings are

all about because we cannot continue to have this lack of access to

those lands and access to fish and wildlife. If we lose that, we lose

the freedoms which I think are so crucial to this Nation. This is

what my interest is about. This is why I am pushing this bill. This

is a chance to go into the year 2000 with an opportunity to provide

every man, woman, and child the chance to participate in what I

think is our legacy, and that is the ability to hunt and fish.

Now, with that, anybody else? Mr. John.

Mr. JOHN. Yes. I don’t necessarily have a question, Mr. Chairman, but I do have a couple of comments. First let me pile on to

the accolades of the chairman for holding this meeting, this hearing, for the next two days in a true spirit of bipartisanship. We sit

here with two bills that ultimately go after the same goal in somewhat different directions, but the willingness of the chairman and

16

the Ranking Member, Mr. Miller, to sit down and have both bills

put on the table and talked about is a great tribute to their willingness to put together a piece of legislation.

This bill is going to become, in reality, one of the most comprehensive, wide-sweeping, environmental pieces of legislation in

many, many years. It has been said so many times. This piece of

legislation is all about finding a revenue source for reinvestment

and conservation. This bill is not about oil and gas drilling. It simply is not. If you think about it in its purest form, what does this

bill do? It takes a revenue stream that is presently collected from

activities off coastline and reinvests it back into our coastal

marshes and into our estuaries; back into conservation, wildlife

and other important programs.

So, as we move through these hearings, I want to reiterate that

this bill is about making a commitment to reinvest some portion

of revenues—from a non-renewable natural resource—back into our

estuaries and our environment; the kind of thing that all of us on

this Committee wants to do.

Why am I involved? I mean, I think it is pretty obvious. Thirtyfive miles a year of my district get washed away in the Gulf of

Mexico. So that is why I am involved. As a young boy, I used to

hunt a lot in the marshes of Louisiana and where I used to fish

is now two or three miles out in the Gulf of Mexico. So that is why

I am involved. We have been trying to deal with this issue for

many, many years. I know that Senator Johnston—former Senator

Johnston of Louisiana—and other people had tried to put together

legislation to come up with a funding stream to not only protect

our coastline, but also to preserve and protect our wildlife and our

fisheries of this great Nation. And this issue, I think, is so much

more broad than a lot of the issues that we are dealing with. I

think it is going to become a paramount piece of legislation.

As we look at H.R. 701 and H.R. 798, there are some good ideas

in both of the bills. For example, H.R. 798 includes funding for the

operation and maintenance of our national parks; this is a good

idea and we ought to explore this idea further. That is what this

hearing is all about.

I am honored to be sitting at the table with the chairman, the

Ranking Member, and also the dean of the delegation, Mr. Dingell,

who has offered his staff and has worked very, very hard to try to

put this together and make it a reality. So I am looking forward

to the next couple of days and I appreciate the chairman putting

these hearings together.

Mr. YOUNG. If there are no other comments, I would like to

thank the two gentlemen for being with us today. And we have

open eyes and open ears and most of the time open hearts. I have

to check that out, but we will see what happens. So thank you very

much, John. Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

The next panel will be Mr. Jack Caldwell, secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, Louisiana;

Ms. Bernadette Castro, Commissioner, New York State Parks,

Recreation and Historic Preservation, Albany, New York; Mr.

David Waller, Director, Georgia Wildlife Resources Division, Social

Circle, Georgia—social circle?. Ms. Sarah Chasis is stuck in snow.

17

So we will try to fit her in sometime tomorrow if possible, if we

can.

Mr. Caldwell, you are up first. And I do thank you. And if we

can—just a moment. You are up first and have at it.

STATEMENT OF JACK CALDWELL, SECRETARY, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA

Mr. CALDWELL. Mister Chairman, honorable members of the

Committee, I very much appreciate this opportunity to testify on

the greatest conservation bills of this century. Not since Theodore

Roosevelt has the conservation effort moved so strongly onto the

national stage.

As secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources,

I serve on the Outer Continental Shelf Policy Advisory Committee,

comprised of Federal and State officials, industry representatives,

and other interested OCS parties. And our function is to give advice to the Secretary of the Interior through the Mineral Management Service. And my testimony this morning will cover the background leading up the concepts that are today incorporated into

Title I of H.R. 701.

As you know, for many years, as Congressman John pointed out,

the issue of assistance to coastal impact States has been debated

in Congress and, so far, the only legislation that has been adopted

was the 8(g) amendment to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

in 1986. And, under this bill, Louisiana’s share has, through the

years, been about $1 billion out of the $80 billion that has been

produced through the years.

And, by 1993, the Outer Continental Shelf Policy Committee developed a position paper which called for a sharing of a portion of

revenues among all the coastal States, the Great Lakes, and the

territories. It was based on a finding that, although the benefits of

the OCS program was shared nationally, a disproportionate share

of the environmental, economic, and social costs were local. So, consequently, the committee appointed a working group on which I

had the honor to serve, along with representatives from Alaska,

Oregon, California, Texas, and North Carolina, to come up with a

specific plan.

This group worked diligently for almost a year and the fundamental principle that the group worked on was the one just mentioned by you this morning and that is the idea of reinvestment of

nonrenewable oil and gas resources into renewable and sustainable

resources in the coastal region. Now, because the impacts of OCS

operations on coastal States is difficult to separate out and quantify and because all of the coastal States are subject to similar

stresses from storms, sea level rise, overdevelopment, and pollution, we included all of the coastal States and the Great Lakes, but

came up with a formula that weighted the fund distribution toward

the impact States which were sustaining the larger share of the adverse impacts of OCS operations.

So acting on this principle, the Committee came up with the

basic concepts—this was back in 1997—that are presently incorporated in the bill. And that is that 27 percent of the revenues

should be shared. That it should be weighted on a 50 percent proxVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:27 Jan 29, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\56081 pfrm08 PsN: 56081
18

imity, 25 percent population, and 25 percent coastal. That the

funds should be stable and not subject to annual appropriation.

And that it should be administered by the States under oversight

from the Secretary of the Interior, relying on the audit system for

enforcement.

Now this is my testimony this morning regarding this background and I welcome any questions from the Committee.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Caldwell may be found at the

end of the hearing.]

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Caldwell, you just did a remarkable thing. You

stayed within your time and you never read anything. So I want

to congratulate you.

[Laughter.]

That is remarkably well-done and well-presented. I just want to

congratulate you.

Mr. CALDWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. YOUNG. Ms. Castro, you are next.

STATEMENT OF BERNADETTE CASTRO, COMMISSIONER, NEW

YORK STATE PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION, ALBANY, NEW YORK

Ms. CASTRO. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I am Bernadette Castro, commissioner of the New York State Office of Parks,

Recreation, and Historic Preservation. I also serve on the legislative committee for the National Association of State Park Directors

and I am a board member of NASORLO, which is the national

group that actually administered this program for the 30 years

when it was active with the States from 1965 to 1995.

I want to thank you Chairman Young for your leadership on this

issue. It is a vital issue. It one that we feel has to reinstate the

promise that was made in 1964, the promise that all States would

benefit, the promise that States would share equally with the Federal needs. And, indeed, that promise was completely broken in

1995. From 1995 to present, the States have received zero funding

from the stateside portion of the Land and Water Conservation

Fund.

It is a wonderful, wonderful fund, if it really was a fund. It is

a word that was used in 1964 and it leads people to believe that

don’t understand the issue that there is this money, this $900 million a year, that is deposited somewhere for use in land and water.

And, indeed, that is not the case. So there is a lot of misknowledge

by the public at large, misunderstanding, and lack of knowledge.

So I am going to sort of sidestep my official testimony and I ask

that my written testimony be accepted as part of the record, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. YOUNG. Without objection, so ordered.

Ms. CASTRO. Thank you very much.

You have heard about all of the wonderful things that this has

done at the national level, the figures on acreage and parks. I

guess what I need to do is to just focus on my State, if you will,

as stateside part of this funding is critical. And I think the States,

indeed, know best how to spend this money. If you look at the diversion just here, Mr. Chairman, Alaska, California, New York,

Louisiana, Connecticut. It would be impossible for any of us to

19

know how the other States should be spending the stateside

money. It would be less likely that the Federal Government, with

all due respect, even the National Park Service, would know best

how to administer this money.

It is critical, of course, that it remain, as we would call, a block

grant. It is critical that when this programming goes through, that

the States, each of us, with our very different needs, have the capability to direct this funding.

In New York State, we have two what we call flagship parks

under my jurisdiction. The Adirondacks and the Catskills are not

under my jurisdiction. They are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Conservation.

But Commissioner Cahill, indeed, wishes he could be here today,

as does Secretary of State Treadwell who runs the Coastal Management Program, as does Theodore Roosevelt IV, great-grandson of

Teddy Roosevelt, who was here in Washington and who is out of

the country or would be here today. He fully, fully supports this effort.

But in New York State, I had two flagship parks that are worldwide famous. One, Niagara Falls, one of the great wonders of the

world. The other, Jones Beach State Park, the largest public bathing facility in the world. Millions of dollars have come to both of

these flagship parks over the years, to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. From everything from serious infrastructure work

to things such as boardwalks and recreational facilities.

It would be impossible for New York State over the years to have

brought those projects along, both Robert Moses projects, along

without the help of this Federal matching grant program. And I

think that is very important for everyone to remember. We are

leveraging funds here. Not just local funds, indeed about 60 percent

of everything New York got in that 30-year period went to municipalities, through a matching grant program.

But we are also leading the way, in New York, by leveraging private money. There are private corporations that would love to invest in parks, but they want to do it where they know they are not

the only game in town. So when a municipality or the city of Syracuse or the city of Buffalo goes for funding under this Federal program, part of their match could be a giant corporation. It could be

a Pepsicola or a Coca-Cola.

Saturn retailers have put in parks, have put in playgrounds

within my parks. Ford Motor Company is giving us $100,000 for a

nature center at Jones Beach. And the list goes on and on. But municipalities could approach their local banks and say, wait a

minute, there is Federal match money out there.

In New York State, we are very lucky to have Governor George

E. Pataki who is such a champion of this cause. He has given us

environmental protection fund money in his budget every year.

That is a matching program. He saw to it and worked hard to pass

our Clean Air, Clean Water Bond Act, again, a matching program.

But I can tell you that there are 800 projects in New York State—

am I out of time already? Is that what that means? We are in trouble. Okay. Eight hundred projects that we couldn’t fund. Eight

hundred projects on the shelf, ready to go, if you give us back this

20

program. Thank you very much and I would be happy to take any

questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Castro may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

Mr. TAUZIN. [presiding] Ms. Castro, we appreciate very much

your testimony as well as the testimony of my dear friend from

Louisiana. Louisiana is not used to snow, Jack. I just had a real

tough time getting in to hear you this morning.

[Laughter.]

We are now pleased to welcome Mr. David Waller, the director

of Georgia Wildlife Resources Division, Social Circle in Georgia.

Mr. Waller, welcome and we will appreciate your testimony. Again,

recognize the time limits. We apologize for that.

STATEMENT OF DAVID WALLER, DIRECTOR, GEORGIA

WILDLIFE RESOURCES DIVISION, SOCIAL CIRCLE, GEORGIA

Mr. WALLER. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have submitted

testimony and so I will just hit the high points from that. My name

is David Waller and I am director of the Georgia Wildlife Resources

Division and vice president of the International Association of Fish

and Wildlife Agencies. I really appreciate the opportunity to appear

before you today and would like to use this opportunity to convey

the International’s strong support of H.R. 701.

We believe this bill is the most sweeping wildlife funding bill in

this half of the century and will go a long way towards conserving

our Nation’s fish and wildlife and providing much-in-demand conservation education and wildlife-associated recreation. We appreciate Mr. Young’s leadership and that of Congressmen Dingell,

Tauzin, and John in sponsoring this landmark legislation. The

International would also like to recognize Congressman Miller for

addressing some of the same needs in H.R. 798.

There is a compelling need to fully fund State wildlife conservation efforts in time to prevent species from becoming endangered.

Many species in this country are declining and heading rapidly towards endangered species lists. And we have the opportunity now

to act in a non-regulatory, incentive-based manner while there is

still time and at much less cost to conserve our Nation’s wildlife

legacy. Dedicated, reliable, and adequate funding would not only

allow States to conserve species and preclude the social and economic impacts associated with listing species, it would also generate significant new economic opportunities for local communities.

A wildlife-rich outdoor experience is vital to communities; it is

vital to States’ nature-based tourism; and vital to related outdoor

industries. Wildlife watchers spent over $29 billion in State and

local economies, generating more than one million jobs. This bill

provides funding for State conservation, recreation, and education

efforts which makes good economic sense.

States are the front-line managers of fish and wildlife in this

country and have broad authority for fish and wildlife within their

borders, including most Federal lands. Because of a consistent,

dedicated source of funds, we have successfully restored many

game species like the white-tailed deer and the wild turkey, the

21

striped bass, pronghorn antelope, and on and on. All of these are

wonderful success stories. We are ready to do the same thing now

for some of the non-game species such as the Baltimore oriole, the

American goldfinch, box turtles, and many other declining species

that are not yet endangered. The needs of State wildlife agencies

to attend to these declining species exceeds $1 billion, but even half

that amount would go a long way toward producing significant, onthe-ground results.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, for the past seven years, we have

built up a national coalition of over 3,000 organizations and businesses that we call the Teaming with Wildlife Coalition. We believe

Title III of H.R. 701 fulfills the basic goals of Teaming with Wildlife, but with a different funding source.

We strongly support H.R. 701 for the following reasons. It provides permanent and consistent funding, which is important. It is

administered through the Pittman-Robertson Act, which is tried

and proven. It allows States to determine their priorities, their conservation priorities. And it brings equity to wildlife conservation

funding, giving all Americans the opportunity to join sportsmen in

paying for conservation.

Mr. Chairman, in addition to these comments, the International

respectfully urges you to raise the minimum level for a State from

one-half of 1 percent to 1 percent to address the needs of some of

the smaller States that have some of the greatest needs, including

Hawaii and some Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic States.

Let me now briefly mention some things on H.R. 798, the Resources 2000 Act. Again, the International is pleased that Title VII

of H.R. 798 provides funding for State-level wildlife conservation.

We are also encouraged by the spirit of the cooperation between

Chairman Young and Congressman Miller, that they have pledged

to moving forward together toward a strong bipartisan solution

that can pass Congress this year. We are very pleased with that.

Some of the concerns are, in H.R. 798, are the elaborate planning

requirements; the term ‘‘native fish and wildlife,’’ which could be

problematic; the fact that conservation, education, and wildlife-associated recreation needs are not addressed; and a six-year phasein from $100 million to $350 million. Let us not wait six more

years to address these critical conservation needs.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, State wildlife agencies across the country stand ready to work hand-in-hand to assure a future for America’s wildlife and help millions of people enjoy and appreciate wildlife from their backyards to the back woods. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Waller may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Waller. And we regret

that Ms. Sarah Chasis, senior attorney, Natural Resources Defense

Council, could not be with us today, I believe.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chasis may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

Mr. TAUZIN. So this completes the panel. The Chair recognizes

himself briefly for a round of questions and we will ask all members to abide by the five-minute rule.

22

First of all, Mr. Caldwell, in your statement, you cite, of course,

the 1993 policy committee report which, by the way, I have in my

hand and I would ask unanimous consent be made a part of the

record today.

Without objection, then, it will be so ordered.

[The information follows:]

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Mr. TAUZIN. And you decided to explain why we should share

OCS revenue with all 30 coastal States and the 5 territories, rather

than the 6 producing States. Can you summarize for us the good

reasons why the committee came up with this idea?

Mr. CALDWELL. The primary reason is that all coastal States,

producing and non-producing, are under severe stress today. Half

of the population of the country lives in the coastal regions today

and all coastal regions have been suffering severe storm damage in

recent years, pollution damage, have been destroying and harming

the estuaries, fisheries are under stress, everywhere. And we felt

that to attempt to separate out and separately quantify the adverse

impacts from offshore drilling would generate more controversy and

would be basically impracticable. So we felt it was better to include

all the coastal States and adopt a weighting formula in order to

take care of the impact States.

Mr. TAUZIN. Also, Mr. Caldwell, you mentioned, and I want to

refer to it too, that the policy committee was interestingly made up

of industry representatives and environmental community representatives, State government representatives, pretty broad ranging. Would you comment on the importance of that and the meaning in terms of their recommendations to us?

Mr. CALDWELL. Yes, from Alaska, the chairman was from Alaska,

Mr. Jerome Selby, the mayor of Kodiak, served as chairman. From

Oregon, we had Mr. Eldon Hout, who works for the State government in the Environmental Department of Oregon. From California, we had Mr. Chabot, who is very active in environmental

matters in San Francisco. From Texas, we had Mr. Paul Kelly, who

represented the oil industry. And you had myself. I am secretary

of natural resources. And from North Carolina, we also had a State

official in that State’s environmental department.

Mr. TAUZIN. So we had a pretty range of contributors.

Mr. CALDWELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAUZIN. Let me ask you the question that keeps coming to

us all the time. Is this bill likely to incentivize oil and gas development where it otherwise would not occur? Has that happened in

Louisiana with OCS coming in?

Mr. CALDWELL. No, sir. Louisiana has had 8,000 wells drilled offshore in the last 50 years and I don’t think that there is any

chance at all that Louisiana would change its views no matter

what happened.

Mr. TAUZIN. Ms. Castro, you also commented about the importance of this bill for all the good things that it does. Are you concerned that it is going to incentivize drilling that might not otherwise occur?

Ms. CASTRO. No, I am not. Not with the language that I think

that Chairman Young has put in there. And I think that the no

new incentives is very critical to the success of this legislation and

I am confident that the language will take care of that.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Waller, you mentioned the importance of this

Act, particularly as the States struggle to preserve species and

wildlife habitats and what have you. One of the visions of Title III

is, indeed, to conserve species and to help generate numbers of species before they ever reach a status that they might have to be listVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:27 Jan 29, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\56081 pfrm08 PsN: 56081
41

ed under ESA as threatened or endangered. Do you see this Act

contributing to that vision? And how?

Mr. WALLER. Well, there is no question we want a preventive

maintenance program to keep species from becoming endangered.

And this certainly provides the funding that would allow that to

happen. The States’ biggest need right now is funding for our nongame programs. And when I say non-game, anything we do for

wildlife conservation in the field affects game and non-game. So I

don’t want to get hung up with this non-game and game scenario.

But we have the expertise on staff, we know what needs to be

done, we just need the resources to make it happen with.

Mr. TAUZIN. All of you commented about the importance of permanent funding in this effort. Why is that so critical?

Mr. WALLER. We have very successful wildlife programs. The

most successful wildlife program in the world, all the States do.

And it is simply because we had a dedicated funding source in the

form of the Pittman-Robertson Act. It has been in place for six

years. It is a wonderful model. And we have done great things restoring game species. And we need additional funds to broaden our

agencies to manage these other species that aren’t being addressed.

Mr. TAUZIN. My time has expired. The Chair will now not only

recognize the chairman back to the Chair, but also recognize the

Ranking Minority Member Mr. Miller with, again, you have already mentioned, Mr. Waller, our sincere thanks for his efforts in

his own version of this legislation. Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Tauzin.

Just a couple of questions because we have quite a few members

here. I don’t see it in your testimony and I don’t know if you know

it off the top of your head, Ms. Castro, here. You said you had

about 700 projects off the shelf that are ready to go because you

would be able to put together the funding source for those. Do you

know what part of that is attributable to historic preservation or

not? How that breaks down? Or, if you don’t, if you could supply

it for the Committee, I would appreciate it.

Ms. CASTRO. I will definitely supply it for you. And I must say,

as you have brought up historic preservation, I ran out of time. I

am the State historic preservation officer and I think it is really

an important element that we not forget to fund historic preservation. When the Historic Preservation Fund was created, it was created with a funding stream of $150 million that, indeed, was coming from Land and Water. So, certainly, in the Governor’s program,

the Environmental Protection Fund, there is a percentage which

goes to historic preservation. And the 800 projects that are out

there, I don’t want to give you an inaccurate percentage, but I will

get it to you.

Mr. MILLER. That would be helpful. And Mr. Tauzin asked and

Mr. Waller answered the question on one of the things both bills

do is try to provide permanent funding. I assume that, one, that

allows you to develop a schedule in terms of priorities, because, obviously, some things are more urgent than others. And also the

question of scheduling the ability to raise matching funds and private funds and the rest of that if you know kind of what is coming

on line over the next five years or what have you, as opposed to

42

the sort of hit-and-miss, you know, annual decision either sometimes we provide money and sometimes we don’t.

And I know, in our area in California, that very often, you know,

we have raised a substantial effort in the private sector, but there

are those gaps and those gaps just remain because, like you say,

people want to make sure that other people have the same interest

and involvement in these projects, but you don’t have any ability

to close them and get on with the next one.

Ms. CASTRO. That is right. That is exactly right. And I was handed a correction by one of our senior staff members from Albany.

The 800 projects, that 800 number, does not include historic preservation projects.

Mr. MILLER. Does not include. Okay.

Ms. CASTRO. We have additional historic preservation projects

ready to roll that are also on the shelf and I will get that number

to you.

[The information follows:]

BERNADETTE CASTRO,

NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PARKS,

RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION,

April 19, 1999.

Hon. DON YOUNG,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Chairman Young.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the House Resources Committee

on March 9, 1999. I very much appreciate the leadership that you and the other

members of the Committee have demonstrated to re-establishing the Land and

Water Conservation Fund state side program, As you know this program is extremely important to all Americans interested in outdoor recreation that is close to

home and can be accessed on a daily basis.

During my testimony questions were raised relative to our New York Historic

Preservation and Heritage Areas System grant programs. Mr. Miller specifically

asked that I provide some additional information on this subject and this I am delighted to do.

For Outer Continental Shelf revenues to be authorized for use in State-administered historic preservation projects within the context of legislation that would permanently fund the program, is a commendable suggestion. As the Historic Preservation Officer for New York State I have been frustrated by our inability to fund all

the worthwhile historic preservation projects for which application is made annually

in New York State. To this end, I strongly recommend that a provision be added

to the Conservation and Reinvestment Act for Outer Continental Shelf revenues to

be used for State-administered historic preservation projects. This additional funding source would help us conserve those projects listed on the National Register of

Historic Places.

Since 1995, the Environmental Protection Fund, and more recently, the Clean

Water/Clean Air Bond Act have provided state funding for historic preservation with

heritage area projects. In that time, we have received a total of 691 applications for

such projects, requesting almost $101 million; that figure represents $319 million

worth of total projects cost. Unfortunately, we were able to fund only 200 of these

projects. This means, despite a vigorous, fully-funded and highly-regarded state

grants program, approximately 60 percent of these worthy projects remain unfunded.

Historic preservation projects are important in preserving our heritage and provide a key to securing both economic resurgence and quality of life for our communities. The tourism industry, the revival of neighborhoods and an enhanced, distinctive sense of place all stand to benefit from permanent funding to the Historic Preservation Fund. Historic preservation is an economic development program that

strengthens communities. The tourism industry is New York’s second largest sector

of our state’s economy and heritage tourism is its fastest growing segment. This is

very good news indeed for increased employment and environmentally-friendly economic growth throughout New York. Essential to the success of this trend, however,

43

is continued encouragement and support for investment by State and local governments and the not-for-profit sector in new or improved attractions, be they parks

or historic sites and structures, and in protecting what we already have. This is the

public purpose that vitalizes New York’s historic preservation grants, historic sites

and heritage areas programs, and we need all the help we can get.

My colleague, the Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer, has detailed this

tellingly:

States and localities leverage the Federal program with added incentives to increase public benefit. Each $1 appropriated to the States generates an investment

of $55 by State and local governments and the private sector, States and localities

know that:

• every million dollars spent on rehabilitating historic sites creates 29.8 new

jobs (15.6 in construction and 14.2 in the professions and ancillary fields) and

generates $779,800 in household income;

• that same million dollars creates 3.4 more jobs and adds $53,000 more to

household incomes that a million dollars spent on new construction;

• many companies, especially those employing high paid knowledge workers,

prefer to locate in communities with historic character and interest;

• preservation pays dividends to homeowners, since property values rise faster

in historic districts than elsewhere; and

• historic attractions form the basis of America’s burgeoning heritage tourism

industry.

Here in New York we continue to make it known that full state-side funding of

the Land and Water Conservation Fund is essential to preserve our important and

valuable natural resources. What an added benefit it would be if permanent funding

could benefit our rich cultural heritage as well!

Most sincerely,

BERNADETTE CASTRO,

Commissioner

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, that would be helpful.

Ms. CASTRO. Right.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Waller, thank you for your testimony and I

have read and will continue to read the concerns you raise, because

I think they are very legitimate. Let me just ask you on this question of game, non-game, native, wildlife and all that. If I read your

concerns correctly, you have concerns with how we do it in our legislation. But you do agree with the general theory that it can’t just

be concentrated on what people historically think is a game species.

That really, as you said, when you do one thing out there in the

habitat, it affects both. But there is this need for broader protection

of species or creation of habitat for those species. Is that a fair

statement?

Mr. WALLER. Yes, sir, there is a huge need for that. And that is

what we are all about. We want to be comprehensive wildlife managers where we can address all the wildlife needs out there. And

that is where we fall way short on our funding. And these proposals provide that for us.

Mr. MILLER. So you see that as a resource problem.

Mr. WALLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MILLER. All right. Well, we will work on those concerns.

Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Caldwell, also, thank you.

Mr. YOUNG. [presiding] The gentlelady, I believe.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. How do you mean that, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. YOUNG. From Idaho. Yes. I mean, Barbara—Helen’s going

first. Yes. Okay.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to associate myself in large part with the comments from Ms. Castro.

They are very, very well-taken. And the fact is that we promised

States money out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and

44

then we whacked it off. And we broke a promise there. I really feel

the resolution should come in refunding and keeping our promise

to the American people. I have been working with Yvonne Farrell

who is our director of the Idaho Parks and Recreation Department,

a very, very capable lady. Looks very much like you and you sound

like her.

Ms. CASTRO. Yes, she is. I know her quite well. Thank you for

the compliment.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. So I really do identify with your problems and

the concerns that you have. But I do believe that this bill is totally,

totally overreaching in terms of allowing a partnership or mandating a partnership by Federal statute with the States and the

local units of government.

And, you know, a very recent study by Dr. Samuel Sailey of the

Reason and Public Policy Institute helps put this whole issue into

perspective. He stated that less than 5 percent of the United States

land base has actually been developed. And it is developed in terms

of urbanization. Niney-five percent of our land base is still open

spaces. And so my concern is, in the name of fish and wildlife and

saving the species, what are we doing to our land base and our productive basis in this country?

I think we need to keep our promises, but we need to do it in

a way that will assure the States that they still have their sovereignty. The parks departments can operate in as sovereign a

manner as humanly possible and take care of their own States.

I do want to ask Mr. Caldwell, doesn’t the State of Louisiana,

won’t they be receiving about $361,874,000 a year from this? The

highest amount of money that will be coming into any State will

be coming into Louisiana?

Mr. CALDWELL. Yes and I would be delighted to address that.

[Laughter.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And were there—to receive it. I am too. And

were there any members on your commission from Texas? You

mentioned one from Alaska, because——

Mr. CALDWELL. Yes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. [continuing] Texas has—you know, I thought

so, because Texas comes in with $204 million.

Mr. CALDWELL. Yes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And you already mentioned Alaska. One of

the interesting things, Mr. Caldwell, is that your State, Louisiana,

has about 1.6 percent Federal ownership. And Georgia has about

4.4, 4.5 percent Federal ownership. New York has 1.3 percent Federal ownership. Which means everything in addition to that is a

productive base for you to generate income. Idaho has 62 percent

in Federal ownership.

So I hope you understand why I am fighting this, because, first

of all, I didn’t come to Congress to see more land taken over and

private property rights abused, which I think could happen in this

bill. And, secondly, the federalization of our land base really does

affect our sovereign ability to govern as a State and to produce.

America grew to be the Nation that we did because of our ability

to produce from our land base. And I think that, with just 5 percent of our land being involved in urbanization, I think this bill is

a huge solution looking for a problem.

45

I do want to say, with regards to Mr. Waller’s comments about

non-game species, I tried in Boise, Idaho, to sell a house one time

that some little squirrels had moved into the eaves and I had to

go through—I shouldn’t say it on the record—but it was literal hell

trying to get my home sold because a non-game species had taken

up homemaking in my eaves in my house.

Once this bill is passed and we give the status to non-game species, we are virtually increasing the Endangered Species Act that

will affect real estate development, it will affect the ability of willing buyers, willing sellers to sell and to really utilize the marketplace freely. And it will, ultimately, affect States and local units of

government and their tax base.

I want us to think really carefully about this. When we look at

the definitions of what wildlife is in the bill on page 40 and wildlife-associated recreation, my gosh, you know, we are asking to

have duck blinds and trails and all kinds of things mandated by

the Federal Government. We are entirely overreaching in this. I

hope you will take a look at this again. Thank you very much.

Mr. YOUNG. Any of the panel like to respond? David.

Mr. WALLER. I would, Mr. Chairman. The neat thing about this

bill, it gives the States the prerogative to make the decisions on

how the funds are spent. For instance, western States most likely

wouldn’t spend any money for land acquisition, but some of the

eastern States, like Georgia, might. We have less than 8 percent

of the land in Georgia under any kind of government ownership,

including Federal Government, state government, and all government ownership. So that could be a priority in Georgia, to acquire

some much-needed lands for hunting and fishing and other outdoor-related, wildlife-related activity.

But, in the West, that is totally their choice and that is the nice

thing about this bill. And, again, some of our non-game species are

declining in numbers. And what we would want to do is to go out

and census those species and find out what the problems are and

to solve those problems before they reach the Endangered Species

list. Because when they reach the Endangered Species list, it kicks

in all kinds of negative implications to landowners, to us in government that works with wildlife conservation. So we want to avoid

that. And that is our whole emphasis is managing wildlife to keep

them off that list.

And right now, we have good funding for a State wildlife agency

to work on game species and I think we have done a very good job.

There are huge numbers of success stories across the country

where we have restored in Georgia the wild turkey and deer and

out West antelope and elk and those kinds of things. And what we

want to do, what we need, is additional funds to manage some of

the species that we haven’t had funding for in the past. And that

is what this is all about.

Ms. CASTRO. Yes, I would like to respond. Over the 30-year period, Congressman, when New York received its money, three-quarters of the money received over the 30-year period, went to recreation projects. And I just wanted to speak on behalf, just for one

second, the need for development money for parks and rehabilitation money. That is critical. I mean, an urban swimming pool. I can

tell you, to rehab one urban swimming pool, you are looking at a

46

minimum of $1 million, just for new filters. This is not just a coat

of paint. So I want to just remind all of us that a great deal of this

money will go for other than acquisition and money that is sorely

needed and, again, matching funds. It is a partnership, but for a

very good reason.

Mr. YOUNG. The gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. JOHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it and Mr.

Secretary, I am going to definitely give you an opportunity to answer the gentlelady from Idaho’s question.

But let me quickly begin—I have got a host of questions. I want

to get through them very rapidly. We only have five minutes. I

know that you have given that presentation often as a member of

the MMS’s OCS Policy Committee. You had some visuals that

showed the need and the impact in Louisiana. Have you brought

those here today.

Mr. CALDWELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHN. Okay. I would like for you, if you have just one

minute, to share them with the Committee and discuss what has

happened in our State. This will be somewhat unique to Louisiana,

however, it is also prevalent in a lot of the other coastal States for

somewhat different reasons. But these are the kinds of issues that

we are tackling. If you could just spend a little time to explain your

charts to the Committee.

Mr. CALDWELL. I want to show you what I call my poster child.

The town itself is 24 miles from the Gulf Canal, runs from the

town to the Gulf. You see the land that has eroded in that short

period of time. It amounts to 10 square miles. This is one we can

quantify that is a direct result of OCS operations. This is just a

portion. The total impact on Louisiana is shown by this other map

in which we have lost, in the last 50 years, 1,000 square miles,

which is marked in red, shown in red on the map. We anticipate

that, in the next 50 years, we are going to lose another 1,000

square miles, as shown in yellow. That is an area the size of the

State of Delaware. We believe that, with the funding provided by

this bill, we can prevent 90 percent of that projected loss.

Mr. TAUZIN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. JOHN. One question and then I will yield. Although the magnitude is quite evident in Louisiana, is this a unique situation to

Louisiana or does it apply to other States on the East Coast, West

Coast?

Mr. CALDWELL. No, sir, on the East Coast, there is substantial

loss occurring in the estuaries. There is degradation in the Chesapeake Bay program, for example, the Florida Everglades, in California, in the bays around San Francisco, deterioration is going on

all over the country and this bill will address that.

Mr. JOHN. I will yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. TAUZIN. Just so that I might ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record, in connection with this testimony, a video entitled The Sounds of Silence which we have produced regarding the

35-square-mile annual loss of land in Louisiana and a letter from

one of the broadcasters in Louisiana who saw it, saying, I had no

idea of the magnitude of the problem. We don’t realize it even in

Louisiana, it is so enormous.

47

Mr. JOHN. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman asked unanimous consent.

Mr. YOUNG. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information will be kept on file at the Committee office in

the Longworth House Office Building.]

Mr. JOHN. Thank you. Next question. There has been a lot of

concern raised about the distribution formula in H.R. 701. Mr. Secretary, where did the formula come from? As a member of the OCS

policy committee, and this kind of talks right into the gentlelady

from Idaho’s question and concern about the amount of money that

Louisiana is getting, I have a twofold question; first of all, where

did the formula come from? And, secondly, why was it tied to the

proximity of the production of a platform?

Mr. CALDWELL. Well, let me answer the last question first.

Mr. JOHN. Okay.

Mr. CALDWELL. The reason it is tied to proximity is because the

closer you are to the well, the more onshore impact that there is.

Ninety percent of the production is offshore of Louisiana, but,

under this provision, we are only getting 8 percent. But we think

that is enough——

Mr. JOHN. Would you restate the percentage again?

Mr. CALDWELL. Eight percent of the 90 percent goes to Louisiana.

Mr. JOHN. Ninety percent of the production takes place off Louisiana?

Mr. CALDWELL. Yes. Ninety percent of offshore production is off

of the Louisiana coast.

Mr. JOHN. Okay.

Mr. CALDWELL. So we think that is fair enough.

Mr. JOHN. Okay. I have a couple of other real quick questions.

We are running out of time. Does Louisiana plan on using Title I

money to buy up private property?

Mr. CALDWELL. No.

Mr. JOHN. That is a concern that I hear often from private property groups.

Mr. CALDWELL. No. My department has no expropriation rights.

In fact, we don’t even buy property from willing sellers. We don’t

have the money. If they don’t donate land rights to us, we don’t do

a restoration project. So, you know, property rights are not an issue

at all in Louisiana.

Mr. JOHN. Okay. That is all I have. Thank you Secretary

Caldwell.

Mr. YOUNG. Gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SHERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be

able to work with you and the Committee on a bill that will reinvest the funding stream generated by the depletion of a non-renewable resource into our habitat and fish and wildlife. I understand

very well that fish and wildlife habitat in wild and semi-wild areas,

how important they are to our future and our national well-being.

But you have got to remember that I represent Pennsylvania.

And, while we have the largest population designated as rural in

the country and that we have our most forested acres at any time

since 1840, we have great problems that came as a result of an industrial heritage. While we are talking about the money now that

48

comes from our present use of oil, I have to live with the problems

every day that were generated by the scarring of the land from the

mining of coal to supply the energy needs of the Northeast in years

past, when there weren’t any panels like this that were interested

in what happened with the land after we raped it.

And so I am very interested in this, but I would like to say that

my district represents a whole lot of the watershed of the Chesapeake. And I appreciate you mentioning, Mr. Caldwell, that estuary

and how important it is. And we are spending money every day in

the State of Pennsylvania to try and keep the water quality of the

Chesapeake up and the silt down and all the problems that we all

face.

But this bill, it worries me a little bit, Mr. Young and members

of the panel, that this bill will not address Pennsylvania’s problems

very well and it may make it harder for us to access our Federal

mine reclamation money. So, while I want to work very enthusiastically with it, those things are on my mind.

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman and I can assure you, as you

go through the bill and see we can be helpful, we will be so because

we don’t want you to lose that reclamation money. You are absolutely correct. But this is not a quid pro quo; this is a new monies

that were being spent outside on other programs other than the

reclamation money and all the other things that we shouldn’t have

been doing. But I thank the gentleman.

Any—the gentlelady. I apologize, you were talking when——

Mrs. CUBIN. I know. It was my fault, Mr. Chairman. I would like

to yield my time to Congresswoman Chenoweth.

Mr. YOUNG. Without objection, so ordered.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I thank the chairman and the gentlelady. As

Mr. Caldwell aptly pointed out, clearly there are legitimate concerns and certainly Louisiana has legitimate concerns, as does New

York and all the other States. But, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Caldwell,

we should address these legitimate concerns through existing programs like many that are already in place, through the appropriations process and not through off-budget entitlements. We are taking away the power that the Congress does have to hold the purse

strings in trust for the people of this country and it should be done

through the appropriations process.

If we were to put a map up there of Idaho, I can tell you that

thousands of square miles would be in red because of the distress

of our forests and our communities dwindling. And, you know, I

would be the last to go even propose a program like this because

I believe that we should take our solution through existing appropriations procedures. So that is one of the main reasons why I am

not supporting this bill and would like to call your attention to

that.

I do want to ask Mr. Weller, also, to carefully and with a critical

eye, review pages 25 through 27 of the existing bill because the

States will not be free to make their own decisions. Neither will

local units of government. Local units of government who wish to

go around the State on various programs, can go around their own

governors and form alliances with the Federal Government. That

is very alarming. I would like it, sir, if you would look at those

pages and I would like to talk to you about it in the future. Okay?

49

Mr. WALLER. I would be delighted to talk with you about it.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. I yield back that balance of my

time.

Mr. YOUNG. The gentleman——

Mrs. CUBIN. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. Then, Mr. Simpson.

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the panel’s input on this. Having served on the city council and used Land

and Water Conservation Funds for golf course, swimming pool,

other activities in Idaho, it is very important and I would like to

make sure that we maintain that fund or reestablish that fund because recreation in all communities is very vital.

Mr. Caldwell, you mentioned that you would like to see this not

subject to appropriation. That it would be a dedicated fund. It has

been my experience either in a legislative body or in Congress that

dedicated funds generally lose accountability. Are you concerned

about that?

Mr. CALDWELL. No, sir. Not under the proposal. The reason for

the dedicated fund is we know that the average coastal restoration

project takes three years, so you are on a continual roll. And, particularly with respect to onshore infrastructure, there has got to a

bonding source to rebuild the infrastructure. So those are the two

primary reasons for the dedication. Plus the fact that Louisiana is

a small State and I think if we came up here with our hat in our

hand every year, we would go home pretty empty. And that is the

practical answer to that. Whereas this time, we think we have built

a coalition that can really get it done. That is on the dedicated

funding. What was the other question?

Mr. SIMPSON. You mentioned that you have built a coalition. And

I guess what I am trying to establish in my mind, are we building

a coalition of coastal States—some coastal States, some non-coastal

States—that are going to have access to this fund so that we can

build enough support to pass it, that has actually nothing to do

with mitigating the offshore drilling impacts on the coast? Just so

that we can have enough funding in this to fund those States?

In other words, what I am saying is, you mentioned that all

States are under great stress, just not the six that are producing

the oil. All States are under great stress whether they are coastal

States or non-coastal States. So why haven’t we included all 50

States? Why just the coastal States?

So, I guess my question is, is this to address the unique concerns

of the coastal States and we are just using this offshore drilling

money as a funding source, not really having any relevance to the

impact caused by the drilling?

Mr. CALDWELL. No, sir. My testimony this morning was limited

to Title I, but the coalition, the three titles are built on the fundamental principle that we have advocated, which is the reinvestment of nonrenewable resources into renewable resources. That is

why we have always supported designating the environmental

projects into which you can make capital investments. That is the

idea behind the whole bill and that is where the strength comes

from. The coalition is not just about votes; it is about people who

believe in this reinvestment principle. That is the basic underlying

idea for all 50 States to share in. That is the rationale.

50

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, I agree with you in reinvesting. I think that

is a good idea. I am not from a coastal State. I still believe in that

principle. Your coalition seems to have left me out, even though I

agree with that principle. I am curious why the Great Lakes States

were included. And I love the Great Lakes States, don’t get me

wrong. I am curious why they were included. Great Salt Lake is

probably closer to having something similar to a coast than many

of the Great Lake States.

Mr. CALDWELL. Yes. That proposal was made to include Great

Salt Lake. But the Great Lakes, of course, are subject to these

same stresses. That is the idea, that all of the coastal regions have

similar severe stresses that are degrading our coast at an alarming

rate. And this is where half the population lives and, plus, they

have immeasurable values that can be corralled by this reinvestment process and rebuilding our estuaries, rebuilding the fisheries,

rebuilding the wildlife habitat, rebuilding our marshlands. The

Louisiana marshlands are worth at least $10,000 an acre, even

though they serve no purpose except to feed the little critters.

Mr. SIMPSON. But I guess, back to the basics. We are trying to

separate—and I guess it is best to do this—this money is not just

being reinvested to mitigate the costs caused by offshore drilling?

Mr. CALDWELL. Oh, no, sir.

Mr. SIMPSON. It is to be used for the unique problems that the

coastal States have. Is that a correct statement?

Mr. CALDWELL. Yes, sir. All of it is environmental, capital type,

investment, the vast majority of it. There might be some exceptions. But that is the thrust of the legislation and I hope it will

stay that way.

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate your comments.

Mr. YOUNG. The gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the Chair. Just for a second, to point out

that the gentleman says that we are talking only about Title I.

Title II and Title III share with all 50 States, don’t they, in PILT

funding and urban recreation and renewal and all these, land acquisitions for parks and recreation? Isn’t that shared with all 50

States under the bill?

Mr. CALDWELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAUZIN. All right. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. YOUNG. Are there any other questions of this panel?

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. YOUNG. The gentleman from California.

Mr. MILLER. This in response to the point raised by Mr. Simpson.

I think that there are two approaches here on the question of how

much of the total pot is shared and in what manner. Clearly the

coastal States, my own State of California and others, have argued

over the years of an adverse impact from the development of the

OCS and over the years we have tried to deal with that and this

bill does that also. The other one, clearly, is the notion that the

Federal leases belong to all of the people of all of the Nation. And

that was the tradeoff in why Land and Water Conservation was

there.

I think both of these bills are trying to figure out how you address both of those problems. Because you can argue that there is

clearly less coastal impact, absent something going terribly wrong

51

as happened in Santa Barbara during the 1970s. But, in California,

then there is, where you had to make changes to the coastline in

Louisiana for barge canals and all of the coastal activity, there is

a much larger industry there than offshore California.

So trying to balance the needs for those States to do that, but

also make sure that we recognize this is a national asset, this pool,

and that is why stateside, so many local communities have participated in that. And eventually, I guess, you know, this bill will come

down about formulas and how those formulas are developed because, as the gentleman pointed out.

You know, you have different visions of how big the Chesapeake

watershed is, depending upon where you live, just as in California,

some people think of San Francisco Bay as San Francisco Bay, but

we now know it runs almost to the Oregon border in terms of the

impacts that happen in that bay. That all of the communities are

looking for ways for mitigation, for protection, for creation of different kinds of assets. So, eventually, I think, while these two bills

in intent are very much on track, the formulas are different and

that is obviously going to be the question coming from all over the

country.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MILLER. Yes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. I do want to say that, for Idaho,

under Title I, there is absolutely zero funds for impacts and I am

not asking for any. My seatmate was right. Title II, involving land

acquisition, it would be funded at in excess of $6 million. Title III,

involving non-game species, it would be funded at in excess of $5

million. So more Federal presence in land acquisition, non-game

species is not what we want in Idaho. We want our forests fixed.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Tauzin.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman. I simply want to point out

that may be true, but in the cost to the States, most of the Federal

mineral development is offshore. In many of the interior States, the

Federal mineral development is inshore. On the inshore Federal

mineral development, your States and others would receive 50 percent of the revenue. If we were to get 50 percent of the revenues

from the Federal lands offshore that goes to the States, we would

be the richest Arab nation east of the Mississippi River.

[Laughter.]

It doesn’t even come close to that in this bill. We are talking

about 8 percent, I think, where we produce 90 percent of the funding. So the 50 percent——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAUZIN. I don’t have the time.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. For the record?

Mr. TAUZIN. If I could complete, then I will yield back. The 50

percent interior sharing is indeed meant to compensate States, as

I understand it, because of the fact of these interior mineral developments on Federal land does have the impact on the State, on its

citizenry, on the infrastructure. The development of offshore properties across the coastal States have enormous impacts. Mr.

Caldwell just point one out where I have lost scores of, thousands,

hundreds of miles of land in my district. I am going to represent

52

fish pretty soon. I will have to move to your State just to have a

district.

The point I am making is that the law has always treated the

coastal States will all of these impacts relatively unfairly. That it

literally left the——

Mr. MILLER. If I can reclaim a little bit of my time on that. We

also have developed over the years funds that have put in, you

know, $.5 billion at a minimum into some of these coastal States

to mitigate that impact. But we will get the formulas

eventually——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Would the gentleman yield? Would the gentleman yield, please?

Mr. MILLER. At my own peril, yes.

[Laughter.]

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Miller. I do want to say that,

in Idaho, because of the Federal policies, we are not able to generate any revenues from mining because mining has been shut

down. We are not able to generate PILT funds because logging has

been shut down. We are not able to generate funds from recreation

because roads have been closed. We have a serious problem out

there in the Western States and now we are faced with more land

acquisition from private property——

Mr. MILLER. Well, the wonderful thing about this bill is this requires none of that to happen for you to share in the benefits.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And we don’t even have such things as spotted

owl funds; not that we would ask for it, but it would help our counties. Thank you.

Mr. YOUNG. I want to thank the panel. I can assure you that we

do appreciate your testimony and we will be pursuing this. As you

can see, there is some difference of opinion, but I think we all have

our eye on the goal and that is reinvestment into fish and wildlife;

rehabilitation of the lands that are needed for fish and wildlife; and

the protection of private property rights. I do believe this does

much better than existing law and the existing action of the Appropriations Committee.

I cannot believe my good lady friend is supporting the Appropriations Committee that has done such a dastardly job, I mean, over

the years, of trying to solve problems. And I am crushed that the

13 Czars who sit over there on those committees and decide how

things should be split up and where it should go. And that is why

I am supporting the dedicated—yes.

Mr. MILLER. The notion that somehow the appropriations process

is the check on accountability——

[Laughter.]

It doesn’t look that way to the other 400 members of Congress.

Let me just say that.

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I could just respond to that,

I will tell you that at least there is some check that is elected, rather than no check that is clear.

Mr. MILLER. Well, we can work that out. But these guys are

just—they are good highway robbers.

Mr. YOUNG. I want to thank the panel for sitting there very patiently.

[Laughter.]

53

Mr. SIMPSON. As long as it is a personal check.

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. And thank you for your testimony and please

feel free to keep in communication with this Committee as we go

through this process. Thank you very much.

The next panel—the votes have been canceled because of the

snow. It is a snow day. So we will go ahead with panel three. Ms.

Sam Kathryn Campana, mayor of Scottsdale, Arizona; Mr. Paul

Hansen; Mr. Hurley Coleman; Mr. Grover Norquist; and Mr. Edward Norton. If there is enough room for all of you up there, if you

are all there. Who are we missing? Ms. Campana is here. Mr. Hansen is here. Mr. Coleman is here. Mr. Norquist. Mr. Norquist. Mr.

Norton. Mr. Norton, whoever you are, if you would get down to the

end of the table there.

I welcome the panel and Ms. Campana. How do I pronounce

that?

Ms. CAMPANA. Campana.

Mr. YOUNG. Campana. All right. You are first. From Arizona.

STATEMENT OF SAM KATHRYN CAMPANA, MAYOR, SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA, REPRESENTING U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, WASHINGTON, DC

Mayor CAMPANA. That is right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Committee, and it is on behalf of 1,100 cities represented by the U.S. Conference of Mayors that I am here today

and I want to thank you for this opportunity to appear.

Mr. YOUNG. Would you move the mike closer please? This is a

bad room sometimes. Thank you.

Mayor CAMPANA. Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to appear today—although I must say I left 85 degree weather back in

Scottsdale, so it is tempered a bit by that fact—to present testimony supporting the increased funding for the Land and Water

Conservation Fund and for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program, UPARR.

For far too long, we believe the Federal Government has not fulfilled the commitment it made over 30 years ago when it created

the Land and Water Conservation Fund program to ensure that all

Americans would have access to nearby parks and recreation resources. So we applaud the leadership of you, Mr. Chairman, in

forging this bipartisan bill that would restore funding to the statewide program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and

UPARR. We also applaud the Ranking Minority Member, Congressman George Miller, for his passionate leadership on this issue

for many years and the proposals that he has made in this legislation.

The benefits of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and

UPARR can deliver to local communities and neighborhoods many

assets. The urban parks, recreation areas, and open space are critical to the vitality of the Nation’s cities and the citizens we serve.

Urban sprawl is threatening our natural open space. The demand

for parks has skyrocketed and the backlog of necessary maintenance and repairs continue to grow. The Land and Water Conservation Fund and UPARR will help provide for the park down

the street where parents play ball with their sons and daughters,

where toddlers explore a playground, and where the neighborhood

54

soccer team practices, where our teenagers go to just blow off

steam, and where seniors can walk along these park paths.

In my hometown of Scottsdale, Arizona, there are several examples of the direct community benefit resulting from the Land and

Water Conservation Fund. Remember Arizona is a conservative,

Western State and, as I travel through Scottsdale, I don’t have to

go far without encountering these community amenities. For example, the Land and Water Conservation Fund provided funding for

the park where Scottsdale’s first community swimming pool is located. Since then, Chestnut neighborhood park, Eldorado Park’s

lake, Jackrabbit Park, Scottsdale Bikeways, Chapparal Tennis

Court lighting, and Vista Del Camino spray pads were funded in

part through Land and Water Conservation funds.

Scottsdale received 20 Land and Water Conservation Fund

grants from 1965 through 1984, totaling $2.1 million, but these

funds were leveraged into $4.4 million. In Arizona alone, $46 million worth of Land and Water Conservation Funds accounted for

$92 million of projects since the inception of the fund. And those

are only small examples of many worthy projects throughout the

country that have been supported by these funds.

But, without question, the greatest current concern of the Scottsdale community is the preservation of thousands of acres of pristine Sonoran Desert and mountains that are undeveloped and lie

within Scottsdale city limits. As a matter of fact, our citizens were

so committed to preserving this land that in 1995, they took the

unprecedented step of approving by a wide margin, of .2 percent

sales tax increase to preserve over 16,000 acres of the scenic

McDowell Mountains and Sonoran Desert.

Three years later, 80 percent of the proposed area has been pre- served, using $132 million in voter-approved sales tax dollars. In

November, the Scottsdale community overwhelmingly approved another measure to expand the current preserve by 19,000 acres.

Clearly, the preservation of this unique open space, with desert,

mountains, Saguaro cactus, and wildlife, is a natural resource that

Scottsdale citizens want to leave as a legacy for future generations.

As a matter of fact, one-third of Scottsdale land mass, 60 of the 185

square miles, will be held forever in perpetuity.

So we urge you to revitalize Land and Water Conservation Fund

and the UPARR programs so that these Federal dollars can be

matched with millions in local dollars. When the Nation’s mayors

gathered for our 66th annual conference of mayors last June in

Reno, we unanimously passed a resolution in support of the funding of the Land and Water Conservation and UPARR programs.

While we strongly support funding for the statewide program of the

Land and Water Conservation Fund that are called for under H.R.

701 and H.R. 798, we also encourage Congress to allow cities to

apply directly for these funds, rather than just relying on the

States to pass them through. In addition, we would ask you to

allow UPARR funds to be used for land acquisition and maintenance of local parks and recreation programs.

In closing, I want to pass along a theory to which local officials

subscribe. Former U.S. Conference of Mayors President and Knoxville Mayor Victor Ashe is fond of saying that our most important

park is not Yellowstone, but the one that is down the street that

55

serves our children every day. The importance of our parks and

open spaces cannot be underestimated.

The State and local assistance of Land and Water Conservation

Fund and UPARR are two resources we should pursue and utilize

so all Americans can continue to enjoy the Nation’s wonderful natural resources and the outdoors. So, again, on behalf of the U.S.

Conference of Mayors, we thank you for your interest in this revitalization and offer any assistance that we can provide as you draft

this important legislation. Thank you for this opportunity.

[The prepared statement of Mayor Campana may be found at the

end of the hearing.]

Mr. TAUZIN. [presiding] Thank you very much, Mayor Campana.

And now we are pleased to welcome Mr. Paul Hansen, executive

director of the Izaak Walton League of America in Gaithersburg,

Maryland. Mr. Hansen.

STATEMENT OF PAUL HANSEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, IZAAK

WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am Paul Hansen, executive director of the Izaak Walton

League. I am here today with the League’s conservation director,

Jim Mosher, and I appreciate the opportunity to present the views

of the Izaak Walton League on these legislative proposals, which

we believe offer a truly historic opportunity to significantly advance

conservation of important natural resources. The Izaak Walton

League is now in its 77th year. We have 50,000 members working

nationwide and 325 chapters. It is our members who set our conservation policy and it is on their behalf that I provide these comments.

It is our view that this is an especially critical and auspicious

time to secure a reliable and overdue financial commitment to our

Nation’s natural resources. These legislative proposals demonstrate

exactly the kind of leadership, determination, and cooperation necessary to accomplish this task. I would like to share with you my

wish and that of all of our members that we see parties work together to achieve this goal—a major victory for natural resources—

in this session of the Congress. We are deeply committed to working with you and others to that end.

We have a special stake in this debate. The Land and Water

Conservation Fund was a project of the Izaak Walton League of

America 35 years ago. Our conservation director Joe Penfold first

conceived of the fund and wrote much of the original legislation as

part of the outdoor recreation resources review committee. Our

members fought for the fund hard then and continue to fight for

it today.

We have, however, over the years, been very distressed to watch

as the original promise of this program was robbed, year after year,

in the appropriations process. We have watched in dismay how $13

billion of important land conservation efforts have gone unmet

while these funds were diverted for unintended purposes. I cannot

overstate the importance to our members of full and permanent

funding for this program. If we are to take advantage of this historic opportunity, I think we need to all put our cards on the table

and do it soon and come to terms on a bill we can all agree to beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:27 Jan 29, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\56081 pfrm08 PsN: 56081
56

cause, as we all know, our great hurdle will be with the appropriators.

We certainly understand the concern of western States regarding

Federal land acquisition, especially where some States already

have large portions of their acreage in Federal ownership. However, we are concerned about the provision in section 202 of H.R.

701 requiring that two-thirds of the funds for Federal acquisitions

be spent east of the 100th meridian. We think that this provision

creates an unwise and, we think, unnecessary restriction that could

well result in lost opportunities to conserve important and critical

western big game habitat and other resources.

The Payment in Lieu of Taxes provision in Title II should alleviate many of the concerns relating to the financial impact of Federal

land ownership in these States. And we should acknowledge these

public lands provide an economic resource to the States, a significant one, and to the local communities as well. They contribute to

quality of life that draws visitors from around the country who support many local economies, whether for hunting and fishing or

other forms of outdoor recreation.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund also provides for important State conservation and outdoor recreation needs. And, as you

know, funding for this portion of the fund has been neglected in recent years. These stateside programs can provide resources that

States and localities need to help control and mitigate urban

sprawl, an important limiting factor in hunter access.

For the record, it is fair to say that, given a choice between the

funding levels provided for in H.R. 701 and H.R. 798, we would

predictably choose the latter, which provides more funding for both

Federal and State sides of the program.

Our States do have the lion’s share of responsibility to provide

for the needs of wildlife under their stewardship. Indeed, they have

a legal obligation to do so. With a few notable exceptions, the

States are not meeting this responsibility. Twenty States currently

contribute no general or dedicated funds to their fish and wildlife

agencies and 21 other States provide less than 20 percent of the

budgets. These agencies are entirely supported by hunters and anglers, through license fees and through the existing Federal aid

programs.

Of course, the end result of this is that non-game species are not

adequately supported and we need to see that these programs will

be targeted to non-game species. The State matching provisions

should provide incentive for States to do better in their job of managing fish and wildlife.

We feel that the proposed 90-10 Federal-State initial matching

ratio misses an opportunity. We would encourage a matching requirement on the order of 25 percent at the onset, in order to challenge States to do their fair share, consistent with the existing formulas in Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson. We don’t want

this to be a Federal giveaway; we want it to be a partnership for

wildlife and land acquisition with the States. It is equally important that State matching funds be made available.

Last, given the realities of budget constraints, we want to reiterate our opposition to seeking any budget offset that may be necessary from other important programs in Function 300, the NatVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:27 Jan 29, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\56081 pfrm08 PsN: 56081
57

ural Resources Environment account. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is

not an acceptable solution.

Finally, last October, Chairman Young and myself and others,

Representative Miller, you were there as well, were in the Oval Office for the signing of the historic Act, for the National Fish and

Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, which passed in this chamber

with only one dissenting vote. We think we have an opportunity to

repeat history with the legislation proposed here today and we

would like to challenge all parties to try to set aside politics, organizational and personal agendas, and to work together on this important initiative. We have a unique and fragile window of opportunity to accomplish an historic conservation measure. If we do it

boldly, not shrinking from the size of the task or the magnitude of

the financial need and if we do it right, not trading one valued resource for another, then we can do it now and in a way that will

allow us to celebrate together.

Finally, we are concerned about possible incentives for increased

oil and gas development that might be created by this bill. We hear

the concerns of some of our coastal colleagues. We are certainly reassured by statements by both bills’ sponsors that were willing to

continue cooperative efforts to resolve these concerns and we would

like to encourage you in that direction.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

[Additional material submitted by Mr. Hansen follows:]

58

59

60

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman very much.

The Chair and I are pleased to welcome Mr. Hurley Coleman,

Jr., the director of Wayne County Division of Parks of Westland,

Michigan, for his statement. Mr. Coleman.

STATEMENT OF HURLEY COLEMAN, JR., DIRECTOR, WAYNE

COUNTY DIVISION OF PARKS, WESTLAND, MICHIGAN

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to Chairman

Young, to Representative Miller, and to all of the members of the

Committee. I am very happy to be here. I appreciate the support

that I have received even this day and comments from Congressman Dingell who is a good friend. And I hope my anxiety doesn’t

show through here because I am really, really nervous and I will

have spent all this time stuttering and won’t make my points.

I am sitting here with about absolutely thousands of local park

and recreation agency leaders who are invisible by their presence,

physically, but are certainly supportive of the position that you are

taking. I think that this Committee and this issue has energized

public parks and recreation in a way that I haven’t seen in the 23

years I have been involved in this field. I am sort of like the psalmist who mused while the fire burned inside and the fire is excitement that I feel that is generated because of these two bills, because they speak so closely to what is really happening on the local

front, at home.

Three years ago in Wayne County, which is the sixth largest

county in the country, there is a city called Detroit. You may have

heard of it. It is a very large city. It has an older park there, Chandler Park, and next to it is one of the oldest housing developments

in the country. And in this park, the condition of the park had deteriorated significantly and all those inherent problems with an old

park, but it created the perfect haven for things like gang activities

and drugs and strip dancing and one of the highest lists of police

calls in the whole community.

Wayne County wanted to dedicate some funding to parks and

recreation division because we are one of the oldest county park

systems in the country. In our efforts, I had met with the city director, Ernest Burkeen, and talked about needs and it turned out

that there is a significant need for a swimming facility in that part

of town. Wayne County didn’t have any park facilities in the city.

We went to community meetings and met with a lot of individuals

to determine if this was the right way to go.

It turns out that there was enough support throughout all of

Wayne County to pass a piece of legislation in Wayne County to

support parks and we invested in a multi-million dollar family

aquatic center. We built a pool and opened it up and the first season, police calls were reduced by 85 percent. We saw an absolute

culture of activity change in that park and in the neighborhood and

in the vicinity that surrounded it.

And what this points out is not unique in Wayne County, but

communities across the country have similar stories. We are all

competing for local funding. We are competing against police and

fire and health care. And crime prevention—these terms—crime

prevention and alternatives to anti-social behavior—have now become a part of the lexicon of everyone that is looking for funding.

61

At one time that was what parks and recreation folks talked about

all the time but now everybody is saying it. We do know that the

most aggressive solution to negative anti-social elements in a park

is the family picnic and that there are no geographic or economic

boundaries to the things that people consider important recreation,

which is why this moment is so important.

One of the reasons I am so excited is because I think this is one

of the most historic moments of a discussion that could ever occur

because the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Urban

Park And Recreation Recovery Act are examples of what can happen if the will, the political will, the process, and public involvement work together to make things happen. Because it is funding

that is outside of the normal budget process that really makes

things happen. And the reason that it is so important to occur here

is because the Federal Government is so important to local service

delivery.

If the Federal Government can work with us on a local level, it

would decrease the pressure on the Federal system to create new

Federal open spaces for recreation and open space. It would provide

the most efficient use of national dollars by placing the delivery responsibility close to the needs. It will assist in the Federal Government; it will assist us in responding to two important issues: crime

prevention and health care. And there is a natural connection between enhanced local recreation opportunities and crime reduction,

along with the promotion of good health care habits.

I have submitted testimony that covers a lot of details and I hope

that that will be included in the proceedings here because I knew

I would be too nervous to remember everything. But as someone

who has dedicated their career to improving the quality of life in

a major metropolitan area, I consider this to be one of the most important moments in our Nation’s history for us and recreation. It

has been a long time since so much energy has been focused on improving the lot of Americans at home and I am trusting that you

and the other members are going to make the decisions that will

match the significance of this moment. I am trusting that you are

going to support full funding of these important items and make

a decision for tomorrow, today. I sit here hoping that I will have

an opportunity to answer questions because I knew I wasn’t going

to be able to say everything. Thanks again for allowing me this opportunity.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coleman may be found at the

end of the hearing.]

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you, Mr. Coleman. I want to hear you when

you are not nervous. That was a very excellent presentation.

[Laughter.]

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. TAUZIN. And now we are pleased to welcome—just arrived—

Mr. Grover Norquist, the president of the Americans for Tax Reform, Washington, DC. Mr. Norquist.

STATEMENT OF GROVER NORQUIST, PRESIDENT, AMERICANS

FOR TAX REFORM, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. NORQUIST. Hi. Thank you. Sorry. Came across town with all

the nice snow. I have submitted written testimony. I would just

62

like to say a few words as to why, on behalf of Americans for Tax

Reform, we oppose this legislation. Obviously it costs money and it

gets the government doing new things that it either hasn’t done in

the past or hasn’t done so much in the past.

But Americans for Tax Reform does the no-tax increase pledge.

We ask candidates for office to commit opposition to higher taxes.

And the answer is that, both at the Federal and at the State level,

the Federal Government already takes more money and more resources from American families than families should be required to

pay and more than the government needs for the legitimate functions of the government. So we have 209 members of the House,

41 members of the Senate, and 1,120 State legislators who sign

that pledge. I think, both in terms of tax revenue being taken from

the American people and spent by Washington and State capitals,

we are spending more than can be credibly asked.

The same is true of State and government ownership of land.

There is not an argument for more land. The government may

want to surrender some of the land that it controls or owns now,

particularly in the West, which for too long this city and this government has treated as if it was a colony in the way that it has

dealt with not allowing people out West to own land the way people

in the East do. I grew up in Massachusetts. We didn’t have to get

permission from Washington to use or privately own land in Massachusetts the way people do in Alaska and Nevada and other

States.

So the idea of putting more taxpayer dollars into taking land out

of private ownership, private stewardship into the hands of the

government is exactly the opposite of what we do when we invite

people from Poland and Czechoslovakia or the Czech Republic and

the Slovak Republic and the former Soviet Union and they ask for

advice on how one should run their economy. The first thing we do

is we tell them you shouldn’t have the government running steel

mills and owning land and doing things, because historically it

doesn’t work. And this something the Poles and the Rumanians

have learned over time.

And the government does not do a good job as a steward of land.

It does not do as good a job as private individuals do. P.J. O’Rourke

made the observation if you don’t understand this, go visit a public

restroom and a private restroom. They are different institutions

and they are treated differently based on who owns them and who

is or isn’t responsible for them.

I don’t see an argument for Federal ownership of land outside of

the military and national parks. We ought to be moving in the opposite direction from government ownership to private ownership

and private stewardship in order to better protect both the economy of our rural areas, but also the environment of our rural areas.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Norquist may be found at the

end of the hearing.]

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you, Mr. Norquist. And, finally on this panel,

Mr. Edward Norton, the vice president of public policy for the National Trust for Historic Preservation here in Washington, DC. Mr.

Norton.

63

STATEMENT OF EDWARD NORTON, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC POLICY, NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. NORTON. Thank you very much. My name is Edward Norton.

I am the vice president for public policy at the National Trust for

Historic Preservation. The mission of the National Trust is protecting the irreplaceable. And I am here today to speak for the historic resources in America.

I should begin by saying that I share my colleague’s enthusiasm—my colleagues to my right’s—enthusiasm for this hearing

today.

[Laughter.]

I wish to thank both the Chairman and Congressman Miller for

introducing their legislation and for providing this hearing today.

If I could use what I think is an appropriate metaphor, I hope

that, at the end of this process, we will have truly landmark legislation in which Congress provides full and permanent funding for

protecting both our natural and our historic resources. I have

worked on these issues now for almost 20 years, both as an advocate for the natural environment and the built environment. And,

like my colleagues, I agree that we have a very special window of

opportunity here that we should seize.

I am really here today on behalf of the National Trust and the

historic preservation community to make special plea for the historic preservation funds. The National Trust, of course, supports

full and permanent funding for the Land and Water Fund. We recognize the importance of protecting open space; providing parks

both national parks, State parks, and local parks for recreation,

wildlife protection, watershed protection, and a number of other

benefits.

But we are here to say that that historic environment and the

built environment is just as important as the natural environment.

And to make our case that the Historic Preservation Fund be included in any bill, full and permanent funding for the Historic

Preservation Fund be included in any bill that comes through this

Committee.

The Historic Preservation Fund, which was established under

the National Historic Preservation Act, provides a very critical

funding mechanism for protecting our historic resources. It is the

keystone of the partnership created by the National Historic Preservation Act between the Federal Government, State government,

State and local government, and also the private sector. It is really

a program that is the model of federalism. It achieves its benefits

with very little regulation, no land acquisition, and with a very

heavy reliance on the private sector. It is really a model, as I said,

of the relationship between the Federal Government, State and

local governments, and the private sectors.

It leverages hundreds of millions of dollars from State governments and the private sector. And, most important, you can see the

benefits and you can experience the benefits of historic preservation programs in almost every community in the United States, in

every one of your districts and the great landmarks that have been

saved, the buildings and historic districts that have been preserved, and in the communities that have been revitalized. And you

64

can see the need and the opportunity to continue this work and the

benefits that it will provide.

When I was preparing my testimony, I happened to look again

at a book called With Heritage So Rich. It was written in 1966,

sponsored by the United States Conference for Mayors and the

book is now out of print. Actually, the National Trust is going to

try to have this reprinted and if we do we will give it to each one

of you, because I really think, as it did then, it sounds a clarion

call for the importance of historic preservation and what it can do

to revitalize our communities.

This book was written at a time when the urban renewal and the

interstate highway system was having a very devastating impact

on many of our stable communities in cities and towns both large

and small across the United States. And it talked about the importance of reversing those trends. If you read the paper today and

heard in some of the testimony this morning the threat of so-called

sprawl and disinvestment in our cities, towns, and neighborhoods

and our historic landscape. The Historic Preservation Fund really

is a modest but very highly efficient Federal program for investing

and reinvesting in our existing communities. It provides monies for

the reuse of existing housing, commercial, and transportation infrastructure.

I really believe that if you look at the very modest levels of au- thorization for the Historic Preservation Fund, $150 million a year,

and the benefits that it confers, that it at least stands in equal importance to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. And it is a

fund and the use of that monies that has been undervalued, underappreciated, and, I would submit, underfunded. And we urge the

Committee to look at this very carefully and to provide for full and

permanent funding for the Historic Preservation Fund in this legislation. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Norton may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you very much, sir. That completes the panel.

The Chair recognizes himself briefly and all members for five minutes.

Let me first ask you, Mayor Campana, I know you would like to

have funding directly to the cities. One of the concerns that is constantly raised here, however, is that this allows for all sorts of new

State acquisitions of land, particularly in States where there is an

awful high percentage of State-owned property already. I was a

former State legislator. I recall, often, how the State had, in our

State, the process of providing 50-50 matches for Land and Water

Conservation Fund purchases. Doesn’t that process, by and of

itself, serve as a barrier to inappropriate funding for acquisitions

of land in a State? Isn’t it pretty tough to get the State to agree

on those kinds of thing and put up the money, Ms. Campana?

Mayor CAMPANA. We haven’t found that to be true, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, again, I will underscore that we are this

conservative Western State and our governor most recently created

the Arizona Preserve Initiative that is going to set aside matching

funds and we intend to take advantage of that. These are not government programs; these are citizen-voted-on mandates that are

happening, I think, all over the countryside. And we see it at the

65

local level over and over again. That is why the mayors think it

is so important.

Mr. TAUZIN. So there is a process where the local folks through

their legislature, through the process of providing funds either decide it is appropriate or inappropriate to add to any land or water

acquisitions. Is that correct?

Mayor CAMPANA. I believe so.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Hansen, you obviously are concerned, literally,

for, I think, permanent funding for many of the goals of your organization. Aren’t you concerned that the legislation you have chosen

to support does not contain permanent funding while the one you

have not chosen to support does?

Mr. HANSEN. Well, we are certainly not here to pick winners. As

I emphasized, we do want to really encourage both approaches. I

was speaking more directly to the approach by which the funds are

obtained when I gave a little more of a high-sign to Mr.

Miller’s——

Mr. TAUZIN. But permanent funding is important to you, is it

not?

Mr. HANSEN. Permanent funding is very important.

Mr. TAUZIN. In fact, Mr. Coleman, how important is permanent

funding for the extraordinary circumstances you described to us of

the deterioration of parks and recreation systems?

Mr. COLEMAN. As a matter of fact, that probably rings very loudly on the local level, primarily because we always have this battle

of trying to figure out what we are going to be able to do with the

little funds we get in our normal fiscal processes. It is only when

there is a revenue potential outside of the normal budgeting process that we can really look at making improvements and that takes

some time to develop and plan to look forward to. In the State of

Michigan, we have developed a trust fund for our statewide funding and it is set aside and dedicated for that purpose and I think

that restoration to a trust fund type of situation is really important.

Mr. TAUZIN. Let me turn to Mr. Norquist. Does the Americans

for Tax Reform oppose all entitlement spending in America?

Mr. NORQUIST. Well, we would certainly argue that we shouldn’t

be getting in the business of adding additional ones. I was pleased

that Congress voted to reform welfare and move decisions out to

the States and that ended a certain entitlement——

Mr. TAUZIN. The point I am making is, some of them are not so

bad, are they? I mean, some of them make sense. Why not conservation programs, particularly for coastal States that are losing

so much as we are in Louisiana? Why is that such a bad idea to

make sure there is a source of funding on a permanent basis to

make sure you can begin addressing what are macro conditions out

there?

Mr. NORQUIST. I understand that sometimes people in Washington look at it from the standpoint of permanent funding. I represent taxpayers. This is a permanent cost you are talking about.

There are two sides to this. If somebody is going to be handing out

money to other people, they first have to take it by force from other

people. And the idea that we have permanent funding means we

66

have a permanent hand in people’s pockets. And that is the objection.

I mean, I am not sure that we want all of the permanent trusts

or spending programs that we have today. Certainly we are finally

getting out from under the damage that was done by the welfare

programs by this city, out from under the damage that was done

by the agriculture programs that were run by this city. I think we

should be looking to get less spending and less control and less resources flowing through the political process and more in the hands

of individuals who create the wealth and who own it.

Mr. TAUZIN. Well, I am not going to win you over on this, I know.

But let me point out a couple of things. One, it is not a fund for

34 States. All 50 States and all 5 territories share. The National

Governors Association has, in fact, endorsed it on that basis.

Mr. NORQUIST. The National Governors Association is a government-funded, taxpayer-funded, lobby that we wish was not using

taxpayer funds to lobby for these sorts of things.

Mr. TAUZIN. I understand. I also want to point out that the private property right protections in this bill go beyond current law.

That current law allows for expropriation, condemnation authority.

Now that is eliminated in this bill. It allows for condemnation authority for adjacent properties to inholdings. That is eliminated. It

is only acquisitions within inholdings that are permitted from willing sellers.

And, most importantly, I want to point out, you mention that it

would hurt the tax base. This bill actually provides for full funding

to the local communities, whereas it, the PILT program, has been

funded at 60 percent. So that actually the tax base is enhanced in

here. I understand you don’t like the money spent because the

money has to come from someone, but the tax base is actually reestablished in the bill.

And, finally—and I will let you comment and we will end it—

that this also provides for a great deal of State-based programming, as opposed to Federal-based programming, which I know

has, again, it is just the same dollars, but the point I am making

is that it does fit the conservative mold of having the decisions

being made on the local level rather than so much on the Federal

level. Those are simple points I want to make, recognizing I am not

going to win you over in spite of that. And you can respond and

then I will yield.

Mr. NORQUIST. Yes. From the taxpayers’ perspective, this is a

particularly horrid bill. It gets the government in the business of

owning more resources and more land, rather than less. If we were

talking to people from Poland, we would be giving them the opposite advice, not telling them to move towards greater State ownership and State control both of the means of production and of land.

I did fill out the form that was sent to me. Here. The Americans

for Tax Reform does not receive any government money and I think

the people who are arguing for spending more government money

might want to be up on the table as to whether or not they are getting government money now. The Americans for Tax Reform is particularly concerned that in this town we have whole institutions

that take taxpayer money, Federal, State, and local, and then come

and lobby with that taxpayer money to argue for more taxpayer

67

money. That is why the taxpayers have been losing for so long and

it has been so expensive for taxpayers.

But, as you know, you talk about property rights being guaranteed, we can have the property rights groups from around the country bring to you examples of people who have found their voluntary

sale of property to the government to be less than voluntary because of harassment from bureaucracies and from various agencies

that would do justice to some other country in another time, rather

than American principles.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank you. I don’t have any quarrel with that. In

fact, I respect your position a great deal in some of those respects.

I would only point out I would rather ride on a Federal highway

system in America than the one in Poland.

[Laughter.]

I yield to my friend from California, Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding and, Mr. Hansen, if I might—just because obviously one of the purposes of this

hearing is to try to find out what changes or amendments that

need to be thought about to the text of both of these bills—and

back to the issue of game, non-game, native species, what have

you, what is your position now? Because I think your testimony is

a little different than a previous letter we had on how to make sure

that this range of habitat needs and species protection is taken

care of.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Miller, Mr. Chairman, the Izaak

Walton League has been quite consistent in that we realize, as Mr.

Waller and others have pointed out to you, that non-game is the

overwhelming need for the State agencies. Game species are currently supported by license fees, by the Pittman-Robertson fund,

and non-game, there are maybe $10 million out of $100 million

need that is funded in any fashion. So we believe that these funds

need to be primarily applied to non-game.

Mr. MILLER. Okay. That is helpful because the previous witness

and I am just trying to—because, obviously, this is an area we

have discussed among ourselves and discussed with many of the organizations to try to figure out how you do this properly.

Mr. HANSEN. Right. We have indicated our acceptance of having

this be a subaccount of the PR fund because the PR fund has been

around now for 60 years. It is functioning. It is functioning well.

It has been highly successful. And so we think that it would just

be——

Mr. MILLER. Okay. Well, we obviously would like to continue this

discussion after the hearing about how this is done with you and

others about this.

Mr. Coleman, I want to thank you for your testimony. You know,

one of the early supporters of UPARR, obviously, has been law enforcement that has just, you know, demanded of cities and others

that they have a sort of an additional arrow in their quiver, if you

will, in dealing with young people, in dealing with the problem that

so many parents are concerned about what happens to children,

you know, in the late afternoon. My generation grew up with recreational programs and young kids today don’t necessarily have

that available to them.

68

And that kind of support, really universal from the cities and

others about UPARR, I think, is very important to this legislation.

And I think the case you cite in Detroit on the large and small

scale can be cited elsewhere where the opportunity to change the

dynamics of that neighborhood, of that facility, of making it into a

first-class facility changes people’s behavior throughout the neighborhood. It becomes really an engine for change. So thank you very

much for your support and for your testimony.

And Ms. Campana, I want to thank you also on behalf of the

Conference of Mayors. I think, you know, you make a very important point here. I would say, contrary to what Mr. Norquist suggests, people are voting all of the time with their pocketbooks about

these issues with bond issues for parks, whether they are local

parks or whether they are regional or State facilities; the setting

aside of open space is rather dramatic in this country and is growing at a significant rate.

This was a fund that was, in fact, under our democratic process,

it was promised to this Nation to protect these and provide for the

acquisition and development of these resources. If there is a faulting of this democratic process, it is that the Congress went back

on its promise when the OCS development was put in place in

1964. So I want to thank you also for your testimony.

Finally, before my time runs, I just want to say, Mr. Norquist,

your comment here about Federal ownership of land and stewardships of land is fairly contrary to the record. In fact, we are a

model worldwide for what we have been able to do in this country

with the foresight and the development of these lands and the protection of these lands. In fact, we have a list much longer than we

will ever be able to satisfy from emerging democracies all over the

world who look at our national park system, who look at our wilderness systems, who look at our regional systems, and are now

coming to us to say how can we develop and how can we provide

this kind of protection elsewhere in the world?

Actually, Mr. Norton, I read the other day you are leaving to go

off to China, right? To try and help develop a park system, or a

park, I guess, not a——

Mr. NORTON. Park system.

Mr. MILLER. Park system there. And this is coming from all over

the world, because they have recognized a number of things. Not

only is this about good resource management, these also have become huge engines of economic activity as the population becomes

more mobile, has the ability to travel, and all the rest of it, that

these, in fact, are now major contributors to the GNP, if you will,

of those nations. And it is about good stewardship. And I think, you

know, very, very proud of what this Nation has done with the history of the stewardship of these Federal resources and also the

partnership in helping States and localities develop their resources.

Thank you.

Mrs. CUBIN. [presiding] Mrs. Chenoweth. You are recognized for

five minutes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I do want to

make some comments with regards to the previous chairman’s select comments about the condemnation of private property. Actually the bill, I am sorry to say, does not extend authority for protecVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:27 Jan 29, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\56081 pfrm08 PsN: 56081
69

tion of private property rights beyond existing law because, actually, it does acknowledge the fact that nothing in this Act shall be

construed to limit any right to compensation that exists under the

Constitution or any other laws. It doesn’t do anything to reign in

the rules and regulations under which the agencies are imposing

a de facto condemnation without paying landowners under the wetlands provisions, under provisions drafted in the form of rules and

regulations under the Endangered Species Act, and many other

Federal programs.

In fact, the bill does state that no monies available—this is on

page 21 of the bill—it says, you know, you can’t condemn unless,

I mean, you can go through the Constitution to condemn. But it

also states that no monies available—under this paragraph for

Federal purposes—shall be used for condemnation of any interest

and property. So what we are doing here, you have got to understand, is we are allowing for condemnation, but we just don’t allow

for payment to the landowners. We are only allowing payment to

a willing seller, under coerced conditions. And I think that is very,

very sad.

In addition, the chairman, previous chairman-select, had mentioned that this bill’s only purpose is to pay inholdings. It goes far

beyond that. There is a little two letter in their, beyond the word

inholdings, it says, ‘‘or any other Federal program authorized by

Congress.’’

And, finally, the PILT payments. The fund will be controlled

wholly at the discretion of the Secretary of Interior or the Secretary

of Agriculture. So I am less than sanguine about what this bill will

do for PILT.

I do want to ask Ms. Campana. You are from a State that has

only 3.5 percent private property, I think, or some very small number. Isn’t there a need to look at funding for the State component

of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, instead of involving a

piece of legislation that may impose more restrictions on your ability to govern in your States and in your cities?

Mayor CAMPANA. Actually, about 16 percent of Arizona is held in

private hands and the rest of it is public, including even Indian

reservations along with national, State, local parks. And possibly

compelling was your argument about 95 percent of the land is undeveloped, only 5 percent developed.

But in a community like Scottsdale, where if none of my citizens

are around, I will confess to you, that 10,000 people moved to

Scottsdale last year. One hundred thousand people to the valley. So

the open space that is next to the people who were there before is

critically important and preservation of these historic lands and

landscapes, they are overwhelmingly supporting these by 65 percent, 70 percent, the most recent election that we had was 75 percent of the people are supporting these.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Let me ask the gentlelady. How are your

counties funded? I know that in some of your counties—and I stand

corrected on that percentage—but some of your counties have only

3.3 percent private ownership. How do these counties fund their

schools and their roads?

Mayor CAMPANA. Our counties, Ms. Chairman and Congresswoman Chenoweth—and I am an Idaho girl by the way—some of

70

them don’t even have home rule. As a matter of fact, we don’t have

county home rule. So this really is a State and local issue, which

is why, again, representing the U.S. Conference of Mayors, I would

like to ask for consideration that these be able to be applied for at

the local level.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I agree with you there. I do want to ask Grover Norquist—sometimes I think we are falling through the looking

glass backwards with proposals such as this. I know that you are

very involved in what this Congress is talking about in truth in

budgeting. We talk about truth in budgeting and trust funds and

many other things. I would like you to elaborate as to whether this

bill comports in its funding mechanism with our concern about

truth in budgeting.

Mr. NORQUIST. Well, short answer is no. I think that the challenge here, though, is we are creating additional entitlements, we

are spending other people’s money. I mean, everybody seems to be

all excited about all the wonderful things they are going to do with

money they take from other people. Then we are told everybody at

the local level is willing to spend this money. Well, fine, then spend

it at the local level, but somehow we are going to get the Federal

Government to take it all because everybody at the local level is

so excited about doing this so we are going to make them do it.

Somehow, the argument that everybody wants to do it so the

first thing we have to do is make them do it strikes me that perhaps the first part was disingenuous or perhaps they are doing

something that everybody is going to do anyway on this.

I mean, this question of spending these quantities of money to

take land out of private stewardship and put it in the hands of the

Federal Government and, again, if Mr. Miller was here, we could

have people from California and the rest of the property rights

movement around the country give examples of how Federal ownership of land is not the same thing as good stewardship of land.

There seems to be this religious belief that if you put something

in the hands of the government, they will take care of it.

For too long, this city did that to poor people and did an awful

lot of damage to poor people with their welfare state, claiming they

were helping people all the time while they were destroying families, destroying neighborhoods, and killing people’s futures. Just because the government does it, doesn’t mean it happens or it works

well.

Mr. Miller may make the case that we are less destructive of our

Federal lands than other countries. That is probably true. I

wouldn’t doubt that. But when you put stuff in the government’s

hands, nobody is in charge of it, at the same time that everybody

is in charge of it.

You also end up, we are going to put this—I mean, you are talking about certain individuals are going to making these decisions,

the opportunity for corruption and buying property. A business

school professor once said there are two ways to get rich: sell something to the government or buy something from the government.

And this is an opportunity for a lot of people who make political

contributions to get very rich. This is written to create political corruption.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

71

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. John, the chairman yields you five minutes.

Mr. JOHN. Thank you very much, Mrs. Cubin. First, a couple of

comments and observations for Mr. Coleman. Of all the testimony

that we have heard today, yours had the most profound and realistic impact when you talked about the park over in the city of Detroit, about how it is in a real sense, a representation of why we

are here today.

In your 23 years working these issues, can you maybe give us a

synopsis of where the funding has come from; has it been a funding

stream that you could count on to develop parks and havens for

helping kids and giving them, the children of America, a little place

to play, rather than to get in trouble? Would you share with the

Committee your experience with parks and the funding streams to

construct them.

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you to the Chair and to the Congressman,

the one important thing that has to be remembered, especially in

the urban areas, is that most of the park systems were initiated

because an individual or some individuals donated park lands for

the communities to be preserved and used as open space. From

that, the communities then took the responsibility of maintaining

them. The development of those facilities and the expansion of

those facilities came as a result of specialized programs of development through grants, in the most part in most communities,

through grants that came from Federal Government or came from

the State government programs or it came from the private sector.

The dollars that are dedicated to operate are very finite because

most of the public agencies are general fund. The service level

never decreases, but the opportunity for resources from the general

fund is always limited. And, over the years, even as the Land and

Water Conservation fund and UPARR were developed, in the initial development of them, it was really exciting to know that there

would be a pool of resources that we could apply for, we would

have to come up and match those grants, and then use them to

make improvements in restoration and acquisition.

Over the years, those funds dwindled because the dollars dedicated to the Land and Water Conservation Fund and UPARR dwindled to almost nothing. This is the most aggressive opportunity

that we have seen at least in the last 10 or 15 years to try to put

some dollars aside. The last time I think was about maybe seven

years ago that I saw an opportunity for UPARR to be funded. It

was funded at $5 million for the entire country. Five million dollars

for over 50,000 agencies to apply for to match their dollars, match

with local dollars. Now that is minuscule.

I think, as one of the other panelists indicated, all over the country local issues are being passed because the local citizens realize

the importance of parks and recreation. And, in our case, there was

a millage passed for the first time in the history of Wayne County

to support parks and recreation. And Wayne County’s funding had

been deteriorating forever. So that deterioration on the local level

can only be supplemented when there is a source outside of the

local funding source to provide for those special projects’ renovation, restoration, and acquisition.

Mr. JOHN. Right. Thank you very much. And, Mayor Campana,

I would just like to also comment on your presence here today

72

which I think has been very eye-opening. One of the differences between the two bills is the operation and maintenance money in

H.R. 798 which is provided for national parks. Do you believe that

the operations and maintenance funding should become a part of

House legislation or should funding be provided for acquisitions, as

is provided for in both of those bills.

Mayor CAMPANA. Operation and maintenance is critical, I think.

I, again, don’t want to have to pick and choose between these bills

and hope that there will be a consensus reached that will address

all of this.

Mr. JOHN. Right.

Mayor CAMPANA. But it would be critical for us for operation and

maintenance. Again, in some of these western States where there

is a large amount of open space available, but there really aren’t

the funds set aside for maintenance or enhancement, you know, or

renovation as was talked about back East. So I do think that is

critical.

Mr. JOHN. Okay. Thank you very much.

And finally, Mr. Norquist, do you believe that monies which are

collected for a specific purpose should be used for that specific purpose?

Mr. NORQUIST. It depends what the purpose is. That is not a yes

or no question.

Mr. JOHN. Do you believe in trust funds?

Mr. NORQUIST. I believe they exist, yes. I have seen them.

[Laughter.]

Mr. JOHN. I believe that too. That is an easy one.

Mr. NORQUIST. When you talk about raising money for a specific

purpose, this is a challenge——

Mr. JOHN. If I may continue. I want to make clear that we are

not talking about raising any additional monies. These are monies

that are already being collected as Federal offshore oil and gas royalties. This is not money coming out of individual taxpayers’ dollars

that you were speaking of earlier. This is from original revenues

that are going to be redistributed into a trust fund for a specific

purpose. Go ahead.

Mr. NORQUIST. Well, and if it wasn’t done that, it would be used

to pay down the national debt or to save social security as President Clinton wants. So this money is coming from somewhere and

taxpayer monies will fill in the void somewhere. When you tax oil

production, that is not free money, that raises the cost of oil to

every American consumer. So when you raise the price to consumers, either through regulatory burdens or through tax burdens,

consumers and individuals eventually pay that. This is not free

money somehow. This doesn’t come from nowhere. It comes out of

the pockets of the American people at one level or another.

I think there is a real challenge because politically we see this

in State, local, Federal Government. Politicians say let us spend

money over here and let us allocate money for this particular item,

rather than any sort of effort to prioritize between them or whether

or not——

Mr. JOHN. But don’t you think that, by setting up particular

trust funds, as in the transportation trust fund as we did last year,

i.e. the social security trust fund that we are talking about now.

73

We are prioritizing. A prime example is the social security trust

fund that we all want to preserve. Don’t you think that a trust

fund signals to the taxpayers and the people that we represent that

these are our priorities, and that is why we set these things up?

Today this Federal offshore money, $4 billion of it, goes into the

National Treasury and is spent on a myriad of things that you and

I would not agree with, including some wasteful Federal programs.

What we are attempting to do here is to identify a need—and everyone here and, I believe, in America, recognizes conservation as

a need. You say you represent taxpayers. I represent 4 million taxpayers in Louisiana that all are in support of this piece of legislation because of the damage being done to our State. Don’t you

think that sets a priority of spending in a way that is consistent

with the wants and the needs of the taxpayer?

Mr. NORQUIST. Well, if people wanted to do something, they do

need the Federal Government to come in with money to do it. They

can do it on their own. This land is not not there. It exists. It is

just privately owned. People are talking about having the government buy it, but what is going to happen is, instead of having land

privately owned, the State or the Feds are going to by it. There is

not more land. The same amount of land. It is just a question of

who is in control and this city has a history of wanting to move

that control out of the hands of towns and communities and individuals and into the hands of States and Federal Governments.

I think that is a mistake. I think private people take care of land

than the government does. I mean, if your goal is to help take care

of land.

Mr. JOHN. Well, and, again, an underlying fact in this piece of

legislation is that there must be a willing seller and a willing buyer

before that transaction takes place.

One final question——

Mr. NORQUIST. I made the point that that isn’t always the case.

And Mr. Tauzin suggested it wasn’t necessary to have the property

rights people come in to walk through that, but we can if you are

not aware of cases where taxpayers have been coerced into selling,

their property taken away and diminished by Federal regulations,

not voluntary.

Mr. JOHN. There is no person in Congress more supportive of the

rights of property owners than myself. And I respectfully disagree

with your contention in this particular case. And, of course, that is

what this hearing is all about.

One final observation, just to try to see where you are coming

from. Recently the Federal Emergency Management Agency,

FEMA, stated that it was going to get involved in some coastal

projects because they felt that they could save taxpayers dollars by

being more proactive in support of coastal restoration. When a hurricane hits Federal taxpayer’s dollars are provided for disaster assistance. By getting involved in some of these coastal projects, that

they could maybe prevent or actually save dollars by reducing the

amount of damage inflicted. Do you think that it is a good stewardship of the taxpayers’ dollars to be doing things like this?

Mr. NORQUIST. I am not an expert at what FEMA is talking

about doing, so I don’t know.

74

Mr. JOHN. Well, the fact is by funding coastal restoration projects

and making sure that we preserve barrier islands that shield coastal communities from being flooded or dismantled by a hurricane we

actually are saving taxpayers’ dollars. And that is the point that

I am trying to get across, that these are the kinds of projects that

we are looking at in H.R. 701.

Mr. NORQUIST. Okay. I am not an expert on that. I would defer

to some of the people who have lived through it. I know FEMA has

a checkered history on how it has treated people and that it is a

question of whether you want the Federal Government running an

insurance program in the first place, or at least running it the way

they do now.

Mr. JOHN. Thank you.

Mr. TAUZIN. [presiding] The gentleman’s time has expired. I

thank the gentleman. Let me thank the panel, unless the

gentlelady has additional time. Let me just wrap by a couple of observations. One, I think the gentleman from Louisiana is trying to

make the point, and I want Mr. Hansen to comment on this, that

there is some connection between the money being derived and its

purpose, as we collect highway taxes to build highways.

If the money that is being derived is income from Federal lands,

isn’t it a good purpose to use some of that money to, in fact, prevent the loss of lands and Federal lands or to enhance through

maintenance and proper spending, the quality of that land? As long

as it is owned by all the people, why have it deteriorate and go to

waste and lose 35 square miles a year in Louisiana if, in fact, the

money coming from production of Federal lands might be used to

preserve and protect that land from further loss and degradation?

Isn’t maintenance, therefore, Mr. Hansen, a key ingredient of this

formula?

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I think we would all agree that

maintenance is a key component of how we want to see our public

lands treated. I think there are certainly some concerns that this

program not take the place of existing programs. That this be an

additional program.

Mr. TAUZIN. Yes.

Mr. HANSEN. Certainly, the basic premise of the Land and Water

Conservation Fund in both of these bills is that we take the depletion of a non-renewable resource and we take part of the revenue

from that to use to support renewable resources.

Mr. TAUZIN. Isn’t it much like income from a rental property

being used to refurbish the rental property so it can be maintained

in its income capacity or in its current state? Isn’t that the kind

of analogy we are talking about here? These are Federal lands producing Federal money and the concept is to turn this Federal

money back into preserving and protecting these lands. In fact, to

make sure that the purpose for which these lands were acquired

in the first place is maintained, that they do what they were supposed to do, enhance the quality of natural life on this property.

Mr. HANSEN. Exactly. We are keeping some seed for next year.

Mr. TAUZIN. And the final thought, Grover—again, I know I am

not going to convince you——

75

Mr. NORQUIST. You are talking about buying more land not taking—I mean, the Federal Government doesn’t take very good care

of the land it does own.

Mr. TAUZIN. Well, but let me make the final point, Grover, and

I will let you respond.

Mr. NORQUIST. And you guys want to use other people’s money

to buy more of it.

Mr. TAUZIN. Yes. I happen to agree with you, you know, as an

advocate for property rights when Federal regulations take away a

person’s right to use his property, that that is a taking under the

Fifth Amendment. You know of our efforts to make that the law

of our land in legislative language rather than requiring everybody

to go to court on an individual basis and win that civil right. It is

a civil right. We think there ought to be procedures and processes

for people to protect their civil rights in the ownership of private

property.

But such being the case, the argument we have always made is

that if someone has some property that the Federal Government

has said is so important for the national interest, it is a beautiful

wildlife preservation area, that, rather then allowing you to destroy

it, we are going to have rules and regulations that say you can’t.

We are going to keep it for that purpose.

Wouldn’t it be much better to have a fund where the government

can acquire it rather than simply tell people you can own it and

pay taxes on it, but we are not going to let you use it? Wouldn’t

it be better to have a system whereby that person, having been deprived of their property, in fact, can simply surrender the title and

be compensated as in an acquisition, rather than the current state

of the law?

What I am saying is, I know the perfect. Perfect would be that,

in those kinds of circumstances, that person should have a right to

seek compensation for the damages those regulations did to the use

of his property. But is, absent a perfect world where we can win

those battles, wouldn’t it be better to have a world where at least

people could be compensated as in an acquisition for property

whose right they only have left is to pay taxes on it?

Mr. Norquist.

Mr. NORQUIST. Well, we have in the United States some 30 to

40 percent of the land in the country owned or controlled by government now. The land that is just timber land or grazing land and

other land could be sold off to have the revenues to allow people

to buy some land that was perceived as important to the government that they haven’t stolen or confiscated yet. I mean, there is

a whole bunch out West. When you fly over the West, it is empty

out there. And there is an awful lot of land that the Federal Government owns or controls that would be under much better stewardship in private hands. Sell that off and use those resources.

Unfortunately, some people, for ideological reasons, the same

people who thought that the steel mills in Poland should be run by

the government, think that land should be owned by the government. And that is just wrong. Historically it is wrong; economically

it is wrong. And there has been an effort to go after and denude

the rural areas of people and economic activity. There are a lot of

76

people who don’t like rural areas and this is part of that drive, to

drive people off those lands and, as Al Gore wants, into cities.

Mr. TAUZIN. Well, if we could win a land swap agreement in this

bill and we could win that on the floor, I suppose that might a

worthwhile venture. My point, however, is that, recognizing the political realities of what can be accomplished, it seems to me that

if the Federal Government is going to have an enormous cost one

day because Homer has to get relocated and FEMA has to spend

enormous sums out there to relocate hundreds of thousands of Cajuns who won’t be able to live any more in South Louisiana because

all of the land has eroded away. If we can spend, if you will, a

penny now to save it instead of the dollar later that it is going to

cost us to go through all of this process, that is good government,

wise use of the penny. Particularly if it is derived from the land

itself.

And, secondly, if, in the process of preserving this land, we can

tell those landowners for whom we literally have already taken

their rights of use away, at least you can get compensated in a government purchase. It seems to me there are some benefits there

that we have to weigh in the balance of where we are today.

I know that is no perfect answer. I know Ms. Chenoweth has gotten excited enough to want to join us here and I want to yield to

her now, at this time. Mrs. Chenoweth.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to comment about your Cajuns. I am sympathetic about your Cajuns not

having any more land because it is being eroded away, but I think

the point that Mr. Grover Norquist and I am making is the fact

that these same Cajuns or Native Americans or people who come

to America because of the hopes and dreams of being able to own

private property, they are not going to be able to live on the land

because we have eroded away the land that they could purchase

under private property agreements.

And I think, yes, in Louisiana, we need to take care of how your

State has suffered because of the public benefit, as we do in Idaho.

I would like to see map of Michigan, though, and see how many

red spots appear on the map of Michigan because of the impact of

this same program. So I don’t think it would exist to near the degree. But we don’t want to erode private property rights nor our

private property land base.

Mr. TAUZIN. Well, I don’t argue with the gentlelady. In fact, I see

this legislation as advancing in significant areas the cause of private property. But we can, as I said, we will debate these things

as we move along.

Let me thank you on behalf of the chairman, who had to run

early. This continues, as you know, tomorrow so that we will keep

up the process of public hearings until the Committee is prepared

to act. But I can assure the gentlelady and others, these concerns

are taken seriously. We will continue to work on the legislation to

correct it. With that, the Chair declares this hearing adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:53 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

77

H.R. 701 TESTIMONY SUBMITTED THROUGH MARCH 30, 1999, WILL BE HELD IN THE

COMMITTEE FILES AT 1324 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, DC.

Chizewski, Nicholas A.Bisbee, AZ

Nageak, Benjamin P.Mayor

Barrow, AK

Brabec, Dennis J.

People for the USA

Asbury, Donna L.

Project Wild

Thornton, Gordon

Thornton Dairy and Sheep Ranch

Baruch, Mary Ann

Mimbees, NM

Keeler, Judy

New Mexico State People For the USA

Vogler, Nancy

Lawson’s Landing

Allen, W. Ron

National Congress of American Indians

Beard, Daniel

National Audubon Society

Rodgers, Julie

Eureka, CA

Torcaso, Roy

Wheaton, MD

Lamson, Susan

National Rifle Association

Scenic America Board

Washington, D.C.

Speakes Jr., Leland

The Foundation for North American Wild Sheep

Baughman, John

Director

Wyoming Game and Fish Department

Geringer, Jim

Governor

State of Wyoming

Schlecht, Eric V.

National Taxpayers Union

Davis, Mark

Committee to Restore Coastal Louisiana

McCollough, Mark

Maine Chapter of the Wildlife Society

Wichers, Donna

COGEMA Resources, Inc.

Franklin, Thomas M. and Thompson, Edith R.

Maryland’s Team Wildlife

Miller, James

The Wildlife Society

Special Committee on Fisheries

Alaska State Legislature

Mumma, John

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Mumma, John

Colorado River Fish and Wildlife Council

Kitzhaber, John

Governor

State of Oregon

Williams, Nora

County Commissioner

78

Monroe County, Florida

Case, David J.

DJ Case & Associates

Kimball, John

Utah Department of Natural Resources

Peterson, Everett

Roseburg, OR

Johnson, Dave

Missouri Breaks Chapter, National Audubon Society

Perry, Gerald L. and Gayle L.

Tuscon, AZ

Baicich, Paul J.

The American Birding Association

Dann, Donald

Bird Conservation Network

Roell, Michael J.

Harrisburg, MO

Faulkner, Paul J.

Idaho Falls, ID

Weeks, W. William

The Nature Conservancy

Bennett, Carolyn

Evansville, IN

Winegrad, Gerald

American Bird Conservancy

Blythe, Dick

Indiana Grand Kankakee Marsh Restoration Project

Kropp, Marian

Boise Parks and Recreation

Meiklejohn, Brad A.

The Conservation Fund

STATEMENT OF BERNADETTE CASTRO, COMMISSIONER AND STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC

PRESERVATION

Thank you Chairman Young and Members of the Committee for this opportunity

to testify before you on the Conservation and Reinvestment Act and the Resources

2000 Act. My name is Bernadette Castro and I am the Commissioner of New York

State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.

I speak to you today not only as the Commissioner of New York State Parks, but

also as a member of the Board of Directors of the National Association of State Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers, as co-chair of the Legislative Committee of the National Association of State Park Directors and as co-chair of Governor George E.

Pataki’s Empire State Task Force for Land and Water Conservation Funding.

I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership to re-establish the Land and

Water Conservation Fund ‘‘state side’’ program through the introduction of this legislation, H.R. 701, that will benefit urban, suburban and rural areas throughout the

country. My compliments to your Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Miller from California for his commitment to working with you on this important issue.

My testimony today will focus on the provisions of your bill that would re-establish the Land and Water Conservation Fund ‘‘state side’’ program.

As you know, in 1964 Congress created the Land and Water Conservation Fund

(LWCF) to preserve, develop and ensure that all Americans had access to quality

outdoor recreation and to strengthen the health and quality of life in our communities. It was a simple idea: a ‘‘pay as you go’’ program using revenues from resource

use, primarily from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas receipts that were to be

used to support the creation of national and community parks, forests, wildlife refuges and open spaces.

Since its inception, LWCF has been responsible for the creation of nearly seven

million acres of parkland, water resources, open space and the development of more

than 37,000 state, municipal and local parks and recreation projects; 1,100 projects

were undertaken in New York and resulted in 65,000 acres being acquired for recVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:27 Jan 29, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\56081 pfrm08 PsN: 56081
79

reational use. From playgrounds and ball fields, scenic trails and nature preserves,

LWCF has been the key to providing places for all Americans to recreate, relax and

get outdoors.

Let me give you some examples of how ‘‘state side’’ money has been used in New

York.

Over the years we have applied millions in LWCF state side funding to projects

at Niagara Falls Reservation (State Park). Without this funding this oldest continuously operated state park in the nation, which sees nearly 7 million visitors annually would not be the treasure that it is today. These projects included the development and construction of a new visitor/information center, reconstruction of walkways, renovation of electric service and creative landscaping which interprets the

system of Great Lakes.

At Jones Beach State Park, the largest public bathing facility in the world, we

have invested millions in Land and Water Conservation Funds. Together this funding has restored this jewel to its historic splendor. Each year, 8 million visitors from

around the world, enjoy this recreational resource on the Atlantic Ocean. Projects

at this facility included total reconstruction of the 2-mile Jones Beach Boardwalk,

restoration of the East End and West End Bath Houses (swimming pools and related facilities) and improvements to our parking areas and sewage treatment facilities.

In our urban areas we supported an application for a very special park, ‘‘A Playground for All Children.’’ LWCF funding ($400,000) made it possible for the Flushing Meadow, Queens community to construct a playground for all children; for those

that have physical challenges, as well as for other children to enjoy. It has served

as a creative facility that was undertaken well before the era of the Americans With

Disabilities Act. It included interpretive trails, playground apparatus, a sports and

game area, a water wheel, sports courts, a ‘‘rolling’’ hill and sports track.

Working with Onondaga County, we directed LWCF funding to the Bumet Park

Zoo in the city of Syracuse; $1.1 million dollars was applied to bring this aging facility up to modern standards for the public to enjoy in a park setting. LWCF funding

helped complete this $12 million dollar project.

As you can see, state side funding has supported a variety of projects that appeal

to the diversity of our population.

Governor Pataki has been a leader in the effort to renew ‘‘state side’’ funding.

Last year, the Governor called for the creation of the Empire State Task Force on

Land and Water Conservation Funding to educate the public on the importance of

state side funding, what it has accomplished and what it could accomplish in the

future and to support those efforts in Congress to re-establish this Federal funding

source. On January 20, 1999, the Governor, through the Task Force, hosted over

400 leaders of parks and openspace advocacy groups in Albany for a summit to educate and advance reinstating ‘‘state side’’ assistance. Governor Pataki has also contacted many Members of Congress in the past to express his commitment to this

vital program and what it means to New York State. The membership of the Task

Force is diversified and includes Laurance S. Rockefeller as honorary Chairman,

John P. Cahill, Commissioner of NYS Department of Environmental Conservation

as my co-chair, NY Secretary of State Alexander F. Treadwell who is responsible

for New York’s Coastal Zone Management program, Theodore Roosevelt IV, Mark

Rockefeller son of Nelson, several municipal organizations including the NY Conference of Mayors and Association of Counties, The Conservation Council representing sportsmen, and a variety of enviromnental organizations from the National Audubon Society NY Office to the Nature Conservancy, Open Space Institute

and Trust for Public Land, just to name a few.

It is critical that a stable source of funds for the LWCF be established. As you

know, LWCF has been critically underfunded at approximately one-third of its annually authorized level of $900 million, with no funding provided to the state-side

matching grant program in recent years.

In New York, Governor George E. Pataki has been a leader in providing for the

creation of recreation and open space lands and providing support for localities to

develop outdoor recreation facilities. Through the Governor’s efforts we have a fully

dedicated Environmental Protection Fund and a Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act,

each contributing financial support to localities wishing to expand their openspace

and recreational resources. New York State has done its share to provide some of

the necessary resources for outdoor recreation and conservation.

However, we can not meet the need for local parks alone. Since 1995, State Parks

has received 1,050 applications for park projects. Communities have sought to invest

over $600 million in recreational facilities. Although most of these projects are solid,

worth while park projects, 800 of them have yet to be undertaken. Federal support

80

of these projects will help New York leverage the investments we have made

through our Environmental Protection Fund and Clean Air/Clean Water Bond Act.

We want to continue to build on success stories in New York such as restoring

the beautiful beaches on Long Island, to building shaded parks in New York City,

to helping revitalize waterfront areas and small town parks throughout the state.

Mr. Chairman, we applaud your efforts and your commitment to re-establishing a

Federal/state/local partnership by providing revenues for the revitalization of the

‘‘state-side’’ grant-in-aid Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Let me share with you what I believe should be included in any legislation that

is advanced by the House:

1. The legislation should permanently provide $900 million dollars annually to

support both the Federal and state side of LWCF without the need for annual appropriations.

2. This funding should be evenly split between the Federal and state side programs. These two programs complement each other and any new legislation should

assure that they do not compete with each other for funding, nor should it place

new limitations on the use of the funds that would reduce their effectiveness.

3. The legislation should provide for full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund state side program and address important wildlife needs and coastal

zone issues.

4. The state side program should fund acquisition, planning, development and

capital rehabilitation. It is worth noting that the state side program has in the past

supported capital rehabilitation. These types of projects should be authorized by the

plain language of the Act and not left to interpretation. I note that the Urban Park

and Recreation Recovery Act (UPARR) provides for this type of project and the Senate version of CARA includes language in this regard that we believe should be

added to the House version.

5. The allocation of all state side funds should be based on a formula that recognizes the recreational needs of the state’s residents placing emphasis on population

and land mass with a lesser component to be shared equally between all the states.

6. Projects should be prioritized based on a state implemented public process. In

New York we are proud of these public processes that we use to review projects and

establish priorities for our openspace program. We look forward to applying these

processes to state side funding and the creation of our State Action Plan as required

by H.R. 701. At this point I would also offer as an aside, that considering the effort

that will be put into the creation of a state action agenda, at a minimum, the National Park Service should coordinate with the state prior to awarding UPARR

grants to ensure a cooperative approach.

7. Any legislation which deals with revenues derived from the extraction of natural resources on the Outer Continental Shelf should not create incentives for that

extraction. As a coastal state, New York is very interested in sharing an equitable

portion of outer continental shelf revenues with other coastal states which will help

fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Revenue derived from this national asset should be reinvested into initiatives which provide benefits for future

generations. I congratulate the Chairman in recognizing this issue and taking steps

to address the concerns that were expressed with last year’s bill and I encourage

the sponsors to take those additional steps necessary to eliminate the issue completely. However as a representative of a coastal state, I do not believe eliminating

the entire program as proposed in Resources 2000 is the best solution.

8. Most importantly, funding for this program must not come at the expense of other Federal dollars which are provided in support of the states.

It is apparent from the outpouring of interest from groups throughout New York

State that there is a great deal of momentum toward seeing a renewal of state-side

funding for the LWCF and full funding for the entire Land and Water Conservation

Fund.

For one moment, I must make some comments as New York’s State Historic Preservation Officer. While we have been primarily focused on the use of the Land

Water Conservation Fund for support of Federal land acquisition and the state side

program, in the past Outer Continental Shelf revenues have also been used to support state activities to enforce the National Historic Preservation Act. I hope that

any successful legislation will include a component to provide this funding to the

Historic Preservation Fund and to increase funding over current amounts, so that

we may be able to provide grants to preserve historic treasures which are on the

National Register of Historic Places.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

81

STATEMENT OF DAVID WALLER, DIRECTOR, GEORGIA DIVISION OF WILDLIFE FOR THE

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is David Waller, Director of the Georgia Division of Wildlife and Vice-President of the International Association of Fish and

Wildlife Agencies. As you know, all 50 State fish and wildlife agencies are members

of the Association. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today with the

strong support of the Association for H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment

Act. The Association sincerely appreciates your efforts and those of Cong. Dingell,

Cong. Tauzin, Cong. John and the other co-sponsors, in bringing this far-sighted

conservation proposal to the table, which will provide consistent and dedicated

funds to the states to conserve our fish and wildlife resources, provide for the protection and restoration of our coastal habitats and living resources, fund land and

water conservation activities at all levels of government, and provide much-in-demand recreational opportunities for our citizens, thus resulting in economic growth

to our communities. The Association is also encouraged that Cong. Miller and others

have recognized many of these same needs in introducing H.R. 798, the Resources

2000 Act. We do have concerns about the focus, legislative construct, and funding

levels in H.R. 798 which I will share later with you in my testimony. However, we

strongly endorse the efforts of you and Cong. Miller to identify common ground in

a bill that can pass Congress and be enacted into law this year. As you know, the

need for these programs in the states are significant, they enjoy wide public support, and our children and their children will thank us for the commitment we make

to ensure the conservation and vitality of America’s natural resources.

The Association, founded in 1902, is a quasi-governmental organization of public

agencies charged with the protection and management of North America’s fish and

wildlife resources. The Association’s governmental members include the fish and

wildlife agencies of the states, provinces, and Federal Governments of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. All 50 states are members. The Association has been a key organization in promoting sound resource management and strengthening Federal, state,

and private cooperation in protecting and managing fish and wildlife and their habitats in the public interest.

Mr. Chairman, I know that you are well aware of the longstanding commitment

and priority of the Association to secure the necessary funds so that the State fish

and wildlife agencies can address the needs of all fish and wildlife species in their

states, including conservation education and wildlife associated recreation needs. As

you know, the states have principal and broad authorities for the conservation of

fish and resident wildlife within their borders, even on most public lands. Congress

has given the Federal executive branch agencies (USFWS and NMFS) certain statutory conservation obligations and responsibilities for migratory birds, anadromous

fish and listed threatened and endangered species, but this responsibility remains

concurrent with State jurisdiction. As Secretary Babbitt once remarked, States are

the front-line managers of fish and wildlife within their borders.

You are also well aware of the long history and strong commitment of support

for funding state fish and wildlife programs by the sportsmen and women of this

country through their purchase of hunting and fishing licenses, and contributions

from excise taxes they pay on sporting arms and ammunition, fishing tackle and

other equipment, import duties on fishing tackle and pleasure boats, and gasoline

excise taxes on outboard motor and small engine fuels. These funds are apportioned

to the States under permanent appropriation in the form of matching grants under

the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937 and the Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux Act of

1950 and 1984, respectively. These license and excise tax funds are the principal

source of funds for State fish and wildlife programs. Our successes under this legislation are well known from restoration of white-tailed deer and pronghorn antelope

to wild turkey and wood duck and striped bass. There have been corollary benefits

to species other than those that are hunted and fished, from the conservation of

habitat, etc. However, there simply have not been either sufficient or dedicated

funds for the State fish and wildlife agencies to adequately address the conservation

needs of these so-called ‘‘nongame’’ species, which constitute approximately 90 percent (over 2,000 species) of the vertebrate species in the United States. H.R. 701

will position the State fish and wildlife agencies to duplicate the tried and true success of the Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux programs with species such as the

cerulean warbler, bluebirds, loggerhead shrike, American goldfinch, bog turtle, and

species of frogs and salamanders that are declining. Responding to early warning

signs of decline in these species by addressing life needs and habitat requirements

through cooperative non-regulatory programs with private landowners will not only

conserve the species but also help avoid the social and economic disruption associated with listing species as threatened or endangered. Most threatened and endanVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:27 Jan 29, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\56081 pfrm08 PsN: 56081
82

gered species come from this universe of so-called nongame species, which makes

sense if you think about it, because we have not had adequate funds to address

these nongame species needs, whereas we have had the funds for game and

sportfish species conservation. The more we know about declining species the

quicker we can respond with a broad array of incentive-based, non-regulatory programs that gives us maximum flexibility in working with the landowners to allow

them to meet both their land management objectives and fish and wildlife conservation objectives. This preventative conservation approach just makes good biological

sense and good economic sense.

Seven years ago when the Association made a commitment to secure funding for

comprehensive wildlife programs in the states, we began to enlist a support coalition

that has now grown to over 3,000 conservation, business and other organizations.

Our ‘‘Teaming With Wildlife’’ initiative, as we called this endeavor, built up tremendous grassroots support around a funding mechanism patterned after Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux that would extend existing excise taxes on sporting arms,

ammunition and fishing equipment to other outdoor recreational gear at a very

modest level. However, this user-fee approach did not gain the bipartisan political

support in Congress needed for success. There was broad bipartisan recognition of

the need for these funds and the merits of the proposed state based wildlife conservation, conservation education and wildlife-associated recreation programs, but

not for the funding mechanism. Through the dedication, creativity and support of

you and your sponsoring colleagues you have married these needs with those of

coastal habitat and living resource conservation, and a recommitment of Congress

to funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund and Urban Parks and Recreation

Recovery Act, all from a portion of revenues from gas and oil leases and royalties

from the Outer Continental Shelf. We applaud your far-sightedness and appreciate

your commitment to addressing all of these needs at the state level.

Before I comment on H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 specifically, let me summarize again

for you the needs in the States for wildlife conservation, conservation education and

wildlife associated recreation. The Association is currently updating our State-byState needs assessment, and more specific information should be available soon.

•Less than 10 percent of state fish and wildlife agency funding is available for

the conservation of 86 percent of our nation’s nongame wildlife species. State

agencies have barely enough funding from established game species funding

sources to support vital conservation programs. While game species budgets for

all 50 states add up to approximately $1 billion annually, nongame programs,

lacking a similar dedicated funding source, fall short of $100 million. Thirty-two

states operate nongame conservation, recreation, and education programs on

less than 5 percent of their fish and wildlife budgets. H.R. 701 will provide the

states with the funds to achieve preventative conservation through collecting

good information (from fish and wildlife surveys and inventories), implementing

appropriate management and habitat conservation endeavors, and retaining the

State fish and wildlife agencies ability to work with greater flexibility with private landowners in a non-regulatory, incentive based manner.

• Dwindling fish and wildlife species and habitat directly affect some of the fastest growing forms of outdoor recreation. Wildlife viewing is the number one outdoor activity in the United States and has become a billion-dollar industry. Hiking participation has rise 93 percent and camping 73 percent in the past 12

years. Nature-based tourism is escalating at a higher rate than any other segment of tourism worldwide.

Impressive participation statistics translate into billions of dollars of economic activity each year:

— Wildlife watchers spent $29 billion in state and local economies during 1996,

a 39 percent increase over 1991 spending, according to the latest U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service survey.

— Watchable wildlife recreation supports $22.7 billion in salary and wages and

more than one million jobs.

• A documented upswelling of interest in conservation education programs is

both good news and represents a challenge as state fish and wildlife agencies

are hardpressed to keep up with the public demand for technical assistance for

private landowners, developers and local governments, informational materials

on wildlife, landscaping for wildlife, and requests on where to view wildlife. Innovative wildlife education programs enjoy positive responses, but often lack

sufficient funding. Funds under the Conservation and Reinvestment Act will enable all 50 states to support increased recreation and education participation.

Local communities will benefit from increased tourism. Nature tourists will extend their stay an extra day or two if they discover more wildlife watching opVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:27 Jan 29, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\56081 pfrm08 PsN: 56081
83

portunities during their visit. Finally, a caring citizenry is essential to the success of all wildlife conservation efforts and maintaining the natural systems

that support us. The Association estimates $1 billion or more in additional funding needs annually

for all 50 states for these programs. However, even a half billion dollars will have

a significant positive benefit for 2,000 nongame species, as well as benefit many

other species as well. Often game and nongame species share the same habitat and

both benefit from conservation efforts such as restoring wetlands, stream rehabilitation or habitat restoration.

Funding state conservation, recreation and education efforts together makes economic and social sense. To sustain the growth in nature-based tourism and outdoor

recreation requires an investment in our nation’s wildlife and land and water base.

Particularly, opportunities close to urban and rural communities for fishing, hiking,

wildlife viewing and outdoor recreation programs are becoming increasingly important for families and communities. Enhanced conservation education efforts will facilitate better-informed citizens and assure a high quality of life for people and wildlife.

H.R. 701 will provide the appropriate funds to the States to satisfy these very

vital needs.

Mr. Chairman, here are the reasons the Association strongly supports H.R. 701.

• H.R. 701 re-commits the United States to a policy of dedicating revenues from

the exploitation of non-renewable resources into securing the status of living renewable resources, conserving land and water resources, and providing recreational opportunities for our cities and local communities, through a permanent, indefinite appropriation to fund state-based programs. We appreciate and

support the language in H.R. 701 which addresses the question of whether any

of these revenues could be a potential incentive to states to encourage more

drilling. Your language, we believe, appropriately ensures that no incentive is

in the bill and that with regards to drilling in OCS waters, the bill is ‘‘drilling

neutral.’’

• H.R. 701 builds on the support the states have relied on for decades from our

Nation’s hunters and anglers to finance state fish and wildlife programs by

broadening this funding support to a permanent, indefinite appropriation from

a general revenue source, the leases and royalties on Outer Continental Shelf

gas and oil extraction. We support the use of the very successful Pittman-Robertson Act as the means of apportioning the funds to the States under a separate subaccount, to be used for the purposes of enhanced comprehensive fish

and wildlife conservation, conservation education, and wildlife associated recreation programs. This is a proven, efficient system.

• H.R. 701 positions the States to avoid the economic and social disruption from

listing species as endangered by taking preventative conservation measures

early on to address life needs and habitat requirements of declining fish and

wildlife species before they reach a level where listing is necessary to protect

them.

• H.R. 701 focuses decisions on spending priorities at the local (not Washington)

level, where states and communities are in the best position to know what those

needs and priorities are. We must facilitate local identification of issues and

problem solving, not top-down prescriptive solutions.

• H.R. 701 allows States to work with private landowners in a non-regulatory,

incentive-based manner to achieve their land management objectives consistent

with good conservation for fish and wildlife species.

• H.R. 701 allows and positions local communities to take best advantage of robust fish and wildlife populations through nature-based tourism opportunities

(bird watching tours, hiking tours to natural vistas, etc.) thus providing local

economic support to those communities.

• H.R. 701 builds on our citizens’ strong sense of stewardship about their land

by making them a part of the problem solving and implementation of solutions.

•Through ensuring the conservation of good habitat for fish and wildlife, the

programs funded by H.R. 701 will ensure the quality of life for our citizens and

future generations, since we all rely on the same life support systems.

• H.R. 701, in addition to wildlife programs, will provide funds for coastal restoration and enhancement programs, wetlands restoration, coastal zone management efforts, and environmental remediation from the impacts of on-shore

landing of OCS gas and oil, through the proper location, placement and mitigation of pipelines, roads, and other infrastructures needs.

• H.R. 701 restores certainty to the state-side aspect of the Land and Water

Conservation Fund program so that conservation and recreation projects of

highest state and local priority are satisfied.

84

Mr. Chairman, the Association strongly encourages you to make one change in

Title III of H.R. 701. In order to appropriately fund programs where the needs are

the greatest, we respectfully request that the minimum funding level for a state be

raised from 1/2 of 1 percent to 1 percent. This will greatly benefit some of our smaller primarily mid-Atlantic and northeastern states and Hawaii where pressures on

wildlife and habitat are great and demands for recreation and education program

are high. The apportionment to the other States will be reduced only very minimally, but the benefit will be great to the fish and wildlife resources and citizens

in the smaller states. We urge your favorable consideration of that change.

Let me now comment on H.R. 798, the Resources 2000 Act. The Association is encouraged that H.R. 798 has a title that contains provisions for funding to the states

for State-based enhanced wildlife conservation. We are also encouraged that H.R.

798 seeks to use certain OCS revenues under a permanent, indefinite appropriation.

Finally, as I indicated, we are further encouraged that you and Cong. Miller have

both publicly stated your interest and willingness to work together to find common

ground between your proposals to move forward towards enactment of a bill this

year.

However, we do have several serious concerns about some specific provisions of

H.R. 798. First, the OCS source funds in H.R. 798 is limited to only royalties and

revenues from wells in Western and Central Gulf of Mexico OCS waters that are

producing as of January 1, 1999. We understand that this is the bill sponsors’ way

of ensuring that this bill is in no way a potential incentive to encourage further OCS

drilling, and even though further (after January 1, 1999) OCS exploration and drilling will continue both within and outside of these areas, none of the revenues will

go to fund the programs under this bill, rather, they will be deposited in the Federal

treasury. We believe that the treatment of the incentive question in H.R. 701 is adequate and appropriate, and the consequence of the H.R. 798 language would be very

self-limiting and guarantee substantial reductions over time in the amount of money

available to fund conservation efforts. We believe that the price and supply of oil

and natural gas is the driving determinant of new exploration and drilling, which

is corroborated in the recent Congressional Research Service report on OCS Oil and

Gas Leasing and Revenue (IB10005, January 1999).

Our second concern is that the native fish and wildlife conservation and restoration title in H.R. 798 amends the 1980 Fish and Wildlife Conservation (Federal

nongame) Act, instead of Pittman-Robertson, and makes $100M–$350M available to

the States for native fish and wildlife conservation, starting with $100M and

ramping up over six years to $350M. The amendments to the 1980 Act replace the

existing ‘‘nongame fish and wildlife’’ language everywhere with ‘‘native fish and

wildlife,’’ and add an additional purpose to preserve biological diversity by maintaining an assemblage of native fish and wildlife species. The definition of native fish

and wildlife could be very problematic because it includes only species that currently or historically occur in an ecosystem, and are not there as a result of introduction. It also gives the Secretary of the Interior final decision authority as to what

is a native species. It is virtually impossible to substantiate the origin of many of

our indigenous fish species and this definition could exclude spending money on

salmon restoration, for example. Also, the restoration of the Eastern peregrine falcon was from a captive-bred source of hybrid North American-European-African peregrine falcons, which under this definition in H.R. 798, would not be eligible for

funding conservation activities therefor. It is not at all clear whether a project which

would benefit native species plus other species of uncertain origin would be eligible

for funding. We doubt that ‘‘native’’ is a workable legal definition because there are

hundreds of species whose status as native is uncertain.

Our third concern with this title of H.R. 798 is that, while the elaborate and rather prescriptive planning requirements in the 1980 Act may have been appropriate

in 1980, most states have already recognized the need to look comprehensively at

the resource base, habitat availability, land use activities, and user demand in their

state, and have articulated a strategic plan for the fish and wildlife resources in

their state, after due and appropriate public review and participation. We believe

that the states do not need to be legislatively directed to do more planning, but are

ready and prepared now to spend money on the ground to address conservation

needs. Some have responded to these concerns of ours by suggesting that if the

states already have a plan, it should facilitate quick approval. Our concerns is that

with a fairly elaborate planning process requirement, if any entity disagrees with

the Secretary’s approval of the state plan, there are enough legal hooks to hang litigation on, which could cause significant delays in getting funds to the State for immediate on-the-ground conservation activities.

Our fourth concern with this title of H.R. 798 is the availability of funds, which

start at $100 million and are ramped up to $350M over six years. We know that

85

our needs are much greater than even $350K and conclude that $100M is simply

not adequate to address those needs. Funding commensurate with the States’ significant needs should be available from the start-up, as we have outlined earlier in

this statement.

Our final concern with this title in H.R. 798 is that the 1980 Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Act does not authorize funding for either conservation education or

wildlife associated recreation. We have earlier stressed the needs in these two arenas also, and are disappointed that no funds are made available for those purposes

in H.R. 798.

Mr. Chairman, let me conclude my remarks by reiterating our strong support for

H.R. 701. This could be the most comprehensive piece of conservation legislation in

our lifetime. We sincerely appreciate the efforts of you and Cong. Dingell, Cong.

Tauzin, Cong. John and the other cosponsors in bringing the legislation to this

point, and pledge the support and effort of the State fish and wildlife agencies in

working with you to enact this legislation this year.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and I would be pleased

to respond to any questions.

STATEMENT OF SARAH CHASIS, SENIOR ATTORNEY, DIRECTOR OF WATER AND

COASTAL PROGRAM, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

My name is Sarah Chasis and I am a Senior Attorney with the Natural Resources

Defense Council (NRDC) and Director of its Water and Coastal Program. I appreciate this opportunity to testify today before the House Resources Committee on

H.R. 701, The Conservation and Reinvestment Act (‘‘CARA’’), a bill introduced by

Chairman Young, and H.R. 798, The Resources 2000 Act, a bill introduced by Congressman George Miller.

My testimony on behalf of NRDC focuses on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)

impact assistance Title of H.R. 701, The Living Marine Resources Title of H.R. 798,

and the OCS revenues used to fund all titles of both bills.

NRDC is a national environmental organization, with over 400,000 members,

dedicated to protecting natural resources and ensuring a safe and healthy environment. NRDC has a long history of involvement with the protection of ocean and

coastal resources and has worked on a number of coastal and ocean issues, including

offshore oil and gas drilling, coastal zone management and marine fish conservation.

In our view, the overarching goal for the coast and ocean title of these bills should

be protection and restoration of our nation’s fragile, but extremely valuable coastal

and marine resources which are increasingly under pressure from a variety of

forces. In achieving that goal, 5 principles should be closely adhered to:

•The legislation should provide no financial benefit to states from the lifting of

current moratorium or from new leasing or new drilling. This should apply to

all titles of the legislation, not just the coastal or OCS Impact Assistance Title.

•The state or local share of money should not be tied to the acceptance of new

or closer leasing or drilling.

• Money that goes to the states and local governments must be spent on environmentally beneficial projects.

•There should be Federal agency oversight of how money is spent to ensure

compliance with Federal environmental laws.

• Any offsets should not come from existing environmental programs.

These same basic principles are set out in the February 2,1999 letter to Chairman

Young and other representatives from nineteen of the nation’s major national conservation organizations that is attached to our testimony. This letter states that:

‘‘Our organizations are strongly opposed to any financial incentives that promote offshore oil and gas development,’’ identifies incentives included in earlier versions of

the legislation and recommends ways of removing them.

H.R. 701, while containing improvements over last year’s bill (H.R. 4717), still

falls seriously short when measured against the above principles. In contrast, H.R.

798 adheres to these principles very closely. As a result, we support H.R. 798, but

must continue to oppose H.R. 701 unless and until the concerns we have raised are

satisfactorily resolved. We stand ready to work with the members of the Committee

and their staff to do this.

Following is our analysis of the two bills with respect to the principles enunciated

above.

86

H.R. 701, THE CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT

REVENUE SOURCE

H.R. 701 includes revenues from new leasing and new drilling as a funding source

for all titles of the bill, with one exception. excluded from revenues for Title I (‘‘Impact Assistance Formula and Payments’’) are revenues from leased tracts in areas

under moratorium on January 1, 1999 (unless the lease was issued prior to the establishment of the moratorium and was in production on January 1, 1999).

While this latter language represents a definite improvement in the bill, it only

affects Title I. In addition, it does not exclude revenues from new leasing and drilling in sensitive frontier areas not covered by the moratorium. The bill thus still falls

short of meeting the first principle. The obvious concern is that if the many and varied beneficiaries of this legislation see that it is in their financial interest for new

leasing and drilling to occur—in order to provide more funding for the legislation

overall and for them in particular—it will erode support for the existing offshore oil

and gas moratorium, which currently protects the east coast (with the exception of

existing leases off Cape Hatteras), the coast of Florida (with the exception of existing leases off the Florida Panhandle), the central and northern California coast

(with the exception of existing leases off the central California coast), Oregon, Washington and Bristol Bay in Alaska. It will also lead to support for new leasing and

drilling on existing leases off North Carolina, the Florida Panhandle and central

California, as well as in sensitive areas off Alaska—none of which are currently protected by moratoria and many of which, if not all, are extremely controversial.

It is crucial to remember that the moratorium only exist because Congress each

year reenacts it as part of the Interior Appropriations legislation. Presently, a oneyear COngressional Outer Continental Shelf Moratorium Contained in the FY 1999

Department of Interior appropriations bill precludes the expenditure of funds for

new Federal offshore oil and gas leasing in specific coastal areas until October 1,

of this year (1999).

This Congressional OCS moratorium prevents new leases for offshore drilling on

any unleased tract along the entire U.S. West Coast, the East Coast, portions of

Florida, and Bristol Bay in Alaska. Now in its seventeenth year, the moratorium

must be renewed each year. As recently as the 104th Congress, the moratorium was

removed in the House Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, and was only narrowly reinstated after a big fight in the full House Appropriations Committee, in

spite of strong opposition to the measure by then-chairman Rep. Bob Livingston.

There have been previous years in which the OCS moratorium has survived in the

House Appropriations Committee by a narrow single-vote margin.

Related actions have been taken by two successive presidents, which supplement,

but do not replace, the protection granted by the Congressional moratorium. These

‘‘Presidential Deferrals’’ are political in nature and are not considered to be as dependable in providing assured protection over time. In 1991, former president

George Bush announced that he was directing that any further OCS leasing within

the areas protected by Congressional moratorium, except in Alaska, be deferred

until after the year 2002. No formal executive order was issued by Mr. Bush, and

it is considered that any subsequent president could reverse this decision.

DUring the 1999 ‘‘Year of the Ocean Conference’’ in Monterey, California, President Clinton, accompanied by Vice-President Al Gore and four Cabinet Secretaries,

announced that they were directing the Minerals Management Service of the Department of Interior to extend the previous Bush OCS deferrals until the year 2012.

No formal Executive Order has been issued by the Clinton Administration since this

announcement, and it is considered vulnerable to possible policy reversals by subsequent administrations.

Even for Title I, the improvement is incomplete because revenu from new leasing

and drilling in sensitive frontier areas not covered by the moratorium would still

fund the Title. In addition, it is not clear from the language whether revenues from

drilling on existing leases off North Carolina, the Florida Panhandle and Central

California would be used to fund Title I. These leases are in moratoria areas but

are not covered by leasing moratoria. Drilling on these leases is an extremely controversial issue in each of those states.

To address the problem, the legislation should define the term ‘‘Qualified Outer

Continental Shelf Revenues’’ in the definitions section (Section 102) to exclude revenues from new leasing and new drilling after the date of enactment of the legislation, as the Resources 2000 legislation does. This would remove the financial incentive to support new leasing or drilling in moratoria and other sensitive coastal

areas.

87

ALLOCATION OF STATE AND LOCAL SHARES

The legislation ties a state’s share of funding under Title I directly to the amount

and proximity of OCS leasing and production off its coast. This provides a clear financial incentive to states to accept new leasing and drilling.

Fifty percent of a state’s allocable share is dependent on its being within 200

miles of a leased OCS tract. The more production on such tracts and the closer in

to shore these tracts are, the more money the state gets. See Section 103 (c)(1) and

(2). An improvement in this section of the bill is the exclusion of moratoria tracts

from this calculation. Thus, even if moratoria tracts are leased or drilled, a state

would not get more money. However, the language is ambiguous with respect to existing leases/production on tracts in moratoria areas. These tracts also should be excluded. Moreover, new leasing and drilling outside moratorium areas, including sensitive frontier areas off Alaska, would still be factored into the allocation formula,

thus providing a significant incentive for allowing such activities to proceed.

We believe that the formula for allocating funds under Title I should not be tied

to OCS leasing and production, but instead should rest on shoreline miles and population alone. Alternatively, if OCS activity has to be a factor, it should be based on

a fixed, flat percentage based on historic OCS activity, not new activity that occurs

after passage of the legislation. This would acknowledge states that have suffered

OCS impacts to date, without providing an incentive for new leasing, exploration or

production.

Another major concern with the bill concerns the method of allocating funds to

local jurisdictions. Fifty percent of a state’s share goes directly to eligible local political subdivisions. Section 103(E). Eligible political subdivisions are defined to be

those that lie within 200 miles of any leased tract (including tracts in moratoria

areas). Section 102(6). As a consequence, a locality with OCS leasing off its coast

is entitled to share in 50 percent of the state’s allocable share, with its share increasing the closer the leased tract(s) are, localities with no leasing are not entitled

to any part of the state’s allocable share. Obviously, this creates a major incentive

for localities to accept new OCS leasing.

To address this problem the definition of eligible political subdivision should exclude tracts leased after enactment. Such tracts should also be omitted from the calculation of how much an eligible political subdivision receives.

USES OF THE MONEY

It is extremely important that funds distributed to state and local governments

be used to restore and enhance coastal and ocean resources and not to cause further

environmental degradation. For this reason, we strongly recommend that uses be

restricted to:

Amelioration of adverse environmental impacts resulting from the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of OCS facilities, above and beyond what is

required of permitted under current law;

Projects and activities, including habitat acquisition, that project or enhance air

quality, water quality, fish and wildlife, or wetlands in the coastal zone;

Administrative costs the state or local government incurs in approving or disapproving or permitting OCS development/production activities under any applicable law including CZMA or OCLSA; and/or

Repurchase of OCS leases.

The uses of the money authorized in Section 104 of H.R. 701 do not ensure that

further environmental degradat10n do not take place. Their focus is not on restoring

the environment or ensuring activities do not further degrade the environment.

While states may use funds for such purposes, there is no requirement that they

do so. Moreover, states and localities would be free to use the money for a huge

array of purposes, including promoting more offshore drilling, highway construction

and the like.

We urge that our proposed language be substituted for that in the bill, or that

the approach taken in H.R. 798, discussed below, be utilized.

OVERSIGHT

To ensure that the Federal dollars are spent responsibly, in an environmentally

sensitive manner that complies with Federal law, it is important that there be Federal oversight and approval of state plans for utilization of the funds.

While the legislation requires the states to develop plans for use of the money and

to certify the plans to the Secretary of Interior, the Secretary is given no authority

to review and approve these plans. In addition, it is the state that determines consistency of local plans with Federal law, not the Federal Government! Section

105(c). The lack of Federal oversight combined with the broad uses to which the

88

funds may be put and the large Federal dollars involved mean that environmentally

damaging projects could well be funded under this legislation.

OFFSETS

It is essential that OCS impact assistance not be funded at the expense of existing

environmental programs.

H.R. 798, THE RESOURCES 2000 ACT

We strongly support H.R. 798 because it adheres to the principles we support. It

does not provide incentives for new offshore leasing or drilling. The bill specifically

excludes revenues from new leasing and production as a funding source for the entire bill. See Section 4(4) definition of qualified OCS revenues.

The bill also does not allocate revenues among states (or local jurisdictions) based

on proximity to leased tracts or production.Title VI (‘‘Living Marine Resources Conservation, Restoration, and Management Assistance’’) makes financial assistance

available to coastal states based on coastal population and shoreline miles. Section

602(B)(1).

Finally, the bill requires that Title VI money be spent on the conservation of living marine resources, not on activities that could contribute to further environmental degradation. It provides significant new funding ($300 million) specifically

for marine conservation.

We recommend that consideration be given to having some portion of the money

under Title VI go to help fund existing underfunded marine and coastal conservation programs, such as coastal zone management, marine sanctuaries, and essential

fish habitat protection. A portion of the funding under this title could be used to

assist in achieving the goals of at least some of these programs; however, it would

not appear to directly fund them. Similarly, we would like the opportunity of working with Congressman Miller and the Committee on the standards that apply to the

state conservation plans to ensure that these plans are effective as possible and on

ways to encourage states to move from the planning phase to the implementation

phase expeditiously.

We appreciate this opportunity to testify and look forward to working with the

Committee on this important legislation.

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

STATEMENT OF MAYOR SAM KATHRYN CAMPANA, CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA, AND

VICE CHAIR, U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, ARTS, CULTURE, AND RECREATION

COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, on behalf of the 1,100 cities represented by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, I want to thank you for this opportunity

to appear before you today to present testimony supporting the increased funding

for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Urban Parks and Recreation

Recovery Program (UPARR).

For far too long the Federal Government has not fulfilled the commitment it made

over 30 years ago when it created the Land and Water Conservation Fund program

to ensure that all Americans would have access to nearby park and recreation resources. We applaud the leadership of you, Mr. Chairman, in forging a bipartisan

bill that would restore funding to the stateside program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the UPARR. We also applaud the Ranking Minority Member,

Congressman George Miller for his passionate leadership on this issue for many

years and for the proposals he had made in his legislation.

The benefits the Land and Water Conservation Fund and UPARR can deliver to

local communities and neighborhoods across this great nation are endless. Urban

parks, recreation areas, and open space are critical to the vitality of our nation’s

cities and the citizens we serve. Urban sprawl is threatening our natural open

space, the demand for parks has skyrocketed, and the backlog of necessary maintenance and repairs continue to grow. The Land and Water Conservation Fund and

UPARR will help provide for the park down the street where parents play ball with

their sons and daughters, where toddlers explore a playground, where the neighborhood soccer team practices, where teenagers can go just to blow off steam, and

where seniors can walk along the park paths.

In my hometown of Scottsdale, Arizona, several examples of the direct community

benefit resulting from the Land and Water Conservation Fund exist. As I travel

through Scottsdale, I don’t have to go to far without encountering these community

amenities. For example, the Land and Water Conservation Fund provided funding

for the park where Scottsdale’s first community swimming pool is located. Since

then Chestnut Park neighborhood park, Eldorado Park’s Lake, Jackrabbit Park,

Scottsdale Bikeways, Chapparral Tennis Court Lighting, and Vista Del Camino

Spray Pads, were funded in part through Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Scottsdale received 20 Land and Water Conservation Fund grants from 1965

through 1984, totaling $2.1 million, and leveraged these funds into $4.4 million. In

Arizona alone, $46 million of Land and Water Conservation Fund accounted for $92

million of projects since the inception of the fund. These are only small examples

of the many worthy projects throughout the country that have been supported by

Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Without question, the greatest current concern of the Scottsdale community, however, is the preservation of thousands of acres of pristine Sonoran Desert and mountains that are undeveloped and lie within Scottsdale City limits. Our citizens were

so committed to preserving this beautiful land that in 1995, they took the unprecedented step of approving by a wide margin a .2 percent sales tax increase to preserve over 16,000 acres of the scenic McDowell Mountains and Sonoran Desert.

Three years later, 80 percent of the proposed area has been preserved, using $132

million in voter-approved sales tax dollars. In November, the Scottsdale community

overwhelmingly approved another measure to expand the current preserve boundary

by 19,000 acres. Clearly, the preservation of this unique open space—with its scenic

desert, majestic mountains, stately Saguaro cactus, and energetic wildlife—is a natural resource that Scottsdale citizens want to leave as a legacy for future generations.

We urge you to revitalize the Land and Water Conservation Fund and UPARR

programs, so that these Federal dollars can be matched with millions in local dollars. When the nation’s mayors gathered for our 66th Annual Conference of Mayors

last June in Reno, Nevada we unanimously passed a resolution in support of full

funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the UPARR programs.

While we strongly support funding for the stateside program of the Land and

Water Conservation Fund and the UPARR program as called for under H.R. 701

and H.R. 798, we also encourage Congress to allow cities to apply directly for these

funds rather than relying on the states to pass them through. In addition, we would

ask you to allow UPARR funds to be used for land acquisition and maintenance of

local parks and recreation programs.

In closing, I want to pass along a theory to which local officials subscribe. Former

U.S. Conference of Mayors President and Knoxville Mayor Victor Ashe is fond of

saying that our most important park is not Yellowstone, but the one down the street

98

that serves our children every day. The importance of our parks and open spaces

cannot be underestimated.

The state and local assistance program of Land and Water Conservation Fund

and UPARR are two resources we should pursue and utilize so that all Americans

can continue to enjoy our nation’s wonderful natural resources, and the outdoors.

On behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, we thank you for your interest in

the revitalization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the UPARR programs and offer any assistance we can provide as you draft this important legislation.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

STATEMENT OF PAUL W. HANSEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF

AMERICA

Mr. Chairman and members of the House of Representatives Committee on Resources, My name is Paul Hansen; I appreciate the opportunity to present the views

of the Izaak Walton League of America on the Conservation and Reinvestment Act

and the Resources 2000 Act. These legislative proposals, taken together with other

similar proposals being considered in the Senate and along with the administration’s Lands Legacy initiative, offer a truly historic opportunity to significantly advance the conservation of important natural resources. The Izaak Walton League is

now in it 77th year of grassroots conservation work. We have 50,000 members and

supporters throughout the country working in their local communities and on national conservation and environmental issues in over 325 chapters. It is our members who set our conservation policy and it is on their behalf that I provide these

comments.

In our view, this is an especially critical and auspicious time to secure a reliable,

long overdue financial commitment to our nation’s natural resources. At the brink

of a new millenium, with a strong and vibrant national economy producing budget

surpluses at the Federal and state levels and with bipartisan support in both houses

of Congress—now is the time to get it done. The legislative proposals that are the

subject of this hearing demonstrate exactly the kind of leadership, determination

and cooperation necessary to accomplish this task. I want to share with you my

wish and that of our members to see all parties working together with the singular

goal of achieving a major victory for natural resources in this session of Congress.

We are deeply committed to working with you and others to that end.

I am especially pleased, as you requested, to address the League’s interests with

respect to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) provisions of these bills.

The League has a long and abiding interest in LWCF. You may know that Joe

Penfold, a former Conservation Director of the League, conceived of this program

35 years ago as part of his participation on the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Committee. Our members fought hard for it then, and LWCF has had our determined and continuing support. However, League members have been over the

years equally distressed to watch as the original promise of this program was

robbed year after year in the appropriations process. We have watched in dismay

as $13 billion of important land conservation efforts have gone umnet while these

funds were diverted for unintended purposes. I cannot overstate the importance to

our members of full, permanent funding for this program.

LWCF is a critical conservation tool that supports land stewardship in two ways.

It provides for acquisition of Federal lands to complete National Wildlife Refuges

and create important new refuges. These special lands are crucial to maintaining

the nation’s abundant wildlife resources. Much of the good that should flow from

the recent passage of the organic act for the National Wildlife Refuge System will

not be realized without a fully funded LWCF. We appreciate the pivotal role played

by the leadership of this Committee in crafting and passing that landmark legislation—a model for the current effort before us.

Other systems of Federal lands rely equally on LWCF to complete acquisition

within their authorized boundaries and purchase in-holdings from willing and often

eager sellers.

Some of these willing sellers have been waiting for some time for provision of sufficient financial resources to accommodate their sales. Federal acquisition needs also

include new lands of special conservation value. It is often not possible to predict

when these lands will become available thus management agencies must have flexibility to respond to opportunities as they arise—this includes readily available financial resources.

Our systems of public lands are assets of immeasurable value that we can and

must pass on to future generations. They are the envy of the world and draw tourVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:27 Jan 29, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\56081 pfrm08 PsN: 56081
99

ists from every part of the world to see and enjoy. Without securing, conserving and

expanding these land resources, we foreclose future opportunities for our children

and theirs as they seek to exercise wise stewardship of the legacy they will inherit.

We fully support expanding Federal ownership of lands in the eastern half of the

country. Expanded public lands would increase opportunities for outdoor recreation

where demands from burgeoning population centers is high and fragmentation of

natural habitats is impacting wildlife populations as well as wildlife-dependant

recreation. In fact, League members are now working aggressively to restore a portion of the original 50,000 acre Grand Kankakee marsh, on the border of Indiana

and Illinois, now designated as the Grand Kankakee Marsh National Wildlife Refuge. This is a hugely important wetland restoration effort that would have major,

far-reaching benefits for resident and migratory wildlife alike. Its ultimate success

will depend on the LWCF.

We understand the concern of western states regarding Federal land acquisition

especially where some states already have large portions of their acreage in Federal

ownership. However, we are concerned about the provision in Sec. 202 of H.R. 701

requiring that two-thirds of funds for Federal acquisitions be spent east of the 100th

meridian. This provision creates an unwise, and we think unnecessary, restriction

that could well result in lost opportunities to conserve important and critical western land resources. The Payment in Lieu of Taxes provision in Title II should alleviate some of the concerns relating to the financial impact of increased Federal land

ownership in these states. We should also acknowledge that these public lands provide an economic resource to states and local communities. They contribute to the

quality of life that draws visitors from around the country who support many local

economies whether from hunting and fishing, other forms of outdoor recreation. Or

simply vacationing.

LWCF also provides for important state conservation and outdoor recreation

needs. Funding for this part of LWCF has been particularly neglected in recent

years. The stateside program can provide resources that states and localities need

to help control and mitigate for urban sprawl. Sprawl, with its consequences to

quality of life, is a growing concern across the country, a trend clearly identified in

the last election cycle. Sprawl is, as shown in a study we just released, an important

limiting factor to hunter access and other wildlife-dependent recreation. Copies of

this report have been provided for the Committee members and an Executive Summary is appended to this testimony.

Time is against us in the battle to wisely manage land use and conserve open

space across our country. Planning options for local communities increasingly are

foreclosed. Now is the strategic time to address this problem, and financial resources must be provided to help. Once converted to developed uses, open space is

lost and with it the wildlife and other amenity values it supports.

For the record, it is fair to say that given a choice between the funding level provided for LWCF in H.R. 701 and H.R 798, we would predictably choose the latter

which provides more funding for both the Federal and state sides of the program.

The need will continue to out-strip available resources. Every conservation dollar is

important.

For many years, the League has worked with groups around the country to secure

a dedicated funding source for state fish and wildlife agencies. The agencies need

these funds primarily for non-game wildlife management. This category of wildlife,

unlike game and threatened and endangered species, has no specifically directed

funding. We continue to feel that the Teaming With Wildlife funding mechanism

that called for a small excise tax on outdoor equipment would have addressed an

equity issue. Hunters and anglers have for decades willingly paid such a tax on

their equipment and continue to provide the vast majority of funding for state fish

and wildlife agencies. While we regret the loss of an opportunity to create equity

in funding for wildlife, we do fully support the principle of reinvesting revenue from

non-renewable resources in renewable natural resources—the concept embodied in

LWCF and as provided for in these bills.

The need for financial support of state fish and wildlife agencies is well documented. Support is long overdue, both from within the states and from a dedicated

Federal source. We believe that Federal aid is a critical and appropriate component.

Wildlife is oblivious to political boundaries. While states have a statutory responsibility for managing most wildlife, these populations can and do cross boundaries and

are a part of the nation’s commonly held assets. All citizens have an interest in the

wellbeing of wildlife populations, regardless of geography.

The states have the lion’s share of responsibility to provide for the needs of wildlife under their stewardship. With a few notable exceptions, they have not met this

responsibility. Twenty-one states currently contribute no general or dedicated funds

to their fish and wildlife agencies, and another twenty-one provide less than 20 perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:27 Jan 29, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\56081 pfrm08 PsN: 56081
100

cent (based on fiscal 1995 data). These agencies are supported entirely by license

fees and existing Federal aid programs—this at a time when nearly every state is

experiencing a budget surplus. We are about to release a report detailing the relationship between economic benefits derived from and state reinvestment in fish and

wildlife conservation. We will see that members of this Committee receive a copy

of that report.

The state matching provisions in Title III, Sec. 305(d) of H.R. 701 should provide

a positive incentive for states to do better. However, we feel that the proposed 90:10,

Federal:state initial matching ratio misses an opportunity. We would encourage a

matching requirement on the order of 25 percent at the outset in order to challenge

the states to do their fair share consistent with existing formula—not a Federal

giveaway, but a partnership for wildlife. It is equally important that state matching

funds not be diverted from existing fish and wildlife agency programs.

Amending the existing Pittman-Robertson, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act

to provide for allocation of these new funds to the states makes good sense, and the

distribution formula is equitable. Our current Federal aid programs have a long

track record of achievement and effective operation, and we support that approach

for handling the distribution of this new revenue.

With regard to Title I of H.R. 701, we continue to be concerned that the issue

of possible incentives for increased oil and gas development is adequately addressed.

We have been reassured with statements by the bill’s sponsors’ expressing their

similar intentions. We remain willing to continue cooperative efforts to resolve this

matter in bill language.

Lastly, given the realities of budget constraints, we want to reiterate our opposition to seeking any budget offset that may be necessary from other important programs in Function 300—Natural Resources and Environment. Robbing Peter to pay

Paul is not an acceptable solution.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee—let me end by challenging all of

us to set aside politics and organizational and personal agendas to work together

on this important initiative. We have a unique and fragile window of opportunity

to accomplish a historic conservation measure. If we do it boldly, not shrinking from

the size of the task or magnitude of the financial need, and if we do it right, not

trading one valued resource for another, then we can do it now—and in a way that

will allow us all to celebrate together.

Thank you for your attention.

STATEMENT OF HURLEY J. COLEMAN, JR., WAYNE COUNTY DIVISION OF PARKS,

WESTLAND, MICHIGAN

I have wrestled with the best way to introduce my comments for this testimony,

primarily because I am somewhat intimidated by the magnitude of this moment,

and also because I have longed to be here doing just this for many years. I have

been involved in the provision of leisure services for the past 23 years as a graduate

of Eastern Michigan University. I walked out of college knowing that the career

path I had chosen would give me the chance to make a difference in peoples lives.

I chose public parks and recreation because I believed then, as I do now, that of

all of the services that local government provides, recreation is the only one that

touches people directly and personally. It is the service of choice, the creator of

memories, and the barometer of the quality of life.

I presently serve the sixth largest county in the United States. We are celebrating

an 80 year history of providing leisure service to the residents of Wayne County.

This history is there only because of a few pioneering visionaries who determined

that to set aside park lands for the future was important. This sentiment can be

echoed throughout the country, especially in our urban areas where the only park

lands are those acquired through donations or grants.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund and Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program can be found at the center of the development of many of the great

facilities in many areas of the country. In most of the major cities, parks programs

were enhanced only when a source of funds outside of the normal financing process

was identified. The evidence of this is the overwhelming number of grant applications to every dollar that is available, whether through Federal, state, private, or

foundations.

I took the opportunity to talk with some of my peers throughout the country and,

quite frankly, was not surprised to find that most of us have the same opinion. In

communities all across the country, large and small, city and county, regional and

state parks systems; we all find ourselves in competition for funding with other

agencies within our organizations. Many of us have the constant baffle to validate

101

investment in recreation in comparison to commitments to public safety. It has even

become fashionable to use terms like prevention and alternatives when describing

law enforcement, when this is really the natural domain of the parks and recreation

profession. It is the local recreation program that identifies the leadership qualities

of the gang member and redirects it to a positive use, that mines the caves of the

shy and withdrawn and inspires great talent. The most effective deterrent to negative leisure pursuits is the infusion of positive programming. The most aggressive

deterrent to the negative social elements in a park is a family picnic.

Nowhere is the impact of recreation more visible than in the local, county, and

state parks. It is these areas that the study commissioned in 1985, by President

Ronald Reagan’s COMMISSION ON AMERICANS OUTDOORS, identified as the

opportunity of first response to educate, break barriers, and enhance appreciation

of the nation’s natural resources. In fact, a great parallel was drawn showing that

the recreational desires of residents of rural, suburban, urban areas was essentially

the same. These desires changed with the cultures and exposures, but had the same

essence of enjoyment at heart.

This should come as no surprise, especially in these days of expanding urbanization. It is no secret that the definition of urban has changed significantly over the

recent years. During this time period, the recognized value of greenspace as a component of healthy community environments has become a staple in community planning.

In the late 1850’s, when the Olmstead tradition of New York’s Central Park became the icon of green space protection, the other major cities were following suit,

Philadelphia’s Fairmount Park, Chicago’s South Park, and Detroit’s Belle Isle were

representative of good government leadership in providing for regional type facilities. This effort was followed by the development of playground in Boston and other

large cities that recognized the need for recreation for urban youth.

The growth of communities throughout the country followed the recipe of big cities, with large regional parks and smaller recreation programs on a localized basis.

These were funded through gifts and donations. The communities were not providing services consistently until after World War II. Between the years of 1951 and

1974, the country experienced both explosive growth in services, however, it also became apparent that many of the older facilities were beginning to show deterioration and lack of investment. Communities were struggling to provide basic services

as their audiences grew by leaps and bounds. It was evident that some assistance

was necessary for these critical needs. Several agencies engaged in study of the situation and the following reports were produced:

1962-OUTDOOR RECREATION RESOURCES REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT

established the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) and the Land and Water Conservation Fund(LWCF).

1970-BOR produced THE RECREATION IMPERATIVE, the first nationwide outdoor recreation plan. Supported by a special study of urban recreation in 1972 by

HUD, this report suggested that ‘‘up to 75 percent of the LWCF could be used to

support the day use of major urban areas and at least 30 percent of the funds

should serve the central city needs.’’ This recommendation was not followed with action, but with more studies.

1963-Department of Interior published the NATIONAL URBAN RECREATION

STUDY, which chronicled serious deficiencies in urban recreation nationwide, within the most serious needs in the inner cores of the nations largest cities which had

demonstrated an inability to meet these needs without outside assistance.

I could continue with this mantra of painful recitations with studies that are as

recent as last year, with much of the same results. However we find ourselves with

an unprecedented opportunity. We, you, have the chance right now to take the place

of the visionaries of the past and support a process that will provide for development, renovation, and enhancement of critical recreation resources in important living spaces throughout this country.

A great value of the LWCF and UPARR funds is the fact that local agencies must

make an appropriate commitment to the investment to take advantage of the funds.

Most projects would only take place if there were dollars available outside of the

normal funding process. These funds, along with local match, make for the most

successful return on investment that government can make in the quality of life of

the citizens of this country.

A great example of this can be found in Wayne County, Michigan. The largest city

in the county of Wayne is the City of Detroit. For it’s entire eighty year history,

Wayne County, as a result of it’s development, only provided park facilities in suburban areas. This cannot be considered a criticism, considering that all of the parks

had been donated or acquired as a result of county road development and expansion.

102

The Wayne County Parks restoration story is a unique one, but significant to the

moment because it included an effort, for the first time in it’s history, to develop

a dedicated source of funding. Part of this plan included a proposal to invest a substantial amount of the millage proceeds in the City of Detroit. The project was identified when City of Detroit Parks and Recreation Director Ernest Burkeen and I

talked about possibilities in the city.

Chandler Park is one of the oldest and largest parks in the city and rests in one

of it’s most impoverished areas. The park is bordered by one of the oldest housing

developments in the country and both it and the park had fallen into grave disrepair. A study had been conducted to determine the most critical recreational need

for the area. This study determined that some type of aquatic facility was necessary.

The leadership of Wayne County, CEO Edward H. McNamara and his staff met

with Mayor Dennis Archer and his staff, forging the plan to invest in a multimillion

dollar family aquatic center in this park.

The park was a magnet for inappropriate activities, ranging from substance

abuses of all sorts, gang banging, and even nude dancing on hoods of cars. Needless

to say, it was not a family park. Police calls were recorded at one of the highest

levels in the city in Chandler Park. The neighborhood was up in arms and dissatisfaction was the name of the game.

A number of community forums and neighborhood meetings suggested that there

was overwhelming support for the project. The elected officials of Wayne County and

the City of Detroit worked with us to lease a portion of the park and construct the

aquatic center. Immediately after ground breaking, we began to notice a shift in the

culture of activities that occurred in the park. What we see now is almost idyllic

in nature, a complete culture change as a result of that facility, and police calls almost insignificant.

This is a true success story that could not have happened if a source of funds outside of the normal funding process had not become available. There also had to be

political will and a process to make it happen. These elements existed in Wayne

County for that instance, and some others, but should exist all across America.

In fact, the format and program is there. Since the inception of the LWCF and

UPARR, these funds have served as a ray of hope for the providers of public recreation. There are not many sources outside of normal funding processes that are

dedicated specifically for public parks and recreation. These not only do that, but

inspired the same kind of activity in state and local government throughout the

country. They served as catalysts for local investment in the quality of life of communities. Some projects would never happen without the 50 percent match of the

LWCF or UPARR. Some communities would have no recreation center, no sports

fields, no open space. Historic areas would not be preserved, the legacy of a national

recreation infrastructure would not be protected.

I cannot impress upon you enough the intense needs for stateside funding at full

levels, and if possible permanent status off budget. The number of projects would

be overwhelming, so much that it would seem like creative writing 101. For example, a 1995 survey by the National Recreation and Park association identified capital investment needs for parks and recreation from the period 1995-1999. Local

agencies alone will require a nationwide total of $27.7 billion for rehabilitation, land

acquisition, and new construction. Less than half of that sum is currently identified

as potentially available.

A recent national survey of local and state recreation and parks agencies yielded an immediate need for $1.7 billion to support 1,450 projects. This response occurred

within a 6-week period. Last year in the Michigan there were $107 million in grant

requests, but only $25 million were approved. This is not an atypical year for programs that the voters approved, and are very proud of. Nothing can underscore this

need any more than a response like this. There are even more examples of unmet

needs that we can cite:

Illinois—the cost of land is skyrocketing, making it difficult to protect valuable woodlands from development. Nature preserves, forest preserves, and park

districts are losing the battle with developers because they can’t compete with

their unlimited resources or their ability to quickly respond to opportunities.

Nebraska—a very rural state where most communities have a population of

less than 1,000 people. Their ballfields were developed with LWCF funds in the

early years without lights. With only $100k allocated to the state, unlit ballfields was the best that could be done. Unlike some communities, softball is still

one of the most important public recreation activities in Nebraska. The unmet

need there is to have those fields lighted, but there are no ready funds to undertake that effort.

Wisconsin—there is an unmet need in Wisconsin that register somewhere

near $8 million, according to some sources. A prime example is a 15 year old

103

project in Dane county that involves the acquisition of some 3,500 acres of

prime open space for recreation purposes. The local appropriations process does

not include funds beyond day to day operations and normal renovations.

There is the assumption that states and local communities are enjoying budget

surpluses and unlimited funding opportunities. In fact those surpluses are paper for

the most part, and are managed by limiting tax exposure by placing ceilings and

other restrictions. In fact, the issue of funding from the Federal level has been

raised on the basis of responsibility. So then, there is the query of ‘‘why should Federal dollars be spent on what seems clearly to be local and state responsibilities?’’

First of all, the Federal Government will benefit because this effort will take the

pressure off of the Federal Government to create new Federal lands for open space

protection and recreation. This comes at a time when the Federal programs are experiencing pressure in areas of maintenance, operations, and capital improvements.

Secondly, the two biggest items facing the nation are crime prevention and health

care costs. Investments in park and recreation facilities and programs is a direct

counter to those expenditures. The evidence irrefutable. Consider this notion, the

$35k that it will take to finance one incarceration will fund staff, equipment, and

supplies for a small community recreation program.

The President is talking about livability, especially in urban areas. Critical urban

areas must be made livable, with recreation as a prime component in the decision

making process for corporate and family relocation. There is no better investment

for local government than in the quality of life. In many communities, youth assistance programs are becoming the best method of promotion for a communities status

as a livable city.

There are 43 communities in Wayne County. Some of them have experienced the

highs and lows of urban renewal to the point that now they area struggling to stay

alive. Many of these communities are looking to the county to provide support for

their failing parks and recreation systems. We have all of the warm feelings and

ideas that can be proffered at this time, however, resources are limited to what we

can find allocated in our own budgets. This is the place, in the past, where the

LWCF and UPARR have come to the rescue with grants that helped these communities. The most amazing thing is that each grant requires a substantial local

match. This match encourages the initial investment as well as the long term allocation to maintain the facilities. Think of these programs as catalyst for local government investment in the quality of life enhancements that help these communities

stay alive.

Today, our nation is poised on one of those pinnacles that faced the millennium

leaders of our past. This is a moment of destiny that will establish a real agenda

for the quality of life of Americans. This is the initiative that we expected from

President Reagan’s Commission on Americans Outdoors, from the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, from the legislation that created the Land and Water Conservation

Fund and Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program.

This is the instance where the phrase ‘‘CARPE DIEM-SIEZE THE DAY’’ makes

all of the sense in the world. I trust that you will make historic decisions for now

and the future. Support funding these critical programs at their full levels for the

first time in our recent history. Take the bold step for tomorrow, today.

STATEMENT OF GROVER G. NORQUIST, PRESIDENT, AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM

Chairman Young, other members of this Committee, and ladies and gentlemen,

thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning about the Conservation

and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 701) and the Resources 2000 Act (H.R. 798).

My name is Grover Norquist, and I am president of Americans for Tax Reform,

an organization of over 90,000 individuals, taxpayer advocacy groups, corporations

and associations that are deeply concerned with the high levels of taxation and government spending. I come before you today to oppose attempts of the Federal Government to purchase more private land.

Federal royalties from onshore oil and gas production on Federal land are split

with the States where the leases are. Federal royalties from Outer Continental Shelf

(OCS) leases, are not shared with the States. The Conservation and Reinvestment

Act is an attempt to build enough political support to send some of the OCS revenues to the States adjacent to offshore production, by spreading the funds across

many other states. The real solution would be to send a portion of OCS revenues

only to the six OCS States’ general treasuries, just like onshore royalties.

Title I of the legislation gains support from 34 Coastal Sates by divvying up 27

percent of OCS revenues according to several formulae. The Great Lake States are

defined as Coastal states, even though there is no oil production in the region, simVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:27 Jan 29, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\56081 pfrm08 PsN: 56081
104

ply because those states provide a lot of votes in Congress. The six states with OCS

production will get more money than other States. Louisiana will get the most followed by Texas, Alaska and Florida.

Title II of this legislation gains support from environmentalists by turning the

Land and Water Conservation Fund of 1965 into a trust fund, not subject to further

Congressional appropriation. This removes accountability and is a big concern of

taxpayers. The trust fund would be generated by 23 percent of OCS revenues up

to the authorized Land and Water Conservation Fund level of $900 million per year

and would be used exclusively to purchase private land.

In fact all three titles create trust funds. Title III siphons off 10 percent of OCS

revenues for the Pittman-Robertson Fund, which would provide funds to all states.

There are good policy and budgetary reasons to oppose trust funds. They tie Congress’ hands far into the future when spending priorities may shift drastically.

Budgeting should be done so that all proposals must compete for limited funds.

After all, it is the taxpayers money, not the government’s. Either these proposed

trust funds should be offset by reducing the Interior and Related Agencies appropriation by an equal amount, or the budget cap for Interior must be lifted by over

$2 billion. Neither of these options are palatable.

Lastly, turning over $900 million per year to the Land and Water Conservation

Fund would be a massive increase in the purchase of private lands. The Federal

Government already owns too much land as it is. Four Federal agencies control

about 29 percent of the total acreage in the U.S. Other Federal agencies own a little

more. No one has conducted a full study of how much land state and local governments own, but it’s probably around 10 percent. This is too much. According to the

Federal land agencies themselves, they have a backlog of over $12 billion in operations and maintenance on these federally held lands. But instead of addressing this

problem, this bill would spend record amounts of money on buying more land and

giving it to State fish and wildlife agencies, instead of taking care of the land that

the government already owns.

This bill would triple land acquisition. Historically, annual appropriations for

LWCF have been around $300 million, but most of that has always been for Federal, not state, acquisitions. H.R. 701 increases land acquisition spending to $756

million, $378 million each for state and Federal land acquisition. Part of the rapid

increase in spending is due to the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program,

which will get $144 million annually of the $900 million total. This money may be

used by the States and local to purchase additional land as well.

Buying all of this land will hurt rural communities and local property tax bases.

This is important because in almost all jurisdictions, local property taxes are the

primary funding source for important services such as schools, police protection and

fire departments. Also, once all of this land is bought, taxpayers will have to take

care of it. This will add to overall Federal spending and increase the $12 billion in

existing backlog in maintenance and operations of land the Federal Government already controls.

As many on the Committee know Americans for Tax Reform asks congressional

members and challengers to take the Taxpayer’s Protection Pledge each year. Another of ATR’s major projects is to calculate a Cost of Government Day as a followup to Tax Freedom Day. Cost of government takes into account all the costs of government such as regulation, not just taxation. This legislation would significantly

add to Cost of Government Day.

Finally, I would like to close by saying that taking tax money to increase government at all levels (state, local and Federal) and decreasing private property ownership is not consistent with the philosophy of greater freedom through limited government, and therefore should not be a part of the 106th Congress’s agenda.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to address your Committee. I would be

happy to address any questions that you might have.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD NORTON, VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC POLICY, NATIONAL

TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Resources Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Trust for Historic Preservation regarding efforts to safeguard funding to protect and conserve our nation’s natural, historic

and cultural resources.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation’s mission is ‘‘Protecting the Irreplaceable.’’ In 1949, Congress created the National Trust as private organization

and charged the organization to lead the public/private effort to preserve our naVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:27 Jan 29, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\56081 pfrm08 PsN: 56081
105

tional heritage. The National Trust provides leadership, education, and advocacy to

save America’s diverse historic places and revitalize our communities.

Let me begin by commending both the Chainnan and Congressman Miller for recognizing the importance of dedicating revenue from Outer Continental Shelf fees

and royalties to the purpose of protecting our nation’s most valuable and irreplaceable resources. With the foundation created through the Chairman’s Conservation

and Reinvestment Act of 1999—H.R. 701—and Representative Miller’s Resources

2000 legislation—H.R. 798, I believe this Committee can forge a constructive, vital

piece of legislation that enhances efforts to protect these treasures.

There is a critical difference between the Chairman’s Outer Continental Shelf Impact Assistance bill and Congressman Miller’s Resources 2000 bill. This difference

causes the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the historic preservation

community to favor very strongly the Resources 2000 bill. Resources 2000 provides

full and permanent funding for the Historic Preservation Fund (‘‘HPF’’). Accordingly, the National Trust recommends that this provision be included in any legislation developed by this Committee.

The Historic Preservation Fund, established under the National Historic Preservation Act, provides a crucial funding mechanism for protecting our nation’s historic

resources. The Historic Preservation Fund is the keystone of the partnership between the Federal Government, the state governments and the certified local governments, and the private sector created by the National Historic Preservation Act.

This partnership has worked extraordinarily well for more than 30 years. The modest annual appropriations from the Historic Preservation Fund leverage hundreds

of millions of matching dollars from state governments and the private sector. You

can see and experience the benefits of this program in almost every community in

the United States in great landmarks, buildings, and historic districts saved and

communities revitalized.

The Historic Preservation Fund was established by Congress in 1976 with income

from fees charged for offshore oil leases. The HPF provides matching grants to all

50 states and territories to survey districts, buildings and sites for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. It is also used to maintain and rehabilitate historic properties and to educate and inform the public. Prior to 1976 these funds

came from general revenues of the U.S. Government.

The financial assistance created by the Historic Preservation Fund is distributed

following manner:

The State Historic Preservation Offices. The HPF provides significant funding for the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) to pay half the cost of running the national preservation program. The National Historic Preservation Act requires the states to match the Federal share.

The States use their HPF allocations to perform a number of invaluable services,

such as helping local governments establish historic preservation programs and

local preservation commissions; providing preservation grants; designing annual priorities to meet the preservation goals mandated by State legislatures; encouraging

economic development through cultural tourism, administering the Federal rehabilitation tax credit; conducting heritage education programs for the general public;

providing information on historic preservation techniques; working with citizens and

government agencies to identify historic places; nominating significant places to the

National Register of Historic Places; and working with Federal agencies to minimize

harm to National Register properties.

Federal funds are apportioned to the states based on a three-tiered formula that

includes (1) a Tier One Base Award in which each State receives an equal share

of funding per annum subject to inflation; (2) a Tier Two Award based on the noncompetitive factors of population and the area of the State [including water boundaries out to the three-mile limit]; and (3) the number of residences in each State

over 50 years old as defined in the last U.S. Census.

Certified Local Governments. Local governments that have established an historic preservation commission and program that meets certain Federal and state

standards are eligible to participate in the Certified Local Government (CLG) program. Participation in the program allows CLGs to apply for earmarked grants (a

minimum of 10 percent of a State’s HPF allocation) to participate in the National

Register nomination process and receive technical assistance and training.

Tribal Preservation Offices. To preserve vanishing tribal languages, dialects

and cultural practices, as well as to protect cultural artifacts on tribal lands.

Historically black colleges and universities. For preservation and protection

of landmarks that symbolize the hope of the civil rights struggle and the contributions that historically black colleges and universities have made in the education

of our Nation’s citizens.

106

Save America’s Treasures. This two year program was created to preserve and

restore our nation’s heritage as we enter the new millennium. The program allows

appropriated funds to be transferred to Federal agencies toward preservation and

restoration of endangered historic sites, artifacts, and documents identified by the

National Park Service and other Federal agencies. All grants administered by the

program must be matched, and the program includes a parallel private effort to

raise money from corporations, foundations and individuals. It also includes a public

education campaign highlighting the importance of preserving America’s heritage.

The National Trust strongly supports, of course, full and permanent funding for

the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Acquisition of land for national, state, and

local parks, and protection of open space and greenways for recreation, fish and

wildlife habitat, and watershed protection should all rank as high national priorities. The Land and Water Conservation Fund takes public funds from a non-renewable resource and invests it in our renewable and sustainable resources.

The same philosophy, and the same public purposes and policy underlie the Historic Preservation Fund. Our nation’s historic and cultural resources stand equal to

our natural resources. Our built environment, in which most Americans spend most

of their daily lives is just as important as our natural environment. As we enter

a new century, we should be devoting just as much thought about public policy and

just as much public funding to the environment of our cities, towns, villages, communities and inhabited landscapes as we devote to protecting the natural environment.

In preparing this testimony today, I had occasion to read again With Heritage So

Rich: A Report of a Special Commission on Historic Preservation under the Auspices

of the United States Conference of Mayors in 1966. This report provided the foundation for the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. I commend it to your attention because it is just as relevant today as it was in 1966. The report, written in

the wake of urban renewal and the destruction of stable communities by the interstate highway system in the 1950’s and early 1960’s, concluded that ‘‘the pace of

urbanization is accelerating and the threat to our environmental heritage is mounting.’’ Today, we read and hear the same alarm bells about ‘‘sprawl’’ and disinvestment in our cities, towns, and neighborhoods. The Historic Preservation Fund is a

modest, highly efficient Federal program for investing in our existing communities.

This investment from the Historic Preservation Fund saves and re-uses existing

housing, commercial, and transportation infrastructure. The Historic Preservation

Fund leverages funds from the private sector. Most important, it preserves the

sense of identity and special character that binds communities together—and we

cannot place a value on those qualities.

In terms of authorized funding levels—$150 million, the Historic Preservation

Fund is very modest compared to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In terms

of benefits conferred to the American people, the Historic Preservation Funds ranks

at the very least as an equal.

Indeed, the National Trust respectfully submits that the Historic Preservation

Fund is underappreciated, under-valued, and under-funded. The National Trust respectfully asks that this Committee give full and permanent funding for the Historic

Preservation Fund equal consideration in the legislation now under consideration.

STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF IDAHO

We are here to listen to testimony about the merits of H.R. 701, the Conservation

and Reinvestment Act of 1999, and H.R. 758, the Resources 2000 Act. Although the

supporters of these bills believe they are doing the right thing, I have some serious

concerns.

The essence of these bills is to infuse massive amounts of money into land acquisition and wildlife conservation at both a state and Federal level. We can sit around

for days and debate the pros and cons of land acquisition and not persuade each

other. However, it is a bed rock principle with me that this country is better served

when land is in private ownership, with, of course, a few very narrow exceptions.

The fact is, our land management agencies can’t properly manage what they have

now. We have a $12 billion maintenance backlog on public land infrastructure. We

are closing campgrounds and other recreational facilities. Yet, people want to add

more? The fact is, many counties in the Western United States are upwards of 95

percent publicly held. There is very little private land for a tax base to run schools

and build roads. Yet people want to add more? Whether Federal, state, county or

local, the ultimate result of this bill will take land out of private ownership and further erode a county’s ability to provide for its citizens.

107

I recognize the efforts of H.R. 701’s authors to try to limit the use of these massive amounts of monies to certain areas. Indeed, I support the efforts to try to tighten up the use of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Far too often we’ve seen

the Fund used for purposes for which it was never intended. Since it’s enactment,

instead of the Fund being utilized by local units of government to enhance the

urban quality of life, it has become a Federal land acquisition monster, spending

hundreds of millions dollars annually to swallow up large tracts of land. H.R. 701

attempts to limit the Fund’s Federal acquisitions to inholdings within congressionally designated units of land management. So long as a true willing seller, willing

buyer relationship exists, this can be positive. I’ve been assured by the authors that

this is their intent and that they will work with me to make sure the language is

crystal clear.

Another troubling aspect of H.R. 701 is the specific language furthering the Federal Government’s already too broad of reach even into state and local affairs. H.R.

701 mandates that the Federal agencies are considered a partner of the local units

of government when they consider local land use and planning. This is absolutely

unacceptable.

Taking land out of private ownership and local land control are only two of my

concerns. I have serious problems about the funding mechanism of these proposals.

H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 propose to use nearly a billion dollars per year of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas lease receipts. These monies, which currently go

to pay down the principle on the national debt, would not be subject to appropriations, but rather would be directly expended by the Secretary. Like many other

trust funds, this money is mandatory, not discretionary, and Congress has no choice

in the matter. The land acquisition program then becomes an entitlement, which is

completely unacceptable.

Additionally, the Constitution clearly states, ‘‘The Congress shall have [the] power

to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or

other property belonging to the United States.’’ The net effect of providing a dedicated source of funds to the bureaucracy for land acquisition with virtually no congressional oversight is for the Congress to cede over its Constitutional responsibility

to the Executive Branch. Congress would no longer be making the decisions about

land acquisition; Executive Branch bureaucrats would.

Finally, OCS receipts are currently dedicated to pay down the principle of the national debt. Now that some in Congress claim we have a balanced budget—without

the use of Social Security we remain about $60 billion in the red—many members

are finding ways to spend the ‘‘extra’’ money. That’s exactly what H.R. 701 and H.R.

798 does. What once were fiscal conservatives now are members who are rushing

to spend money. By taking nearly a billion dollars off budget, we are increasing total

Federal spending and reducing the rate by which we pay back our grand children.

Some claim that we need to acquire this land to leave our children a legacy. In reality, the legacy that we leave behind is the $5.7 trillion national debt and a diminished taxable land base to provide for schools and roads.

This proposal has been considered before, and fortunately defeated. But whether

it’s the 1980’s American Heritage Trust, President Clinton’s Lands Legacy, or other

derivatives of the same proposal, to continue to spend money to take land out of

the taxable land base is fiscally irresponsible on many levels. With only 5 percent

of our land base developed, this proposal is an expensive solution in search of a

problem—a solution that will violate property rights, states’ rights and the balance

of power between Federal and state government. The country simply cannot afford

these proposals. Without substantial changes, I will continue to work to defeat these

measures.

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

(259)

HEARING ON 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 TO ESTABLISH A FUND TO

MEET THE OUTDOOR CONSERVATION AND

RECREATION NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN

PEOPLE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF

1999

H.R. 798, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PERMANENT

PROTECTION OF THE RESOURCES OF THE

UNITED STATES IN THE YEAR 2000 AND BEYOND

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11 a.m., in Room 1324,

Longworth House Office Building, Hon. William J. Tauzin, presiding.

Mr. TAUZIN. [presiding] The Committee will please come to order.

We ask our guests to take available seats and to get comfortable.

We have some distinguished friends and witnesses here that we

would like to accommodate as best we can.

Thank you very much.

[The bills H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. TAUZIN. Today we begin our second hearing on the twin proposals, H.R. 701 and H.R. 798, the CARA bill and the Resource

2000 bill, and we are very honored to have with us United States

Senator Barbara Boxer, who will lead this panel, and the Honorable Jim McGovern, and Saxby Chambliss will also be here, I

think, in just a few minutes.

260

Senator Boxer, we want to welcome you, and appreciate your

making a long trek over to the House side, and this is a Committee

you are very familiar with. We have missed you here on the Committee, and so glad to see you again today. I would be happy to

yield to my friend, Mr. Miller, for a welcome.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Just to welcome the

panel and to welcome my lead Senate co-sponsor on this legislation,

and Mr. McGovern, who has been so helpful in helping us to draft

this legislation, to say that I want to apologize to later witnesses.

I may be in and out of this hearing. It was my intent to sit through

the whole hearing, but we are doing the EDFLEX bill on the floor

today, and I have an amendment to that legislation, but hopefully

I will have some time here before I have to go to the floor. And I

want to thank all of the witnesses for coming today.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you, Mr. Miller. And now we are pleased to

welcome Senator Boxer, who will lead it off and, Senator Boxer,

you are pleased to go forward at your convenience.

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, A UNITED STATES

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. It is very

nice to see you and, of course, the rest of your colleagues on this

Committee, several of whom are from California. It is nice to be

here.

I am very pleased that your Committee is holding this hearing.

It is an issue that I think means a lot to all Americans who want

to see us protect and defend the beauty and history of our Nation,

who want to see us be fair to our farmers. I think this is an opportunity for us to join hands across party lines and do something

good for the people.

Congressman Miller and I introduced the Permanent Protection

for America’s Resources 2000 Act. I want to let you know that in

the Senate, that just by a little calling around, I already have as

co-sponsors Senators Biden, John Kerry, Feinstein, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Schumer, and Senator Torricelli.

Now, I know there are a good many bills out there and I think

this is good. On both sides of the aisle, we are finally talking about

making a permanent commitment to America’s resources.

I want to say, on a personal note, Mr. Chairman, that during the

impeachment trial over in the Senate, one speaker after the other

got up and said, ‘‘You know, this is the most important vote we are

ever going to cast.’’

And I sat back and thought, I don’t want this to be the most important vote I ever cast, I want to do something for the legacy of

this country, and I can think of nothing more important that we

can do at this point, going into the next century, than making a

commitment to permanently protect our natural resources.

If we go back to the beginning of the 20th century, one of the

greatest conservationists of all time, Theodore Roosevelt, was our

President. From 1901 to 1909, Teddy Roosevelt set aside places

that millions of Americans still enjoy today. If not for Teddy Roosevelt’s leadership, we might have lost such national treasures as

the Grand Canyon, Muir Woods, and Crater Lake. These natural

261

monuments stand as a lasting testament to TR’s foresight in pioneering work in environmental preservation.

As the 21st century approaches, it is our turn. We must renew

our commitment to our natural heritage. And that commitment

must go beyond the piecemeal approach. It must be a comprehensive, long-term strategy to ensure that when our children’s children

enter the 22nd century, they can herald our actions today, as we

revere those of President Roosevelt.

Today, our natural heritage is disappearing at an alarming rate.

Each year, nearly 3 million acres of farmland and more than

170,000 acres of wetlands disappear. Each day, over 7,000 acres of

open space are lost forever. In California, in the year 2020, we are

projected to have about 50 million people. We simply cannot lose

every inch of open space at the rate it is disappearing.

Across America, parks are closing, recreational facilities are deteriorating, open spaces are vanishing, and historic structures are

crumbling. Why is this happening? Because there is no dedicated

funding source for all these noble purposes, a source which can be

used only for these noble purposes.

The Miller-Boxer bill offers the most sweeping commitment to

protecting America’s natural heritage in more than 30 years. It will

establish a dedicated funding source for resource protection.

We know a major funding source for resource protection already

exists because each year the oil companies pay the Federal Government billions of dollars in rents, royalties, and other fees in connection with offshore drilling in Federal waters. In 1998 alone, the

government collected over $4.6 billion from oil and gas drilling on

the Outer Continental Shelf.

The Miller-Boxer bill would allocate only half of these revenues.

We are not talking about all of these revenues, just half of these

revenues every year for permanent protection.

Mr. Chairman, we fund permanently eight trust funds, and I’ll go very quickly: $100 million every year for urban parks and recreational facilities; $350 million to restore native fish and wildlife;

$250 million to restore Federal lands that are polluted or damaged;

$300 million to protect and restore the health of our oceans; $150

million to protect our vanishing farmlands and open space; $100

million to purchase habitat to help endangered species recovery

which will greatly help our farmers, and $150 million every year

to restore and protect our historical and cultural heritage through

fully funding the Historic Preservation Fund.

Mr. Chairman, I see that my yellow light is on. Could I ask

unanimous consent for one additional minute over the five?

Mr. TAUZIN. I don’t think that will be a problem and, without objection, so ordered.

Senator BOXER. Thank you, and I will try to talk as fast as I can.

I want to point out that the Historic Preservation Fund was established by Congress in 1977, to provide a dedicated source of funding to preserve our significant historic properties. The problem is,

we have not funded this noble purpose. If you take a look at San

Francisco, for example, the Old Mint Building which was given by

the Federal Government as a gift to welcome California into the

Union in 1850, that building is a beautiful building. It cannot be

torn down. It is historic. The rats have infested that building. That

262

building is empty, and I think to myself, if this was Paris, this

would never happen. The bottom line is, we are losing these buildings, and they are present in your state, Mr. Chairman, and all

over the country.

I did not mention the eighth trust fund, Land and Water Conservation Fund, which we fully fund at $900 million. The good

news is the fund has collected over $21 billion since 1965. The bad

news is only $9 billion of this amount has been spent. As you know,

we have used that Land and Water Conservation Fund to kind of

hide the deficit, and we have shorted that fund dramatically. We

have shifted $16 billion to other accounts.

Mr. Chairman, I will not take anymore of your precious time and

that of the Committee. I am very pleased that there are several

bills on this subject matter. I have great confidence that working

across party lines we can protect our Nation’s natural heritage, and

leave a lasting legacy for future generations.

Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Committee. This is an issue for all Americans who want to see us protect and defend

the beauty and history of our nation.

That is why Congressman George Miller and I introduced the Permanent Protection for America’s Resources 2000 Act. Co-sponsors in the Senate include Senator

Joe Biden, Senator John Kerry, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Frank Lautenberg, Senator Chuck Schumer and Senator Bob Torricelli.

I know there are many bills out there and this is good. On both sides of the

aisle—we are finally talking about making a permanent commitment to America’s

natural resources.

As the 20th Century began, one of the greatest conservationists of all time, Theodore Roosevelt, was our President. From 1901 to 1909, Teddy Roosevelt set aside

places that millions of Americans still enjoy today.

If not for Teddy Roosevelt’s leadership, we might have lost such national treasures as the Grand Canyon, Muir Woods, and Crater Lake. These natural monuments stand as a lasting testament to TR’s foresight and pioneering work in environmental preservation.

As the 21st Century approaches, we must renew our commitment to our natural

heritage. That commitment must go beyond a piecemeal approach. It must be a comprehensive, long-term strategy to ensure that when our children’s children enter the

22nd Century, they can herald our actions today, as we revere those of President

Roosevelt.

Today, our natural heritage is disappearing at an alarming rate. Each year, nearly 3 million acres of farmland and more than 170,000 acres of wetlands disappear.

Each day, over 7,000 acres of open space are lost forever.

Across America, parks are closing, recreational facilities deteriorating, open

spaces vanishing, historic structures crumbling.

Why is this happening? Because there is no dedicated funding source for all these

noble purposes—a source which can be used only for these noble purposes.

The Miller-Boxer bill offers the most sweeping commitment to protecting America’s natural heritage in more than 30 years. It will establish a dedicated funding

source for resource protection.

A major funding source for resource protection already exists. Each year, oil companies pay the Federal Government billions of dollars in rents, royalties, and other

fees in connection with offshore drilling in Federal waters. In 1998 alone, the government collected over $4.6 billion from oil and gas drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf.

The Miller-Boxer bill would allocate a total of $2.3 billion every year from oil drilling revenues for permanent protection of America’s resources. It provides:

• $100 million every year for urban parks and recreational facilities

• $350 million to restore native fish and wildlife

263

• $250 million to restore Federal lands that are polluted or damaged

• $300 million to protect and restore the health of our oceans

• $150 million to protect our vanishing farmlands and open space

• $100 million to purchase habitat to help endangered species recovery

• And $150 million every year to restore and protect our historical and cultural

heritage through fully funding the Historic Preservation Fund.

The Historic Preservation Fund was established by Congress in 1977, to provide

a dedicated source of funding to preserve our significant historic properties. And although Congress is authorized to spend $150 million from OCS revenues annually

for this purpose, less than 29 percent of funding has been appropriated since 1977.

That is more than $2 billion that could have been used to help restore the treasures

of our nation scattered across the many states. In California, there’s the Old Mint

Building in San Francisco, Manzanar National Historic Site, and Mission San Juan

Capistrano. Our bill would ensure that funds would be spent on their designated

purpose.

Finally, the bill designates $900 million each year to purchase land by fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund as envisioned by Congress in 1965

when the Fund was established. Half would go to the States.

The good news is that Fund has collected over $21 billion since 1965. The bad

news is that only $9 billion of this amount has been spent on its intended uses.

More than $16 billion has been shifted into other Federal accounts.

The funding Congress has made available has allowed us to purchase some key

tracts of land, but we have missed golden opportunities to buy critical open space

because the Land and Water Conservation Fund was critically underfunded.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this series of hearings. I look forward to

working with you and other members of the Committee on this critical issue. This

is necessary and important legislation that will benefit our Nation’s natural heritage, and leave a lasting legacy for future generations.

Mr. Chairman, it’s a chance to work across the aisle for all the people.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you, Senator Boxer, and with all the deference we accord to you, if you would like to stay you are more

than welcome; if you need to get back to the Senate, we will make

accommodations at this time.

Any member who wants to engage Senator Boxer at all?

[No response.]

Then we thank you, Senator Boxer.

Senator BOXER. Thank you so very much, and anytime you need

help on this, Mr. Chairman, I am at your disposal. And thank you,

Mr. McGovern, as well.

Mr. TAUZIN. Again, Barbara, we want to thank you and wish you

the best on the Senate side. We, again, as I said, missed your presence here in the Committee for a few years.

Senator BOXER. Well, thank you. You should have told me that

when I was here, Billy. You should have told me that when I was

here. I didn’t get that message.

[Laughter.]

Mr. MILLER. Better late than never.

Mr. TAUZIN. We couldn’t miss you when you were here, just

couldn’t do it.

Thank you very much, Senator.

Now we are pleased to welcome Congressman Jim McGovern.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES McGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the opportunity to present testimony before this Committee, and I also want to pay tribute to our colleague in the Senate, Senator Boxer, for her leadership on this issue and on so many

other issues that are important to our environment.

264

I particularly want to thank this Committee for taking up the

cause of funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In addition to you, Mr. Chairman, I want to especially thank Congressman Miller and my other colleagues for drawing attention to this

important issue. Mr. Miller has been at the forefront of our efforts

to protect the environment, and I am proud to stand with him in

support of his bill, H.R. 798.

Senator Boxer has kind of already gone over the history of the

Land and Conservation Fund, and I am not going to do that. I am

here today to urge you to support full and permanent funding of

the state-side Land and Water Conservation Fund and independent

OCS funding for UPARR provided by H.R. 798.

Both the state-side program of the LWCF and UPARR give

states the ability to determine their own needs and set their own

priorities. State-side funding of these programs states and local

communities to preserve their neighborhood parks, ball fields, scenic trails, nature reserves, and historical sites.

State-side LWCF is a necessary tool in the effort to mitigate the

effects of suburban sprawl. The rapid and unplanned growth which

we have been experiencing over the past decade is leaving an indelible mark on our suburban landscapes.

As large undifferentiated developments spread out into countrysides, communities are losing both their geographic cohesiveness

and their sense of identity. State-side LWCF funding will enable

states to compensate for vanishing farmland and rural landscapes

as development extends outward from older central cities and new

edge cities.

Mr. Chairman, the children of our cities need safe green spaces

to play in. Unused open space in a city is a vacant lot, with garbage, glass, oftentimes with dirty needles, and drug dealing. Without safe, healthy parks, our children go from home to school and

back without ever interacting with a natural area. State-side

LWCF and UPARR will help neighborhoods transform dangerous

vacant lots into stabilizing and inspirational green spaces or playgrounds.

State-side LWCF and UPARR legislation has a broad base of

support which cuts through both suburbs and cities. I also believe

it has broad bipartisan support here in the Congress.

Last year, I had an amendment to the Interior appropriation bill

to put funding back into the state-side Land and Water Conservation Fund Program, which only failed by a handful of votes. I think

if we had a better offset, it would have been successful. It is

environmentalism which walks hand-in-hand with development.

Last November, 10 states, 22 counties, and 93 towns voted on open

space initiatives. Eighty-seven percent of these initiatives passed,

triggering $4 billion in state and local conservation spending.

Further, in December, the United States Conference of Mayors

sent a letter to the Clinton Administration requesting funding for

the Land and Water Conservation Fund. One hundred fifteen mayors signed the letter.

Throughout my own district, I have been approached by mayors,

town officials, business leaders, law enforcement officials, children’s

advocates, education leaders, and environmental advocates who

have urged me to continue supporting the Land and Water ConVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:27 Jan 29, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00270 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\56081 pfrm08 PsN: 56081
265

servation Fund and UPARR funding. Projects for which Federal

conservation assistance is needed vary from a long overdue city

park in Worcester to open space preservation in the nearby town

of Shrewsbury.

I was at a meeting with the Board of Selectpeople in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts, on Saturday, to talk about their local concerns. The first issue that they brought up was the Land and

Water Conservation Fund. Shrewsbury is one of those suburbs that

is one of the fastest growing communities in Massachusetts, and

they are facing real financial constraints in their attempt to obtain

open space land. We in Congress must respond to what everyone

outside the beltway is asking for, full funding of state-side LWCF

and UPARR programs.

For these reasons, I am asking the Committee to approve full

funding for the stateside programs, and I will do whatever I can

to assist the Committee in the deliberations. I thank you very

much for the opportunity to be here.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McGovern follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. MCGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Good Morning Mr. Chairman,

I want to thank you for this opportunity to present testimony before your Committee. I would also like to thank you for taking up the cause of funding the Land

and Water Conservation Fund.

Additionally, I would like to thank Congressman George Miller and my other colleagues for drawing attention to this important issue. Congressman Miller has been

at the forefront of our efforts to protect the environment, and I am proud to stand

with him on H.R. 798.

As many of you already know, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)

trust account was created over thirty years ago. During that period it has been the

principle source of Federal money to acquire new Federal and state recreational

lands. More than 37,000 park and recreation projects have been developed since the

Fund was established. Unfortunately, in the last ten years less than 25 percent of

the $900 million taken into the Fund from offshore drilling receipts has been appropriated for Fund purposes. Further, the ‘‘state-side’’ matching grant program has

been virtually unfunded since Fiscal Year 1995.

I am here today to urge you to support full and permanent funding of the stateside LWCF and independent OCS funding for UPARR provided by H.R. 798. Both

the state-side program of the LWCF and UPARR give states the ability to determine

their own needs and set their own priorities. State-side LWCF and UPARR empower states and local communities to preserve their neighborhood parks, ball

fields, scenic trails, nature reserves, and historical sites.

State-side LWCF is a necessary tool in the effort to mitigate the effects of suburban ‘‘sprawl.’’ The rapid and unplanned growth which we have been experiencing

over the past decade is leaving an indelible mark on our suburban landscapes. As

large undifferentiated developments spread out into countrysides, communities are

losing both their geographic cohesiveness and their sense of identity. State-side

LWCF funding will enable states to compensate for vanishing farmland and rural

landscapes as development extends outward from older central cities and new ‘‘edge

cities.’’

Mr. Chairman, the children of our cities need safe green spaces to play in. Unused

open space in a city is a vacant lot, with garbage, glass, dirty needles, and drug

dealing. Without safe, healthy parks, our children go from home to school and back

without ever interacting with a natural area. State-side LWCF and UPPAR will

help neighborhoods transform dangerous vacant lots into stabilizing and inspirational green spaces or playgrounds.

State-side LWCF and UPARR legislation has a broad base of support which cuts

through both suburbs and cities. It is environmentalism which walks hand in hand

with development. Last November, 10 states, 22 counties, and 93 towns voted on

open space initiatives. Eighty-seven percent of these initiatives passed, triggering $4

billion in state and local conservation spending. Further, in December the United

266

States Conference of Mayors sent a letter to the Clinton Administration requesting

funding for the LWCF and UPARR. 115 mayors signed the letter.

Throughout my own district, I have been approached by mayors, town officials,

business leaders, and environmental advocates who have urged me to continue supporting LWCF and UPARR funding. Projects for which Federal conservation assistance is needed vary from a long overdue city park in Worcester to open space preservation in the nearby suburb of Shrewsbury. We in Congress must respond to what

everyone outside the beltway is asking for, full funding of state-side LWCF and

UPARR.

For these reasons, I ask the Committee to approve full funding for the stateside

programs of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and OCS funding for UPARR,

and to support H.R. 798.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. [presiding] Thank you. We appreciate our colleague’s statement, and you are welcome to stay and join us on the

dais if you are so inclined.

I’ll recognize our colleague from Georgia, the Honorable Saxby

Chambliss.

STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for

me to be here today to have an opportunity to talk to you about

something that I think is one of the most important pieces of legislation that certainly this Committee and the whole Congress has

had an opportunity to deal with since I have been here.

I particularly want to thank the Chairman, Mr. Young, for the

efforts that he has done every day to benefit wildlife and preserve

the fish, the right and opportunity of all Americans to hunt, fish,

trap, and enjoy our great outdoors.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to join the Committee today

to express my support for the bipartisan efforts encompassed within H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, or CARA. As

Co-Chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, I applaud

Chairman Young for crafting a bill that absolutely and positively

gives our state fish and wildlife agencies the resources to adequately address the wildlife conservation funding problems. Specifically, I come before you today to applaud Title III of Chairman

Young’s bill, Wildlife-Based Conservation.

Primarily, I wear my hat as Chairman of the Congressional

Sportsmen’s Caucus today, but I also am here as Vice Chairman

of the Budget Committee. As we are in the midst of preparing to

markup our Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Resolution in committee, I

must tell you that there are high hurdles that this bill faces with

regard to our budgetary constraints, specifically the mandatory

spending provisions.

While these constraints concern the Budget Committee and me

greatly, I have expressed my support for this bill to the Budget

Committee in no uncertain terms. I believe the merits outweigh the

obstacles, and look forward to working with the Chairman and others to try to craft solutions to the concerns.

I am pleased that the Committee has heard testimony from

David Waller, the Director of the Wildlife Resources Division of the

Georgia Department of Natural Resources. David has been involved

in the process of addressing the needs of his colleagues throughout

the country for a number of years.

267

He has shown great leadership and flexibility to work within this

budget-driven Congress to assist in crafting legislation that will address the vacuum of funding that state fish and wildlife directors

face in addressing wildlife-based conservation and education

projects, and by wildlife I mean conservation projects for both game

and nongame species.

Mr. Chairman, it is clear that we must work to ensure we have

an abundance of wildlife and habitat to enjoy, and that we continue

to promote multiple-use habitat management for our wildlife and

fisheries. The Chairman’s bill goes a long way in ensuring these

goals are achieved.

I want to share with you an example of how ordinary fish and

wildlife departments can do extraordinary things given the resources not only by the state but also by the Federal Government.

My State of Georgia is home to the Nation’s most successful wildlife turkey restoration program, which incidentally took Georgia’s

wild turkey population from 17,000 birds in 1973, to more than

400,000 birds today. In fact, Georgia has the country’s largest harvest record of more than 80,000 birds in 1996, and this is just one

example of how every state can be successful given the proper resources.

Our Federal-state partnerships are the key to continuing to preserve these type of opportunities in Georgia as well as around the

country.

The Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus, I believe, has an obligation to heighten its commitment to ensure that these Federal-state

partnerships are strengthened. One step in that direction would be

the passage of H.R. 701. It is important for all of us to recognize

that we enjoy the great outdoors in different ways. I appreciate

that not all Americans hunt and fish. Some take pictures, some

watch, some hike, and some bike, but hunting and fishing does not

diminish the natural wonders that we all enjoy. In fact, as everyone in this room knows, hunting and fishing and trapping are valuable conservation management tools. In fact, hunting and fishing

has been enjoyed throughout the ages.

The Bible is full of quotations and citations to hunting and fishing that took place back in Biblical times. And that is why it is so

important to help fund hunting and fishing related wildlife conservation and education programs. That is why we must ensure

that the age of hunters does not continue to rise as it is doing right

now nationwide.

The reason the age has risen in many states is a direct reflection

of our inability to educate our children and offer them outdoor activities beyond the baseball diamond, the basketball court, and the

playground.

I believe that Title III of the Chairman’s legislation can help fill

that gap. For too long, the Federal Government and private industry have not adequately addressed the needs of state fish and wildlife departments with regard to wildlife conservation and education

projects. I believe both need to step up to the plate.

Mr. Chairman, I submitted to you a letter back in September of

1998 regarding your commitment to working to address concerns in

Title III raised by some in the conservation community. I believe

your comments demonstrate your commitment to working with the

268

individual state fish and wildlife agencies to adequately address

their needs.

I would like to submit your letter for the record and at this time

to read a few key sentences. Your letter to me, dated September

9, 1998, reads in part as follows:

‘‘Congressman Chambliss, your letter aptly points out that while

the goal of our proposal is similar to Teaming With Wildlife, our

approach and funding mechanism are different. I share your interest in increasing funding to our state fish and wildlife departments

for conservation and education efforts as TWW purported to

achieve. However, I also share your pragmatic concerns with the

way TWW obtained funding to achieve that end.

‘‘The proposal contained within Title III of our proposal, in my

opinion, not only achieves the goals contained within TWW, but

surpasses them. This proposal gives a state fish and wildlife department broad discretion in achieving the individual goals to conserve wildlife within their state. Pittman-Robertson was chosen because it is an existing statutory mechanism which has successfully

distributed funds to states for almost 60 years. Also, Pittman-Robertson currently contains language which allows a state the latitude to fund both game and nongame programs. However, we all

recognize that this money has been primarily focused on programs

directly supporting game species. It is for that reason that our proposal contains language to make it clear that these new funds are

to be used on wildlife, both game and nongame.’’

And that ends my quote from your letter, Mr. Chairman.

I read your letter in a speech last year at the 88th Annual Conference of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, which was held in my state, in Savannah. I think your position was clear then as it is today. I am thankful that the conservation community recognizes that wildlife conservation and education

projects should be decided at the state level, and that state agencies should be given the flexibility to use funds for game or

nongame purposes, rather than have the Federal Government

make that decision for them.

I know folks in Georgia and around the country will benefit from

this legislation because it provides a steady, dependable revenue

stream. It helps fund both game and nongame wildlife conservation

programs, and it provides the states the flexibility to tailor their

funding priorities to suit their individual needs.

One of the most exciting parts of this bill that I am going to be

working on is the wildlife associated education. We need to ensure

that our future generations are educated about wildlife, and recognize that hunting and fishing are valuable conservation management tools.

I look forward to working closely with Chairman Young on this

issue to ensure that the criteria for such wildlife education projects

will accomplish this. Helping replenish renewable resources with

funds derived from nonrenewable resources is good policy, and

CARA accomplishes this while not raising taxes one penny.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to testify before

your Committee today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chambliss follows:]

269

STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF GEORGIA

Thank you Mr. Chairman. And thank you for all the efforts you do everyday to

benefit wildlife and preserve the right and opportunity of all Americans to hunt,

fish, trap and enjoy our great outdoors. I am pleased to have the opportunity to join

the Committee today to express my support for the bipartisan efforts encompassed

within H.R. 701, The Conservation And Reinvestment Act (CARA).

As co-chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, I applaud Chairman

Young for crafting a bill that absolutely, positively gives our state fish and wildlife

agencies the resources to adequately address their wildlife conservation funding

problems.

Specifically, I come before you today to applaud Title III of Chairman Young’s bill,

Wildlife-based Conservation.

Primarily, I wear my hat as chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus

today; however, I am also joining you as the vice chairman of the House Committee

on the Budget. As we are in the midst of preparing to mark up our FY 2000 Budget

Resolution in Committee, I must tell you that there are high hurdles that this bill

faces with regard to our budgetary constraints, specifically the mandatory spending

questions. While these constraints concern the Budget Committee and me greatly,

I have expressed my support for this bill to the Budget Committee in no uncertain

terms. I believe the merits outweigh the obstacles and look forward to working with

the chairman and others to try and craft solutions to the concerns.

I am pleased that the Committee has heard testimony from David Waller, the Director of the Wildlife Resources Division at the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. David has been involved in the process of addressing the needs of his colleagues throughout the country for a number of years. He has shown great leadership and flexibility to work within this budget-driven Congress to assist in crafting

legislation that will address the vacuum of funding that state fish and wildlife directors face in addressing wildlife-based conservation and education projects—and by

‘‘wildlife’’ I mean conservation projects for both game and non-game species.

Mr. Chairman, it is clear that we must work to ensure we have an abundance

of wildlife and habitat to enjoy and that we continue to promote multiple-use habitat management for our wildlife and fisheries. Your bill goes a long way in ensuring

these goals are achieved.

I want to share with you an example of how ordinary Fish and Wildlife Departments can do extraordinary things given the resources not only by the state, but

also by the Federal Government. My state of Georgia is home to the nation’s most

successful wild turkey restoration program—which incidentally took Georgia’s wild

turkey population from 17,000 birds in 1973 to more than 400,000 birds today. In

fact, Georgia had the country’s largest harvest record of more than 80,000 birds in

1996. This is just one example.

Our Federal-state partnerships are the key to continuing to preserve these type

of opportunities in Georgia and around the country. The Congressional Sportsmen’s

Caucus, I believe, has an obligation to heighten its commitment to ensure that these

Federal-State partnerships are strengthened. One step in that direction would be

passage of H.R. 701.

It is important for all of us to recognize that we enjoy the great outdoors in different ways. I appreciate that not all Americans hunt and fish. Some take pictures,

some just watch, some hike, and some bike. But hunting and fishing does not diminish the natural wonders we all enjoy. In fact, as everyone in this room knows, hunting, fishing and trapping are valuable conservation management tools.

In fact, fishing and hunting has been enjoyed throughout the ages—even biblical

times.

Matthew 4:18

As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon

called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for

they were fishermen.

Genesis 25:27

The boys grew up, and Esau became a skillful hunter, a man of the open country, while Jacob was a quiet man, staying among the tents.

As you can see we have a long and storied history of sportsmen-related activities;

however, everyday those traditions are threatened by those in the conservation community who are ill-informed and spread misinformation about the facts of hunting,

fishing, and other sporting-related activities.

That’s why it is so important to help fund hunting and fishing related wildlife

conservation education programs; that’s why we must ensure that the age of hunters does not continue to rise. The reason the age has risen in many states is the

270

direct reflection of our inability to educate our children and offer them outdoor activities beyond the baseball diamond and the playground.

I believe that Title III of your legislation can help fill the gap. For too long, the

Federal Government and private industry have not adequately addressed the needs

of State Fish and Wildlife Departments with regard to wildlife conservation and

education projects. I believe both need to step up to the plate.

Mr. Chairman, I submitted to you a letter back in September of 1998 regarding

your commitment to working to address concerns in Title III raised by some in the

conservation community. I believe your comments demonstrate your commitment to

working with the individual state fish and wildlife agencies to adequately address

their needs.

I would like to submit your letter for the record and read a few key sentences:

Young Letter to Chambliss, September 9, 1998:

‘‘. . . [Congressman Chambliss] your letter aptly points out that while the goal

of our proposal is similar to Teaming with Wildlife (TWW), our approach and

funding mechanism are different. I share your interest in increasing funding to

our State Fish and Wildlife departments for conservation and education efforts,

as TWW purported to achieve. However, I also share your pragmatic concerns

with the way TWW obtained funding to achieve that end.

The proposal contained within Title III of our proposal, in my opinion, not

only achieves the goals contained within TWW, but surpasses them. This proposal gives a State Fish and Wildlife Department broad discretion in achieving

the individual goals to conserve wildlife within their state. Pittman-Robertson

was chosen because it is an existing statutory mechanism which has successfully distributed funds to states for almost 60 years. Also, Pittman-Robertson

currently contains language which allows a state the latitude to fund both game

and non-game programs. However, we all recognize that this money has been

primarily focused on programs directly supporting game species. It is for that

reason that our proposal contains language to make it clear that these new

funds are to be used on wildlife (both game and non-game).’’

I read your letter in a speech to the 88th Annual Conference of the International

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. I think your position was clear then as

it today. I am thankful that the conservation community recognizes that wildlife

conservation and education projects should be decided at the state level and the

state agencies should be given the flexibility to use funds for game or non-game purposes rather than have the Federal Government make that decision for them.

I know folks in Georgia and around the country will benefit from this legislation

because it provides a steady, dependable revenue stream; it helps fund both game

and nongame wildlife conservation programs; and it provides the states’ the flexibility to tailor their funding priorities to suit their individual needs.

One of the most exciting parts of this bill I’ll be working on is wildlife-associated

education. We need to ensure that our future generations are educated about wildlife and recognize that hunting and fishing are vital conservation management tools.

I look forward to working closely with Mr. Young on this issue to ensure that the

criteria for such wildlife education projects will help accomplish this.

Helping replenish renewable resources with funds derived from nonrenewable resources is good policy—and CARA accomplishes this while not raising taxes one

penny!

Thank you again Mr. Chairman for allowing me to testify before your Committee

today.

LETTER FROM MR. YOUNG TO MR. CHAMBLISS

The Honorable SAXBY CHAMBLISS

1019 Longworth Building

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Chambliss:

Thank you for your September 4, 1998-letter regarding the proposed Conservation

and Reinvestment Act of 1998, specifically Title III.

As you know, this proposal is currently in the discussion stage where we are soliciting comments to better the proposal as we move this important legislation forward. To date, we have received numerous comments regarding the wildlife conservation provisions contained within Title III. I appreciate your participation in

this important effort and the efforts of Mr. Waller, whose insights have been invaluable while working with the stakeholders to the Teaming with Wildlife (TWW) proposal. I hope that with your and Mr. Waller’s assistance we can keep the TWW coalition whole and work together as we move forward to achieve our common goals.

271

Your letter aptly points out that while the goal of our proposal is similar to TWW,

our approach and funding mechanism are different. I share your interest in increasing funding to our State Fish and Wildlife departments for conservation and education efforts, as TWW purported to achieve. However, I also share your pragmatic

concerns with the way TWW obtained funding to achieve that end.

The proposal contained within Title III of our proposal, in my opinion, not only

achieves the goals contained within TWW, but surpasses them. This proposal gives

a State Fish and Wildlife Department broad discretion in achieving the individual

goals to conserve wildlife within their state. Pittman-Robertson was chosen because

it is an existing statutory mechanism which has successfully distributed funds to

states for almost 60 years. Also, Pittman-Robertson currently contains language

which allows a state the latitude to fund both game and non-game programs. However, we all recognize that this money has been focused primarily on programs directly supporting game species. It is for that reason that our proposal contains language to make it clear that these new funds are to be used on wildlife (both game

and non-game).

I recognize that most states are requesting additional funding to address nongame funding demands. This proposal allows these states to utilize this new funding

for those purposes. The proposal takes the approach that an individual state knows

what is best for its wildlife conservation efforts and should be given the flexibility

to address their needs. Additionally, we are currently in the discussion phase and

look forward to working with the states as well as the conservation community to

make changes to accomplish our common goals.

We are currently in an important process in shaping a wildlife program for the

benefit of our Nations’ valuable wildlife resource. I look forward to working with you

and appreciate your correspondence and insight on this issue.

Sincerely,

DON YOUNG,

Chairman

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Saxby, and welcome to the witness table

after yesterday’s snow delayed you, we’re glad to have you here.

We have a small problem in this legislation, I want everybody in

this room to know, concerning the budget. I know you have been

working very closely to try to explain the importance of this to the

leadership, and we will continue to try to build fires to make sure

this becomes a reality. You have done quite well, and I do appreciate your testimony and support of this legislation. If it was not

for you and Mr. Waller, I probably would not have become so enthusiastic about this project. You have educated me well, and so I

do thank you.

Mr. McGovern, I also thank you. I would like to say, though, before I continue and pass it over to the gentleman from California,

Governor Geringer could not make it today, his flight was canceled,

but I will submit his written testimony in support of the bill.

[The information may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. YOUNG. Governor Carper has been delayed, he will be here

about two o’clock, and he will be able to testify at that time. And

I do apologize for everybody that expected the Governors to be

here, but we can’t also control the weather. But, thanks, both of

you. The gentleman from California.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, and I just want to thank both of our

witnesses and our colleagues for being here. I think it shows the

breadth of support that we have in the House for this legislation,

and I think we can overcome some of the hurdles that we have before us. And I want to thank you both for your effort in helping

to draft these proposals, and look forward to continuing to work

with you.

Mr. YOUNG. Any other comments, statements, questions?

[No response.]

272

If not, I want to thank the panel again for being here. Thank you

very much.

The second panel will be the Honorable Malcolm Wallop, and he

is not here yet but he will show up; the Honorable Ron Marlenee,

Safari Club International from Bozeman, Montana. The Honorable

Javier M. Gonzales, Commissioner, Santa Fe County, Representing

The National Association of Counties, Washington, DC Pietro

Parravano is not here. He will be here, hopefully, later on, and we

will put him on the witness list then. Sarah Chasis, are you here?

Why don’t you come on down. It is amazing what eight inches of

snow will do to the East Coast. I mean, we only had 54 inches in

Anchorage this last month.

Mr. MILLER. This is a mixed and matched panel this time.

Mr. YOUNG. That is all right, this makes it fun. All right.

This is Panel II and, Mr. Gonzalez, we will let you go first, if you

are ready. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAVIER M. GONZALES, COMMISSIONER,

SANTA FE COUNTY, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. GONZALES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and

Members of the Committee, my name is Javier Gonzales. I am a

Commissioner from Santa Fe County, New Mexico, and I am here

today representing the National Association of Counties in my capacity as Second Vice President. I will summarize my prepared

statement focused on CARA 1999, and I ask that the full text be

included in the record.

Mr. T4 Young. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. GONZALES. NACo is pleased to testify on behalf of this important bipartisan bill that, if enacted, will have a very positive effect

on our Nation’s counties and communities. This bill present an exciting opportunity because of the genuine support from such a

broad range of interests and the fact that the Administration, the

U.S. Senate, and this Committee have very similar proposals. Each

bill uses OCS revenue as the source for funding the distribution

proposed by this legislation, and each has similar uses in mind. I

need not remind you that the potential budget pitfalls are significant and creative solutions need to be found.

At our recent Legislative Conference, our Board of Directors

adopted a resolution in support of the concepts embodied in the

CARA legislation. Our resolution states: ‘‘NACo strongly supports

the principles of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999

that would reallocate Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas revenues

to the LWCF, a coastal state revenue sharing program, add funding to the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery program and establish an innovative procedure for adding funding for the Payments

In Lieu of Taxes—that is the PILT program—in addition to annual

appropriated funds.

NACo will advocate a change in the stateside program to allow

counties to directly apply for LWCF grants and provide authority

for innovative and flexible methods for utilization of these grants

such as ‘‘a leasing program, rather than outright purchase of land

that removes them from tax roles.’’ I believe this statement of policy is very unambiguous.

273

We also have another resolution, Mr. Chairman, one that was

passed in July 1998, supporting OCS revenue sharing with coastal

states, and one of our key principles for reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act parallels H.R. 701’s section on Habitat Reserve Program. I believe it is clear why NACo supports the concepts of this legislation.

Let me take a few moments to comment on some of the issues

surrounding this legislation. First, NACo is very pleased that the

authors have chosen to recognize the significant impact OCS development can have on coastal counties and have taken steps to assure that any shared revenue from OCS development is shared

with coastal counties.

Second, the bill acknowledges the need to fund the stateside portion of the LWCF and would assure that counties would share the

revenues set aside of the states. It would be preferable to have

counties be able to utilize their share of the Fund without having

to work within the mandated structure of a state plan, but we believe an acceptable approach can be worked out during deliberations on the bill. We also believe we need to look at innovative approaches, such as conservation leasing to meet the goals of the

LWCF without removing land from the tax roles.

Third, the innovative approach to adding money to the PILT program in Titles I and II should be applauded and the authors should

be commended for recognizing the need to fund the PILT program

at reasonable levels. Let me share with you some interesting facts

from a soon-to-be-released PILT study by the Federal Government: Overall PILT payments are about $1.31 per acre less than the

property taxes that would be generated. PILT entitlement lands in

the sample counties would have generated an average of $1.48 per

acre if taxed by the county, but PILT payments only amount to an

average of 17 cents, only 11 percent of the potential tax bill. To fully fund PILT another $200 million would have to be added to the $125 million currently appropriated. Mr. Chairman, at this

time, there was a typo in the text testimony that we presented. I

would ask that the $100 million be changed to $200 million for the

record.

Third, to achieve overall PILT/tax equivalency, another $696 million would have to be added to full funding of the PILT program

and, even then, 18 percent of the counties would not be equivalent.

In the case of the East, taxes would exceed PILT payments by

over 1,000 percent. Counties in the Interior West responded that

moderate or substantial costs were imposed by the presence of Federal lands, particularly in the areas of search and rescue, law enforcement and road maintenance.

Fourth, NACo, through its Large Urban County Caucus, applauds the inclusion of funding for the Urban Parks and Recreation

Recovery Act. Parks and open space are important factors in improving the quality of life in America’s urban counties.

Fifth, NACo also supports the additional funding for the Pittman-Robertson Act, but we believe counties should play a larger

role in the allocation and utilization of the disbursements.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would like to

thank you and the Members of the Committee for your interest in

the needs and concerns of America’s counties. We stand ready to

274

work with the Committee, the Senate, and the Administration to

hammer out an acceptable bill that will set the tone for conservation in the 21st century. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Commissioner Gonzales may be

found at the end of the hearing.]

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. Mr. Marlenee, because you are on the

second panel, you will go next.

STATEMENT OF HON. RON MARLENEE, SAFARI CLUB

INTERNATIONAL, BOZEMAN, MONTANA

Mr. MARLENEE. Well, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member

George Miller and Committee Members, it is a pleasure to be here

with you once again.

SCI is an organization of several thousand sportsmen across the

United States and the world. We are as concerned with conservation and propagation of wildlife as we are with hunting. We know

that there has to be habitat in order that we have wildlife of all

sorts.

We have examined both bills before you. Let me say that in our

opinion, not since Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux has legislation been considered that would have such a profound and longterm effect on wildlife. Sportsmen and women have been pouring

millions of dollars in the past into wildlife and wildlife habitat. It

has resulted in one of the greatest success stories known to outdoor

recreation.

In recent years, this effort has been diluted and drained of funds

by mandates and requirements of the Federal Government. Trying

to keep up with funding the Endangered Species, Coastal Protection, and other programs, state wildlife agencies are having shortfalls that force them to dip into funds that sportsmen have paid

into to enhance wildlife populations.

Bill 701 by Congressmen Young and Dingell and others could

well be termed a partial solution for unfunded Federal mandates.

These new funds that H.R. 701 creates will be available to state

fish and wildlife agencies for conservation of game and non-game

wildlife, endangered species, as the states deem appropriate.

Using OCS money, Title III of H.R. 701 will expand state wildlife

conservation efforts and allow state agencies to work with all types

of government and private landowners to achieve specific goals in

virtually all areas of wildlife conservation, healthy habitat, and a

diversity of wildlife.

During the 104th and 105th Congress, a concept to increase

funds available to states for wildlife conservation was conceived as

a new and additional excise tax on all outdoor recreation equipment. However, this idea, called ‘‘Teaming with Wildlife,’’ was

never introduced as legislation.

Although SCI supported the general concept of providing funds

to the state agencies for wildlife conservation, we could not support

the TWW approach. A new tax of any kind was unlikely to become

law. In addition, the TWW draft would have forced the states to

use most of the funds for non-game wildlife and outdoor recreation

activities, regardless of state needs. We feel that it is critical to

leave the decision to the state wildlife agencies. The TWW proposal

would have been an incentive to spend valuable taxpayer money on

275

unwanted, or perhaps even unnecessary, programs. However, H.R.

701, introduced by Young and Dingell, corrects that.

In the 105th Congress, Chairman Young found a way to achieve

the important goals of state funding for wildlife conservation without imposing the excise tax, or without robbing the state fish and

wildlife agencies of the discretion to make professionally sound decisions.

As one of the leading organizations representing sportsmen, SCI

supports Mr. Young and the co-sponsors of the Conservation and

Reinvestment Act. H.R. 701 is a focused and carefully crafted effort. It is an effort to solve a few important needs whereas H.R.

798, although well intentioned, is an inappropriate approach that

reaches into new programs and appears to expand other programs.

It circumvents the committee process by pouring money into programs that have not been authorized, approved, or debated.

And I could name a few of those programs. Both bills deal with

the acquisition of property. While this is not the primary expertise

or interest of SCI, many concerns about these provisions have been

expressed to us both from within and without our organization.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your sensitivity to those concerns,

and we feel that your Bill 701 contains provisions intended to

guard against undue infringement on private property rights. As a

matter of fact, Mr. Chairman—as a matter of fact—the League of

Private Property Voters has published a rating of Members of Congress for 1998, and I am sure you will remember that rating because your beaming face shines out from the inside pages as a 100-

percent protection of private property rating with the League of

Private Property Voters. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that this

publication would be included in the record along with my statement.

Mr. YOUNG. Without objection.

[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]

Mr. MARLENEE. In closing, Mr. Chairman, we would like to congratulate you for recognizing the need to provide more funding for

the state fish and wildlife agencies and for finding an inventive

way to accomplish that goal. We believe your bill appropriately recognizes the primary role of the states and their professional wildlife agencies in wildlife conservation.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marlenee may be found at the

end of the hearing.]

Mr. YOUNG. I thank my good friend, Ron Marlenee, for his testimony, and it was all handwritten, I want everybody to notice that.

It was not typed out or used on a fancy machine, so there is a little

bit of sincerity put in this, which I deeply appreciate.

Ms. Chasis, you are next.

STATEMENT OF SARAH CHASIS, SENIOR ATTORNEY, NATURAL

RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, NEW YORK, NEW YORK

Ms. CHASIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask that my

full written statement be accepted into the record.

Mr. YOUNG. Without objection, so ordered.

Ms. CHASIS. I also wanted to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for accommodating me. I tried like the devil to get here yesterday. It

276

took me eight hours to get from New York to Washington, and I

appreciate your putting me on a panel today.

My testimony focuses on the Outer Continental Shelf Impact Assistance Title of H.R. 701, and the Living Marine Resources Title

of H.R. 798.

In our view, the overarching goal for the Coast and Ocean Title

of these bills should be protection and restoration of our Nation’s

fragile, but extremely valuable, coastal and marine resources which

are increasingly under pressure from a variety of forces. In achieving that goal, five principles should be closely adhered to.

First, the legislation should not provide incentives for new leasing or new drilling. This should apply to all Titles of the legislation,

not just the coastal or OCS impact assistance Title.

Second, the state or local share of money should not be tied to

the acceptance of new or closer leasing or drilling.

Third, money that goes to the states and local governments

should be spent on environmentally beneficial projects.

Fourth, there should be Federal agency oversight of how money

is spent to ensure compliance with Federal environmental laws.

Fifth, any offsets should not come from existing environmental

programs.

While we very much appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the improvements that you have made to Title I of H.R. 701, we feel still that

the principles enunciated just now have not been fully complied

with.

In contrast, H.R. 798 adheres to these principles very closely. As

a result, we support H.R. 798, but must continue to oppose H.R.

701 unless and until the concerns we have raised are satisfactorily

resolved.

H.R. 701 includes revenues from new leasing and new drilling as

a funding source for all Titles of the bill, except that revenues from

leased tracts in areas under moratorium are excluded from Title I.

That is a crucial improvement, and we appreciate that.

However, that same language needs to apply to both Titles II

and III, and we are in receipt of a letter from the Chairman indicating an interest and willingness to work on correcting that for Titles II and III, and we appreciate that and look forward to working

with you on that.

The improvement in Title I, however, remains incomplete because revenue from new leasing and drilling in sensitive frontier

areas, such as Alaska, would be used to fund the Title. In addition,

revenues from drilling on existing leases off North Carolina, the

Florida Panhandle, and Central California, may possibly be used to

fund Title I. The bill is not clear on this point, and we seek clarification.

We believe that to address this problem, the legislation should

define the term ‘‘qualified Outer Continental Shelf revenues’’ in the

definition section, to exclude revenues from new leasing and new

drilling after the date of enactment of the legislation. This is contained in Mr. Miller’s bill, the Resources 2000 legislation.

Fifty percent of the state’s allocable share under H.R. 701 is dependent on its being within 200 miles of a leased OCS tract. The

more production on such tracts and the closer in to shore these

tracts are, the more money the state gets. An improvement in this

277

section of the bill is the exclusion of moratoria tracts from this calculation. However, the language is ambiguous with respect to

whether existing leases in moratorium areas that are not covered

by the moratorium would be also excluded. These tracts, development of which is very controversial, should be excluded, in our

view.

Moreover, new leasing and drilling outside moratorium areas, including sensitive frontier areas off Alaska, would still be factored

into the allocation formula, thus providing a significant incentive

for allowing such activities to proceed.

We favor a formula that is based on population and shoreline

miles. If OCS activity is to be a factor in the allocation formula,

we think it should be based on past historic activity and not tied

to new leasing and drilling.

Another concern is the method of allocating funds to local jurisdictions. Fifty percent of a state’s share goes directly to eligible

local political subdivision. A locality with OCS leasing off its coast

is entitled to share in 50 percent of the state’s share, with its share

increasing the closer the leased tracts are. Localities with no leasing are not entitled to any share of the state’s allocable share. Obviously, this creates a major incentive for localities to accept new

OCS leasing.

The uses of the money in H.R. 701 authorized in section 104 do

not ensure that environmental degradation does not take place.

Their focus is not on restoring the environment or ensuring activities do not further degrade the environment. While states may use

funds for such purposes, there is no requirement that they do so.

The Secretary is given no authority to review and approve state

plans. The lack of Federal oversight combined with the broad uses

to which the funds may be put and the large Federal dollars involved mean that environmentally damaging projects could well be

funded under this Title of the legislation.

With respect to H.R. 798, we strongly support it because it adheres to the principles we think should govern this legislative initiative. The bill specifically excludes revenues from new leasing

and production as a funding source for the bill. In Title VI, the bill

does not allocate revenues among states or local jurisdictions based

on proximity of leased tracts or production.

Finally, the bill requires that the money be spent on the conservation of living marine resources, not on activities that could

contribute to further environmental degradation.

We very much appreciate this opportunity to testify and look forward to working with the Committee on this important legislation.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chasis may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

Mr. TAUZIN. [presiding] Thank you, Ms. Chasis.

The Chair thanks the panel for their testimony, and the Chair

will now recognize himself and other Members for five minutes.

Let me first thank you, Mr. Gonzales, on behalf of the sponsors

of our legislation, and NACo, for their support. You mentioned

some recommended changes to the Land and Water Conservation

Fund, and in that context you mentioned ‘‘conservation leasing.’’

Are there other changes you would recommend?

278

Mr. GONZALES. Mr. Chairman, at this point, no, we don’t have

any other changes, but we would work with the Committee for any

proposed other changes that you would recommend.

Mr. TAUZIN. Again, we thank you for your support, and we will

continue that dialogue if there are other discussions you would like

to have.

Mr. GONZALES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Marlenee, we have been requested by a number

of organizations to restrict the emphasis in Title III funds in their

use on non-game programs. I understand you disagree with this.

Could you give us an explanation of why you feel this is not in the

best interest of the states?

Mr. MARLENEE. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. Having forgotten my

hearing aids, I have not been listening intently.

[Laughter.]

I am sure it is not the first time somebody did not listen to you.

Mr. TAUZIN. It is an old habit you have retained from your membership in this body. I was asking you, in regard to the requests

we have gotten from several organizations to restrict the emphasis,

that Title III funds should be used on non-game programs. I understand you disagree with that, and I just wanted to get your take

on it.

Mr. MARLENEE. We feel that the states should have the opportunity to make the decision—game, non-game—and not have the

Federal Government or not have legislation mandate that nongame species be singled out for a funding-specific funding. So, we

feel that H.R. 701 does the balance and allows the states to do

that.

Mr. TAUZIN. Ms. Chasis, let me engage you a bit. I want to thank

you for, first of all, your acknowledging that there has been a great

deal of work and conversation between the Chairman and the sponsors and your organization.

In the first Green Group letter, the only request made, I understand, of the sponsors of our legislation, was for the language prohibiting the use of ‘‘no funds from areas under drilling moratorium’’

under Title I, and that is now in the bill, as I understand it.

Since that time, we understand that the Green Group indicated

they would like similar language regarding the other three titles of

the bill. I want to emphasize the Chairman and the other sponsors

have agreed to work that with you. If we do that, if we have all

this language that says from Title I through Title III no funds are

going to come from areas under drilling moratoria, how does the

bill possibly serve as an incentive for lifting moratoria?

Ms. CHASIS. Well, if the correction is made for Titles II and III,

that would be a big help. The allocation formula is also a problem,

although the change made there is also very helpful. But for example, for local jurisdictions, they get to share in 50 percent automatically of the state’s allocable share if they are within 200 miles of

a leased tract. That does not exclude moratoria tracts.

So, that is another part of the bill that needs fixing in terms of

the moratorium.

Mr. TAUZIN. In that area of your concern about proximity to production in the allocation of funding, you also make, I think, a very

correct statement that Title I funds should be used to mitigate the

279

OCS production. Obviously, in our own state, we argue about how

much of a deterioration of coastal wetlands is attributable to natural forces, how much is attributable to canals and other pipelines

that have been laid to support the Offshore industry. But there

clearly is—in fact, Jack Caldwell, yesterday, when you were not

here, presented some pictures indicating some very clear ties between that development and the loss and degradation of those

lands.

If, in fact, the money should be used to mitigate problems associated with near-shore production, I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding your concern that the money should be distributed on that basis. If, in fact, it is going to be used for that purpose, should it not be distributed on that basis?

Ms. CHASIS. Our concern is we think where there has been past

harm that has occurred from OCS activity, it is appropriate for

funds to go to mitigate those impacts, particularly if it is done in

an environmentally sensitive way. We do not want the availability

of the money, though, to serve as an incentive——

Mr. TAUZIN. You do not want the incentive problem.

Ms. CHASIS. Exactly.

Mr. TAUZIN. I understand. Finally, you mentioned the Federal

Government oversight. As I read the bill, the Federal Government

is involved in every Title. I mean, obviously, the Federal Government does not have a veto power over the state’s use, but it is involved in every Title, in some cases by partnership with the state

and local governments, in other areas as the advisor to the state

and local government. That is not enough for you? You want the

Federal Government to tell the states exactly what they have to

do? What is your complaint there?

Ms. CHASIS. We think in Title I, all that happens is the state certifies the plan to the Secretary of Interior. There is no opportunity

for the Secretary to review and approve the plan, and there is a

huge amount of money involved, a broad array of uses, and we

think to ensure that Federal environmental laws are adhered to,

there needs to be that kind of review.

Mr. TAUZIN. I understand. I just make the point that the states

have to obey Federal law just like we do. And I would find it rather

strange that the states would submit a plan to the Secretary that

would be violative of the Federal law, but we can discuss that as

we move along.

The Chair now yields to the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.

John.

Mr. JOHN. I just have a couple of brief comments and a question

for Mr. Gonzales. You mentioned an interesting concept that is not

in either one of the bills and, if you could explain it a little further,

it may give me a better understanding and the Committee a better

understanding, of what exactly you are talking about when you

refer to conservation leasing.

Neither one of our bills address that and, obviously, one of the

concerns of both of our bills is the fact of the addition of more land

through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, has been opposed

by lots of groups. Tell me a little bit about your experiences with

conservation leasing.

280

Mr. GONZALES. Mr. Chairman, Congressman John, conservation

leasing is an innovative approach to where you do not, hopefully,

remove lands from the tax roles. As you know, in local government

we are very dependent, especially at the county level, and reliant

on property taxes as a means for us to generate revenues and

there, in turn, supply services to our communities. So, the hope

would be as we move possibly to looking at acquiring some of these

lands, that we would do it through the Lease Conservation Program so we do not take them off the private tax roles and onto the

public where we cannot generate any taxes.

Mr. JOHN. That is a real interesting concept because the goal in

both scenarios, whether the purchase of land or the actual leasing

of it, is to conserve open spaces. This is an interesting concept that

I will take to heart and maybe factor into some of the other discussions we have thoughout the day.

My next question is addressed to Ms. Chasis. You made several

interesting comments, but most of them were directed toward your

concerns about drilling incentives. I think that it is apparent in

both bills in a lot of ways that we have gone very far to make sure

that this legislation is in no way, shape or form about drilling incentives, and we have really talked a lot about that because we believe that in the past the incentives issue has been the nail in the

coffin for other pieces of legislation that have focused on reserve

sharing and impact assistance.

Your comments talked about the new leasing and the moratoria,

and you talked about only past leases in history. Does that mean

to me that only the production and the royalties and the leases in

the Gulf of Mexico would be contributing to Title I?

Ms. CHASIS. Well, our position is that revenues from new leasing

and production should be excluded from the revenue stream.

Mr. JOHN. But does that mean that only monies from the Gulf

of Mexico drilling would be deposited as Mr. Miller suggests in his

proposal, H.R. 798?

Ms. CHASIS. That is not how we have articulated it. It would be

whatever existing leasing and production there is as of the date of

enactment.

Mr. JOHN. In the present situation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund as it is today, do you believe that the LWCF has

proven to be an incentive for drilling because that is tied to OCS

funds?

Ms. CHASIS. I do not believe so, but the amount of money that

has actually been appropriated there, as you know, has been much

less than what is authorized, or than what would be spent under

this bill. I mean, this bill is talking, for example, about $1.4 billion,

according to MMS, for Title I alone. So, we are talking about a lot

more money, and when we are talking about a lot more money

there is the much greater potential for incentives.

Mr. JOHN. And, finally, as a follow-up, do you believe that a motivating factor in an oil and gas business’ decision to invest multimillion dollars into drilling and OCS production, would be the fact

that the state would receive some money from Title I of CARA 701?

Would that lead an oil company to say, ‘‘Well, I think I am going

to go drill because the state wil receive funding’’—or the state says,

‘‘I think we are going to do this because we receive some Federal

281

dollars’’—and that will be a determining factor in whether the drilling company decides to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to go

out and explore for oil?

Ms. CHASIS. I think our principal concern is the incentive to state

and local governments saying, ‘‘The only way you are going to get

a significant amount of money is to accept new drilling and leasing.’’ We would rather see the money spent for the uses, but not

tied to that incentive.

Mr. JOHN. So your concern is that a state or—maybe not a local

government, but a state—may somehow, in their state legislature,

provide some kind of drilling incentives, whether it is tax incentives or something—in some kind of way entice companies to come

into that area because the state may benefit with some of that.

Ms. CHASIS. Yes, but I think local governments are also an important component because often a relatively small amount of

money can make a big difference to them. And if they see that they

are going to get double the money they would otherwise get by accepting new leasing, then that is going to be a temptation.

Mr. JOHN. Well, it is my past experience that when an oil production company makes a decision to drill, there are a lot of other

factors, and I do not believe that this will be one of them in any

kind of way. And, secondly, we have worked very hard with a variety of environmental organizations because we understand the sensitivity of that issue.

And we will be glad to work with you as we go through this bill,

to make sure that that is done because in no way, shape or form

do we want to provide this as an incentive because, frankly, the oil

and gas companies do not have a dog in this fight. I mean, this is

about the dollars that they are presently paying, and this is about

whether we use these funds to save our coastline, which NRDC

should support as a top priority; especially when in Louisiana we

are losing lands that are of great environmental value.

Mr. TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, who I think wants to yield to

the gentleman from California.

Mr. GILCHRIST. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much. I wanted to ask a quick question because I am afraid I am going to have to offer my amendment

on the floor after this vote.

Sir, I want to thank you for being here. I know it took you over

eight hours or something to get here to Washington.

One of the differences in the two bills is we have a set-aside

fund, if you will, for marine resources, and I wonder if you just

might address that, the importance and what alternative funding

there would be if you did not have this kind of set-aside.

Ms. CHASIS. We think that is extremely important. The living

marine resources, those are the resources that are under tremendous pressure now from a variety of sources, offshore drilling being

one of them, but also pollution, over-fishing, habitat degradation,

and we think having a specific set-aside of $300 million, which is

in your bill, is extremely important in terms of enhancing and ensuring the long-term sustainability of those resources. And there

currently is not the kind of funding available through the appropriations process to——

282

Mr. MILLER. There is really no dedicated——

Ms. CHASIS. There is no dedicated money to do that, as compared

to on-shore with wildlife and other programs. So, I think we see

that as an absolutely crucial part of the overall approach, and

would urge the Committee to look to that and take that.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. And, again, thank you very much for all

your effort to get here and to testify, it has been helpful. Thank the

other panelists.

Mr. TAUZIN. The Chair would equally emphasize our appreciation. Cajuns have a hard time getting through snow, maybe even

harder than New Yorkers.

We have two 15-minute votes on the floor. I can do one of two

things: We can dismiss this panel and move to the next, or I can

hold the panel until we get back. I am seeking some guidance from

the Members. What would you like? Mr. Udall? The gentleman is

recognized.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Thank you. I would just, first of all,

thank the panel for your testimony here today, and recognize the

County Commissioner, Javier Gonzales, from the Third Congressional District in New Mexico. He is a rising young star in New

Mexico politics and now, as I see, is going to be in two years the

President of the National Association of Counties——

Mr. TAUZIN. I predict a future Congressman, myself.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Well, that could be. That worries me

every now and then, Bill, it worries me every now and then, but

I want to say one thing. His comments—he is very consistent in

terms of what he has done locally. In this last election, they had

a $12 million bond issue to protect wildlife and create parks, so I

think that effort was very important, and we look forward to working with you on these bills.

And I would just like to say to your association, I know as you

meet you are going to look further at both of the bills that are

under consideration, and we hope that you will give us specific

comments about how they can be improved and how we can partner with you in terms of these issues that are being addressed.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you. Any other Member, quickly, we have got

to move to the vote. Mr. Udall?

Mr. UDALL OF COLORADO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is not

the first time my cousin has stolen all my time, but I just wanted

to put a word behind this concept of agricultural easements and

looking to NACo to help us understand this. In Colorado, there is

a lot of pressure to maintain productive farmland and productive

ranchland, and I think that is one of the very, very important parts

of these bills. So, thank you very much for being here, to the whole

panel.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you, Mr. Udall. Mrs. Christensen.

Mrs. CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN. Just to add my thanks to the

panel for being here, and my support for the bill and my interest

in working with you to make sure that this bill becomes a reality.

And I would like to just enter my formal statement for the record.

Mr. TAUZIN. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Christian-Christensen follows:]

283

STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA M. CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE TERRITORY OF VIRGIN ISLANDS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to make a few opening remarks in

general support of the bills before the Committee today. I want to begin by applauding you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Democrat Miller for once again recognizing and

acknowledging the significant need for funding for recreation programs through the

Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR). While I am an original

cosponsor of H.R. 798, I am pleased to note that even your bill, Mr. Chairman,

would provide more than $100 million annually for this important program.

I have always been a strong believer in the importance of providing recreational

outlets for our young people. Because of this, I have been very disappointed that

over the past several years no funds have been appropriated for the UPARR program. Two years ago, both this Committee as well as its Senate counterpart, held

oversight hearings on the lack of funding, since FY95, for state grants. In my district, our local parks are in very serious disrepair and our young people have no

where to go for recreation. Because the Virgin Islands government is laboring under

severe financial constraints, there are no local funds available to address this situation. That is why I am excited and very hopeful about the prospects of the two bills

before us today and I look forward to working with you Ranking Democrat Miller

to make sure that we are successful in securing funding for the UPARR program

this Congress.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentlelady. I want to submit for the

record, without objection, the letter that Ms. Chasis referred to, to

the Green Group, indicating our comments on the issue she has

raised.

[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]

Mr. Marlenee.

Mr. MARLENEE. I ask permission that my written text be included in the record.

Mr. TAUZIN. Absolutely, without objection. Mr. Marlenee, by the

way, my dad had a hearing aid, and he used to turn it off on me

a lot, too.

[Laughter.]

Mr. TAUZIN. Again, thank you for your patience. We will reconvene as soon as these two 15-minute votes are over. The Committee

stands in recess.

[Recess]

Mr. TAUZIN. The Committee will come to order. We are going to

try to move along in the hopes that other Members will arrive as

we proceed. We will assemble the next panel which will consist of

the Honorable David Cobb, Mayor of the City of Valdez, Alaska.

Welcome, Mayor. I know Congressman Young would like to be here

to welcome you. I think he is on extraordinary business right now.

It must be serious stuff.

We also have Mr. Mark Van Putten, President and CEO of National Wildlife Federation, Vienna, Virginia; Mr. Alan Front, Senior

Vice President of The Trust for Public Land, San Francisco, California; and Mr. Thomas Cove, Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association in Washington, DC. Gentlemen, thank you for your patience. I apologize for the absence of Members. When we get in an

afternoon session, when there is floor activity, it just gets difficult,

I hope you understand, but your testimony will be made a public

record, of course, the written testimony, and we would like you to

engage conversationally as much as you can.

We will begin with the Honorable David Cobb, Mayor of the City

of Valdez. Welcome, Mayor.

284

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID COBB, MAYOR, CITY OF VALDEZ,

ALASKA

Mayor. COBB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first want to apologize

for the weather yesterday.

Mr. TAUZIN. Is that Alaskan weather?

Mayor. COBB. I do want to thank the Honorable Mayor of Washington, DC for providing that weather so that we could feel right

at home.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mayor, I want you to know I have seen Valdez. I

have been to Alaska many times with my dear friend, Don Young,

and it was never in Alaska as bad as it was here in Washington,

DC.

Mayor. COBB. Mr. Chairman, my name is Dave Cobb, Mayor of

Valdez, Alaska, home of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Terminal. My

testimony today is in support of H.R. 701, the Conservation and

Reinvestment Act of 1999. This piece of legislation addresses the

fundamentally important issues of enhancing the conservation and

management of coastal areas, providing revenue for the Land and

Water Conservation Fund, and for making funding available to enhance fish and game resources and management in all states.

Today, I represent not only Valdez, Alaska, but Mayor Hank

Hove, from the North Star Borough, Fairbanks, and also Mayor

Naqeak, Mayor of North Slope Borough. Collectively, we three

Mayors are what is fondly called in Alaska as ‘‘The Trans-Alaska

Pipeline Corridor Communities.’’ We have the entire pipeline within our jurisdictions.

The City of Valdez supports this legislation to provide coastal impact assistance to state and local governments, to revitalize the

Land and Water Conservation Fund Stateside Program, and to aid

wildlife programs. We believe it is wise to re-invest revenues from

all non-renewable natural resources in the resources that provide

long-term public value.

What is more important to me is the coastal impact assistance

issue. The Federal Government has a responsibility to the states

and local governments affected by the development of Federal mineral resources to mitigate adverse environmental and public service

impacts incurred due to that development.

While Valdez sets some 800 miles from the Outer Continental

Shelf oil and gas developments, nevertheless, every drop of oil that

comes off of those leases passes through our community. The impacts are real not only for water and sewer, for schools, this is the

20th anniversary—last year was—of the oil find on the North

Slope. We will have the tenth anniversary this year of the infamous Exxon Valdez oil spill. The impacts continue. After 20 years,

we still have major impacts on our communities.

The revenues that come to Valdez in particular, and the other

pipeline corridor communities, are based on ad valorem property

taxes assessed on the pipeline itself. Those property taxes have declined by about 51 percent since 1990.

What does that mean to a small community like Valdez of 4,500

people? Within the next two years, my community will lose $1.2

million in revenues from those declines. The oil industry in Valdez,

Alaska makes up about 80 percent of my tax base.

285

Back during construction of the pipeline, Valdez was impacted

with as much as 2,500 people to approximately 10,000 people. That

happened again in 1989 after the oil spill. We went, in a two-week

time period, from about 2,800 people to 10,000 people. You have to

have infrastructure in place to take care of those situations. We

put our infrastructure in place to support the industry. Now we

must maintain and operate that infrastructure. We have spent approximately $150 million in infrastructure to mitigate public service impacts from the results of oil development in Alaska.

The cost to maintain infrastructure and public service needs do

not rise and fall with the price of oil. As I have stated, the property

tax base has fallen 51 percent since 1990. Oil and gas properties

are declining at a rate of 7 percent annually. I do not know of any

other community, certainly in the State of Alaska, but pretty much

anywhere else, where your annual revenues will decline at 7 percent.

We have been frugal. We have tried to make the best of a bad

situation. The upside, however, is the population of Valdez has increased 25 percent since 1980. We still provide services, port and

dock services, police services, specialty training in bomb unit, terrorism and other security issues associated with the pipeline and

the terminal. We provide fire service and equipment, petroleum

firefighting apparatus. We have joint firefighting agreements between the Terminal because they sit inside the city limits of

Valdez.

In addition, under Title II the City of Valdez supports full fund- ing of the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million, and

full funding of the Stateside Program.

State and local governments are integral components in meeting

the Nation’s outdoor recreation needs. It is unbelievable that even

in Alaska we have recreational needs. We have a vast, humongous

state with two of the largest national parks in the Nation. Primarily, one is fairly well developed, the other is undeveloped at all.

We still have recreational needs for the millions of tourists visiting

Alaska every year. Public access to recreation opportunities and facilities depends on a combined system of local, state and Federal

sites and services.

More than 367 projects have been constructed in 45 different

Alaskan communities and on state parks lands since the Land and

Water Conservation Fund was established. Each of these projects

plays a key role in meeting the outdoor recreation needs not only

of our local citizens in our state, but our Nation as well.

Valdez has more than $1 million of outdoor recreation projects

that are eligible for LWCF Stateside funding. These projects include campground renovation, winter recreation facilities, parks,

and beachfront access developments.

One of the things that greatly affects Alaska, and in particular

Valdez, is that we do not have much private land. Prince William

Sound is pretty much all controlled and owned by the Forest Service. Some Native corporations own land but, for the most part, very

little private land in Alaska.

Other Alaskan communities such as Fairbanks, Unalaska, Sitka,

Anchorage, Barrow and Juneau have more than $60 million in

projects that need to be funded.

286

Mr. TAUZIN. Mayor, we ask you to kind of begin wrapping up, we

are going to try to get other witnesses in. Mr. Pombo will sit in the

chair just temporarily.

Mr. POMBO. [presiding] Go ahead.

Mayor. COBB. I will go ahead and close. Our local communities

have a long history of impacts on our communities, and the provisions provided under Title I are greatly needed.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cobb may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

Mr. POMBO. Thank you.

Mr. Van Putten.

STATEMENT OF MARK VAN PUTTEN, PRESIDENT/CEO,

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, VIENNA, VIRGINIA

Mr. VAN PUTTEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the

Committee. I appreciate this opportunity to testify this afternoon

on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation, America’s largest

conservation advocacy and education organization.

I want to begin by congratulating the sponsors of H.R. 701 and

H.R. 798 for their tremendous leadership in introducing the two

bills that are now pending before this Committee. If successful in

passing a permanent conservation funding bill, your contribution

would be a conservation milestone comparable to the passage of

landmark laws like the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and the

original Land and Water Conservation Fund.

The National Wildlife Federation has made it our top priority to

work with you to ensure that this victory is accomplished. One caveat: To realize the tremendous possibility posed by these bills, as

Representative John pointed out earlier, it is vital that the final

bill does not create perverse incentives for negative environmental

impacts, the nail in the coffin, as he put it earlier.

We are greatly heartened by the significant improvements that

have been made to Title I of H.R. 701 to exclude areas currently

covered by the oil and gas moratoria from the revenue stream. We

thank you for that progress, and we look forward to working with

you to ensure that any remaining incentives for increased oil and

gas drilling are addressed before the Committee marks up the bill.

As my written testimony indicates, the Federation has an active

interest in many of the major issues associated with this bill, but

I am going to focus my oral remarks on the wildlife component of

the two funding bills because this has been a priority to the Federation since our role in the creation of the Teaming With Wildlife

Coalition.

Historically, fish and wildlife agencies have been responsible for

managing and protecting the fish and wildlife that inhabit their

borders. These efforts have yielded remarkable results, including

the restoration of wild turkey, elk, black bear, and striped bass, to

their native habitat; yet, the funds available to these agencies do

not typically reflect their broad mandate, and the agencies must fill

too often these difficult programmatic goals based on a limited

budget.

Traditionally, much of the funding for wildlife management has

come from the support of sportsmen and women through excise

287

taxes on hunting and fishing equipment and through the sale of

sporting licenses. Consequently, it is not surprising that the vast

majority of these resources have been used to manage game species; yet, roughly 90 percent of species, those that are not hunted

or fished or federally listed as threatened or endangered—commonly referred to as ‘‘nongame’’ wildlife—receive significantly less

reliable and less financial support. Annual funding for all state

nongame wildlife programs amounts to less than $100 million compared to the more than $1 billion spent for state game programs.

It makes sense to prioritize the funding available under these

bills to prevent the decline of nongame wildlife species before they

reach a crisis point where most costly options are required.

We greatly appreciate the efforts by the sponsors of both bills to

include substantial and reliable funding for these agencies that

would be dedicated to on-the-ground state wildlife conservation. We

strongly urge you to prioritize this funding for the historically underfunded nongame wildlife programs.

I would like to make a few observations specific to each of the

pending bills. With respect to H.R. 701, I already mentioned our

strong belief in the need to prioritize the funding for nongame wildlife bills. Given the longstanding emphasis state and wildlife agencies have placed on game species, this legislation should include

that prioritization.

Second, H.R. 701 does not provide a clear mechanism to ensure

public participation in the process, and the bill should be amended

to include language that provides for public meetings and citizen

advisory committees.

Third, and finally, we are concerned about some of the restrictions in Title II on the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

With respect to H.R. 798, we commend the drafters for their creativity, but we are concerned that channeling these funds through

the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act rather than the PittmanRobertson Act would create some administrative disadvantages. It

may require the creation of a new administrative infrastructure for

distributing the funds and may make it more difficult to provide

oversight and accountability. We recommend using the proven

mechanism of Pittman-Robertson.

Second, this bill would not reach full funding of $350 million per

year until five years out. Delaying the funds for wildlife conservation will impair the ability of states to develop effective programs.

Third, we recommend that funding levels for these state programs be increased by approximately $100 million to match the

higher level in H.R. 701.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the National

Wildlife Federation is resolved to work with you in crafting a final

legislation that assures reliable, permanent funding for wildlife

conservation, adequate emphasis on those species that have the

greatest need and have historically been shortchanged, an effective

mechanism for distributing funds, and reasonable Federal oversight and public participation. You have the opportunity to make

a historic contribution to wildlife conservation in America, and we

are dedicated to work with you to achieve that end. Thank you very

much.

288

[The prepared statement of Mr. Van Putten may be found at the

end of the hearing.]

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you very much, Mark, and, indeed, we will

continue to dialogue as we go forward on the bills.

Next is Mr. Alan Front, Senior Vice President for The Trust for

Public Land, San Francisco, California. I am reminded, Alan, of

your assistance to us in Louisiana on the black bear conservation

issues, and I want to thank you for that. By the way, you are not

related to Allen Funt, are you, with Candid Camera?

Mr. FRONT. No, this is the correct spelling.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Front.

STATEMENT OF ALAN FRONT, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, THE

TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

Mr. FRONT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased

to be here today to represent The Trust for Public Land, a national

not-for-profit land conservation organization that works with communities, landowners, and public agencies across the country, with

diverse constituencies, willing sellers, and public agencies, to secure important lands of public interest and to make those lands

available for public use and enjoyment.

Mr. Chairman, if you can bear the weight of some additional appreciative laurels this afternoon, I would like to begin by expressing the Trust for Public Land’s appreciation for your work and for

the work of Chairman Young, the Ranking Member, Mr. Miller,

your many respective co-sponsors, and the Members of this Committee, for advancing this important legislation at a time of critical

need and particularly ripe opportunity.

There has never been a more challenging time for our Nation’s

public lands either at the Federal level or at the state and local

level, and the inclusive process that you and the Committee have

engaged in really holds great promise for enacted legislation that

we hope to be able to embrace and see you at the signing ceremony

for.

You have heard this morning on several panels about the need

for additional conservation funding through the Land and Water

Conservation Fund, through UPARR, and through some of the

other mechanisms of these bills. I will not beat that horse, but I

will share with you that with the Trust for Public Land’s work on

the ground with those communities, we have seen that need in the

backlog of land acquisition, land protection, land restoration need.

We have seen those needs expressed at the local level across the

country, from the forest lands of Maine to the beaches of the Gulf

Coast and Florida, and elsewhere, to the Swann Valley in Montana, to the watershed lands of the Wasatch Front, all the way to

Hawaii where public lands are the life’s blood and the mainstay of

the tourist economy that keeps that state going.

We are very pleased that both of these proposals, CARA and Resources 2000 which, I believe, in the Silicon Valley is called

‘‘R2K’’—we are pleased that both of those bills, both of the bills

that you are considering today, meaningfully seek to address the

shortfall in funding in these conservation programs to bridge the

gap between the express need in communities around the Nation

289

and the annual funding that Congress has diligently tried to provide but has not met the needs.

I would like to talk about some of the differences between those

two proposals, but, first, I would love to celebrate for just a moment some of the commonalities between the two. Obviously, these

bills are not identical, but even if they are not identical twins,

there is a certain family resemblance that is very, very encouraging.

Both the bills provide permanent funding for the Land and

Water Conservation Fund at its congressionally authorized level.

Both of the bills restore a substantial commitment to state and

local recreation through a meaningful recreation of the Stateside

program, and both of these bills make an equally meaningful commitment to the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act program,

by putting, again, guaranteed funding into that program.

We do celebrate those, and those three items are critically important not only to the Trust for Public Land and its conservation

work, but to the many willing sellers that we work with around the

country who ought not to have to wait for compensation if they are

willing to sell their priority public lands, and to the communities

that depend on these lands not just for recreation, but also, in

many cases, for their economic stability and sustainability.

Given those similarities and appreciating them, we also recognize

that there are some differences, and in a few specific cases in the

conservation titles of the bills, specifically in Title II of CARA, we

are concerned about some of the limitations of the use of the Land

and Water Conservation Fund that my tablemate made some reference to.

First, there is a geographic limitation that would steer a set percentage of the money to the eastern states, east of the 100th Meridian, and while we recognize the pressing needs on both sides of the

100th Meridian, we also recognize that Congress and the Administration, in their dual wisdom, have reckoned out for years how on

a case-by-case basis to respond to the needs on either side of the

line, and that is a flexibility that we would dearly love to see sustained in any successor to the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

The bill also limits Federal acquisition with respect to exterior

boundaries, and while that is a particularly key issue for some of

the Members on the Committee, we have also seen that many landowners own property that straddles the line between the public jurisdictions and the areas just outside the boundary, or own properties that are outside the boundaries but are necessary for programmatic initiatives that the agencies are pursuing. And so we

would like to see that flexibility maintained as well.

Lastly, there is an additional restriction that would require new

authorizing legislation for any project that was funded through this

fund over a set amount. And all of the acquisitions that take place

currently are already authorized, and we believe that a duplicative

authorization requirement would delay projects in a real estate

marketplace that is very dynamic, and cost communities their resources, and cost landowners excessive time.

Finally, I would like to ask that whatever bill is reported out also

consider one budgetary dynamic, and that is that there obviously

will need to be offsets identified for this new spending, and full and

290

fair disclosure is that it is new spending for an old obligation, for

a historic partnership but new spending. It would be a tragedy to

see that funding come out of the hide of the land management

agencies that are trying to sustain their programs, and so however

the mechanism is arrived at, we look forward to working with the

Committee to make sure that offsets can be identified that will not

close the Washington Monument while we try to protect additional

parklands.

With that, I do appreciate the Committee’s openness, and I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you, and I look forward to

working with you up until that signing ceremony.

Thank you so much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Front may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Front. By the way, in

your earlier comments about thanking those who worked on the

bill, I do not want to leave out the excellent work of my colleague

from Louisiana, Chris John, who has been a key player in the early

drafting and many discussions that have led to a bill that is getting

closer and closer to a consensus product. We, by the way, affectionately call Resource 2000 not Y2K, but ‘‘Y2CHAOS’’.

[Laughter.]

Mr. TAUZIN. We are now pleased to welcome Mr. Thomas Cove,

of the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association of Washington,

DC.

Mr. Cove.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS COVE, SPORTING GOODS

MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. COVE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association is the national trade association for producers

and distributors of athletic equipment, footwear and apparel. We

have about 2,000 member companies.

I associate myself with the same remarks about commending the

Chairman, you, Mr. Tauzin, you, Mr. John, as well as Mr. Miller.

We have been at this table a couple of times.

I testified two years ago, it was a message of lament, we had little to look forward to. Four or five years ago, I was on the National

Park Service Committee to address the state and local side of the

Land and Water Fund, and while we produced a wonderful report,

we generated very little activity where it mattered, which is up

here fundamentally in this Committee.

So, we start with a tremendous optimism about the energy on

this issue and profound appreciation for the leadership that all of

you, as well as your staffs, have brought to this table.

I recognize there are substantive differences between H.R. 701

and H.R. 798, and I might look to my friend, Mr. Front, and take

the same position he articulated. I would like to talk, first, about

those parts of the bill that are close or, as he said, are members

of the same family. I am not as articulate as Alan Front, but I try

hard.

What we see on the Land and Water Stateside and on the

UPARR program is a tremendous need in America today that we

291

can fund. We can fundamentally address a quality of life concern

with America’s families and communities.

Today, the sports and recreation infrastructure shows basically

an equation out of balance. Demand outstrips supply across the

Nation. Ball fields, courts, trails, rivers, greenways, bike paths,

lakes, nature preserves, they are being taxed, taxed every day, and

conflicts amongst our citizens are springing up and causing conflicts.

Let me just talk briefly about how it cuts across America, and

I would reiterate that the bills’ provisions with regard to UPARR

and Land and Water speak directly to these needs.

First, it is an urban issue. Let me give you just some quick examples. In the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota, literally thousands

of young girls and boys in the city want to but will not get to play

soccer this year because there are no playing fields there.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thought wrestling was the big sport.

[Laughter.]

Mr. COVE. Well, we love the new Governor, but lots of folks want

to do other things as well. There is one public soccer field in the

entire city, there are 341 soccer fields in the Minneapolis suburbs.

With inner-city programs that we work with like Reviving Baseball in the Inner City, Soccer in the Streets, this is a common complaint. They’ve got kids coming out of everywhere to come play, and

there is no place to play.

It is a suburban issue. Let me identify one Maryland county, in

this county, 25,000 girls and boys play organized soccer, 74 fields

to serve them. Last year in one age-specific league, 550 children

were turned away, no space. In the next two years, county officials

estimate that 60 to 120 additional fields in one county need to be

built. Forty thousand kids are going to be in the soccer program

in four years.

In Ft. Lauderdale, there are 1,000 kids on the waiting list to sign

up for soccer in the American Youth Soccer Organization League.

The problem is not unique to soccer. Hopewell, New Jersey, they

have not had football there for years because there are no fields.

This year, parents wanted to start a youth football league, Pop

Warner. One hundred and thirty kids signed up in the spring without any hope of having a field. Now they have a problem because

they have to go out and raise money to start to buy equipment,

which we love, but without a field there will be lots of children

there, and parents as well, left unfulfilled.

It is a gender equity issue. In Georgia, for example, girls and

women’s softball league administrators do battle with the baseball

folks, softball versus baseball. In one typical Georgia city, there are

five fields for 800 boys and some girls who play baseball. There is

one field for 300 girls who play softball. Girls do not get the chance

to play.

Title IX has opened doors for girls and women to play nontraditional field sports like lacrosse, soccer, rugby, and field hockey.

This is great, but the conflicts over field usage only get worse.

It is a cultural issue. We are seeing more and more youth sports

leagues having to play on Sundays. Parents do not like having to

make a choice between church, family time, and youth sports.

292

It is a socio-economic issue. One response to what people are facing out there is parents are starting to raise money and build their

own facilities. But these are fee-based facilities, so only the people

that can pay get to play. Only the people that are fully committed

to that particular sport get to play, and the intramural athlete does

not get to. It is not right to make basic recreation access limited

by financial considerations.

Health and safety. A recent CDC study established that people

living in unsafe neighborhoods are less likely to get outside for

physical activity—no surprise. Almost 40 percent of people living in

‘‘not safe’’ neighborhoods reported no physical activity or exercise

in the past month.

For older Americans, it is particularly important. The study

found 63 percent living in unsafe areas got no exercise, compared

with 38 percent in safer areas. I offer these examples just to put

a human face on the problem, and I see my time is up. Let me

speak just quickly to the two bills. Let me be clear as to what we

think.

I said we think both of them are good. We generally support H.R.

701 because it will provide a permanent, dedicated, sustainable

funding source for Federal and state Land and Water Conservation

Fund and UPARR. This is the heart of the bill for us, and lots of

America’s families and kids.

SGMA supports H.R. 798 as well, but there are areas in the

Chairman’s bill, H.R. 701, that can be improved. I have listed them

in my testimony. In fact, we have concerns about the allocation

only within the exterior boundaries because there are trails that

people use all the time, and willing sellers want to make that land

available; they should be able to be accommodated. The two-thirds

issue east of the meridian is a concern for us.

Let me make two points about other titles and I will close. First,

I do need to say that my industry is against the use of coastal impact assistance as an incentive to promote offshore gas and oil

drilling. We are not in a position to make that decision, whether

it is an incentive or not, but we would ask that whatever final language is agreed to would be incentive-neutral to the most people

as possible.

With regard to Title III, the sporting goods industry supports

Title III and supports the dedicated revenue stream to provide

funds for wildlife management. You may know that the previous

option to tax products to pay for Teaming With Wildlife was not

a big favorite of my industry. We are very happy and commend the

Committee for taking an innovative approach, and we look to work

with you to pass this bill. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cove may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you very much. The Chair will recognize himself and other Members for five minutes. Let me begin by pointing

out that, indeed, in past Congressional sessions, we have offered all

sorts of bills to incentivize drilling. Coming from Louisiana, you

can imagine how our citizens feel, like we have opened up the Gulf

to drilling and accepted many of the consequences of that, including pretty severe impacts on our communities, as the Mayor of

Valdez has pointed out.

293

We have been appalled that in some places other people have not

accepted what we think is their responsibility. In fact, I remember

when we had a five-year leasing discussion here, when the Secretary of the Energy Department testified that some tracts were in

moratoria and not because of environmental concerns. They were

low in environmental concerns, and they were high in hydrocarbon

potential, they were just off because of politics.

So we have had those battles, but I want to make it clear, we

do not make this battle here. We have attempted to try to make

this incentive neutral and make sure that it is a program, however,

that is well funded in the future, that is why we include both old

and new revenues, and to make sure that it permanently provides

for the many concerns that all of you have discussed today—Mayor,

in terms of impacts, and the rest of you in terms of wildlife preservation and wetland preservation and recreational needs of our communities. You made a great case in terms of the human—all of

you—in terms of the human elements here, the human elements of

the community impacted by the declining tax base, Mayor, in

Valdez. By the way, I chaired the first hearing after the Exxon

Valdez disaster in Valdez. I was the Chairman of the Coast Guard

Committee. So, I am keenly aware of what you have gone through,

and how the community now continues to suffer with the declining

tax base.

And for all of you, we, of course, are equally troubled by this or

that provision in our bill and Mr. Miller’s bill, as we try to balance

these things out. Understand, I am a big property rights advocate,

and so we are trying to make sure our property rights coalitions

are not terribly offended by what we do here, that we protect property rights.

Mr. Front, I know that is a concern of your group, that private

property rights are protected and respected throughout this effort.

At the same time, I understand your concerns that if there is a

need for additional trails or park space in a given community, that

we want to make sure that that can happen. Tough balances, I

hope you see that. And we are trying to find the right mix, and

that is why we keep this dialogue going throughout the process.

For example, Mr. Front, you did mention your concerns about

protections for private—could you expand on your concerns, and

give us any suggestions how we might make sure that we are not

offending the private property rights concerns of legitimate private

property owners in America?

Mr. FRONT. I will be glad to, Mr. Chairman. First, I should note

that we are certainly in favor of accountability and responsible use

of these funds and appropriate deliberation. And what we recognize

is that in the process that Congress and the Administration have

engaged in over the years, there seems to have been exactly that

sort of give-and-take, exactly those sorts of checks-and-balances.

When the Hill has been overly concerned about an acquisition that

the Administration has proposed, it has seen fit to put restrictions,

or to cancel outright, the Administration’s capacity to pursue that

acquisition.

Mr. TAUZIN. Or at least to require willing sellers, as we have always tried to do.

294

Mr. FRONT. Yes. And my organization’s perspective may be somewhat limited because not having imminent domain authority, not

really wanting imminent domain authority, with the challenges

that brings, all of our relationships with all the sellers that we

work with—Black Bear owners in Louisiana and elsewhere—are on

a very willing seller basis.

Mr. TAUZIN. Is there something wrong with our bill in that regard that you can recommend any improvement?

Mr. FRONT. Yes. The concerns that I have about the bill, and I

believe that they can be worked out to the satisfaction of property

rights advocates, are that the specific limitations, ironclad limitations, about how that money will be spent—two-thirds of it must

be spent of the 100th Meridian, the money cannot be spent on exterior boundary acquisitions—and the delays inherent in requiring

additional legislative authorization——

Mr. TAUZIN. Your concerns are more in the place where willing

sellers cannot make——

Mr. FRONT. If there are willing sellers who would like to pursue

acquisitions, but unfortunately they happen to lie outside of the

framework of the restrictions——

Mr. TAUZIN. Let me move around quickly. Mayor, you said your

tax base is declining on the pipeline. Is that because of depreciation?

Mr. COBB. Yes, it is, property tax devaluation of the pipeline

itself.

Mr. TAUZIN. So you still have all the problems, your communities

are growing, you still have all that fire protection and safety concerns, and yet your base is declining. The impact assistance is pretty critical to you.

Mr. COBB. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAUZIN. Quickly, Mr. Van Putten, you mention that public

land is eroding. I can tell you big time in Louisiana, as Mr. John

has pointed out with me. Congressman Regula recently said there

is a $12 billion backlog in the maintenance of Federal lands. Would

you support allowing the Federal Land and Water Conservation

Fund to be used for rehabilitation and maintenance of public

lands?

Mr. VAN PUTTEN. Congressman, that is an issue that I have not

focused my attention on, and I will respond to you on behalf of the

Federation in writing, if I may.

Mr. TAUZIN. That would be very, very good, I appreciate that, sir,

because that is a big discussion here, how much should go into new

acquisitions, how much should go into simply taking care of what

we already have, and rehabilitating it where we are losing it. That

is something we want to hear more on, if you do not mind coming

back to us on.

Mr. VAN PUTTEN. Yes, sir, I will send you a letter.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Cove, my time is out, but I did want to ask you

one very quick question. Your statistics seem to indicate that the

needs are not for a great deal more public land acquisition, except

in the area of fields perhaps, but tell me—we keep hearing from

other Members that what people are going to use this money for

is to go out and buy great new swatches of land out there.

295

You seem to indicate the real needs in this area are for small acquisitions for new fields and new recreational opportunities for underserved women and underserved kids, particularly, and elderly

people for safety purposes in urban communities, is that right?

Mr. COVE. Well, that is exactly what I said, and we have identified the Stateside Land and Water as a great success that has been

lost—the investment has been broken for the last 15 years, and it

is time to pay the price.

I would not want to give the impression, though, particularly

from our business interests, that the Federal land issues are resolved. Purely on the business of recreation, there are tremendous

needs out there, and we fundamentally believe that there is a considerable amount of land that would need to be purchased with regard to protecting it for conservation purposes for the good of the

country.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you, gentlemen. The Chair yields to my

friend from Louisiana, Mr. John.

Mr. JOHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me thank all of

the panelists, especially the Mayor of Valdez, who traveled several

time zones to get here. I have been up to your beautiful city, and

we need to make sure that we do everything to help.

I also appreciate your testimony and your comments earlier, and

also agree with them, that I do believe that the Federal Government has an obligation to help the states and local governments to

mitigate the impacts of oil and gas development. So, I really appreciate you coming and sharing those thoughts with us.

Mr. Van Putten, you mentioned in your testimony a little earlier

about the differences and similarities of our bills. One of the biggest differences, I believe, in R2K, as one of you called it, and H.R.

701, is that it limits the sources of these funds to come only from

Gulf of Mexico leases that were in production as of January 1st.

Obviously, this limits the available funding under H.R. 798, and

denies some of the programs access to these resources. Do you see

a reason why we should limit the funds for these programs to just

from the Gulf of Mexico? Especially if the language in the bill we

are going to continue to work on, prohibits any drilling in moratoria areas?

Mr. VAN PUTTEN. Well, Congressman, our goal is, as Ms. Chasis

described it this morning, to assure that the bill is incentive-neutral with respect to oil and gas drilling. We think there are ways

to do that while still addressing what Representative Tauzin alluded to, the need to assure there is long-term funding. One approach would be a snapshot approach as of a point in time. That

is what Ms. Chasis suggested this morning would work. That could

be revisited by the Congress at appropriate opportunities in the future.

Frankly, I do not see how the geographically focused approach

that you suggest works any better in balancing those two goals of

being incentive-neutral while at the same time assuring that the

money will be there for the long-term to satisfy the identified

needs.

Mr. JOHN. I am not suggesting that just the revenues come out

of the Gulf of Mexico. To the contrary, that is not what H.R. 701

attempts to do—that is what H.R. 798 does. So, I just wanted your

296

thoughts on that. And, also, you talked about your concern about

prioritizing the money in the nongame portion of our bill. I assume

that is Title III, right?

Mr. VAN PUTTEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHN. Expand on that, please. Are you suggesting that the

Federal Government, in this legislation, actually slot out different

dollars for different programs in priority fashion?

Mr. VAN PUTTEN. We are suggesting that this legislation clearly

articulate a priority in the use of the Title III funds for nongame

wildlife needs. Historically, because of the source of the funding in

Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson is the excise tax on equipment used by hunters and anglers, they have been a very effective

constituency for assuring that those funds are focused on those

uses. The original Teaming With Wildlife approach, because it had

an excise tax on equipment used by other wildlife enthusiasts,

would have relied on the same dynamic. As my colleague to the left

from the manufacturers alluded to, it has proven to be politically

pragmatic not to pursue that funding approach. We accept that,

but what we are looking for is the same kind of targeting then of

this revenue to meet those historically unfunded needs of nongame

wildlife and their habitat. We have broken the linkage in terms of

the funding source and the use that has proven so effective with

Dingell-Johnson and Pittman-Robertson, we accept that. All we are

looking for then is the same kind of focus and targeting and

prioritization for the uses of the Title III funds for nongame wildlife that was in the Teaming With Wildlife proposal.

Mr. JOHN. Thank you. Mr. Front, earlier today, we had a witness

with NACo, National Association of Counties, and he brought an

interesting concept to us about conservation leases in lieu of, or as

an alternative to, outright purchase of land. And that was an interesting concept because it is in neither one of our bills. Could you

maybe elaborate your position on that concept. Is that something

we need to think about? Does it calm the fears of some of the property rights guys?

Mr. FRONT. Well, it is certainly an interesting concept, Congressman, and the real question. And it is a question that has not been

adequately tested, in our view, out in the world, is whether or not

there is a sufficient nexus of landowners in the landowning community who are interested in pursuing that as a way of offering up

property while still paying the taxes and allowing it to be used for

recreation or other public purposes.

Currently, the existing authorization of these conservation programs does allow for not so much for conservation leasing, but does

allow for limited interest acquisition. Generally, the language in

these programs is acquisition of lands or interest in lands. And so

conservation easements and other innovative approaches are used

now but, with respect to conservation leasing, we can look at this

a little further and get back to you but, right now, our jury is still

out as to how widespread its utility might be.

Mr. JOHN. Right. And I would like for you to articulate that to

your association because I think it is something that may have potential, or it may not. And I know I am out of time but, finally,

Mr. Cove, you had mentioned not only in your written testimony,

but earlier in your testimony at the table, that you do not want to

297

see drilling incentives, but in your testimony you do not take that

one step further and say that there are drilling incentives in the

bill, but you suggest that you do not want to see them.

I guess my question is, are there concerns in our bill that suggest

to you that there may be some drilling incentive language in there,

as you suggested, you do not want to see.

Mr. COVE. You are making me say things that I probably wanted

not to say in the course of the testimony but, frankly, we are not

in a position to know—and we have been battered by our friends

on both sides to take a position. In the industry, it is important.

We are an industry that relies on the ongoing protection of our natural resources. When we hear from folks there are incentives, we

take note, but we are in no way in a position to determine that,

and would just ask that——

Mr. JOHN. I did not mean to put you on the spot, but it is a very

sensitive issue for me and this Committee, that we address that

issue to the best of our ability. And I understand that we are going

to, at some point, have to draw a line in the sand about what is

an incentive, and there will be some groups that will not agree

with that.

Mr. COVE. As we say in the football business, I will punt on that.

Mr. TAUZIN. We cannot. Unfortunately, we cannot. The Chair

yields to Mr. Pombo.

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. I think we punt all the time. Mayor

Cobb, I, too, have had the opportunity to visit your city, and it is

a very interesting place, and I appreciate what you are trying to

do.

I do want to ask you in terms of your tax base, do you have a

property tax on private property held within your city now?

Mr. COBB. Yes, we do.

Mr. POMBO. What percentage of your budget is made up of that

property tax versus the tax that you currently receive off of the

pipeline?

Mr. COBB. Well, each year, as our major property owner, the

pipeline itself, declines, that money has to be made up somewhere,

and so the non-oil side of the property tax has been on a steady

increase. It will increase this year about 3.5 percent.

Mr. POMBO. You have had to increase that tax?

Mr. COBB. Yes.

Mr. POMBO. How would you feel if some of the current private

property that is held within your city were bought by the government, whether it was state or Federal Government, to be used for

some conservation purpose, or other purpose, that this Act deemed

suitable?

Mr. COBB. An incident like that just happened. We just had a

100-acre parcel of waterfront property that borders on Port Valdez

that was a joint effort between the city of Valdez, the State of Alaska, and the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustees, we purchased that

100 acres, the city of Valdez threw in an additional 350 acres of

wetlands, in a partnership effort to conserve that land.

I think the reason the land is being purchased is the key for me.

And we have had $900 million worth of oil spill funds and about

50 percent of that has been spent on land acquisition. I am not

crazy about some of those land acquisitions. I think if it is for the

298

purpose of protecting the environment, a specific endangered species, I am all for that, but I would hate to see what small amount

of private property we have in our community turned over to either

a state or the Federal Government and take it off the tax rolls.

Mr. POMBO. You come from a state that is approximately 98-percent-owned by Federal, state, or Native Alaskan groups, local government groups. You have heard questions raised about two-thirds

of this funding being spent in the east. Do you have concerns about

land acquisitions being done in the State of Alaska?

Mr. COBB. I do not have real concerns of that. I think while there

may be some private inholdings within some of the Federal leases

and stuff like that, I do not see them as being very large. I do not

have problems with——

Mr. POMBO. You do not have a lot of property to buy.

Mr. COBB. We do not, not much of it at all.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Front, I am familiar with your organization and

a lot of the work that they do. Do you see yourself, if this legislation is adopted, working with the state and Federal Government to

identify lands that should be held and help to put that forth?

Mr. FRONT. Congressman, in the identification of the lands to be

acquired, we really do not. My organization does not set priorities.

We do not determine what the public ought to acquire or ought not

to acquire. Rather, we provide what I would consider a very technical service where, if there are landowners who have immediate

needs for compensation and there are public jurisdictions that

would acquire their properties, but the process is too slow or cumbersome to get to those needs as quickly as possible, we step in and

serve as sort of a bridge role, but that does not extend to determining which lands ought to be acquired.

Mr. POMBO. So they identify the lands and you step in and buy

them?

Mr. FRONT. Yes, or in some cases we may respond to landowner

or community needs in advance of a government agency identifying

anything, and create an opportunity and make that property available by buying some time with the landowner.

Mr. POMBO. In those cases where the government has not identified the acquisition but others have and you step in and buy that,

do you then approach the Federal agencies or the land management agencies about the purchase of what you now have?

Mr. FRONT. Yes. We may approach Federal, or state, or local jurisdictions. We may talk to nonprofit groups that might have an interest in acquiring the lands. And we may look at private purchasers who would put the property to a conservation purpose.

Mr. POMBO. So, a substantial amount of this money would go

into the kind of things that your organization does.

Mr. FRONT. Possibly. That would be subject, again, to whether

the opportunities that we were taking advantage of were aligned

with the opportunities that this body and the Administration identified.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I do have further questions.

Mr. TAUZIN. The Chair would be glad to extend the gentleman’s

time, if you so request. Without objection, so ordered.

299

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. One of the concerns that a number of

people have with this legislation, or this kind of legislation, is that

a focus of the land purchases has predominantly been in the West,

over the past several decades, and a substantial portion of the

Western states is already owned by the state and Federal Government. How much is too much? California, which I know you are

very familiar with, how much of California should be owned by the

state and Federal Government?

Mr. FRONT. That is a question I was not quite prepared to answer today, I will admit, and I am not sure that there is an objective standard. As a couple of my co-panelists have mentioned, some

of these opportunities arise—Mayor Cobb had mentioned that it

really is on a case-by-case basis, whether it is a 100-acre parcel in

Valdez, or whether it is a few thousand acres in the bayous of Louisiana.

Mr. TAUZIN. Would the gentleman yield for a second?

Mr. POMBO. Sure.

Mr. TAUZIN. The number I have for California is 44.5, approximately, public owned.

Mr. POMBO. Federal

Mr. TAUZIN. Federal-owned, that is correct.

Mr. POMBO. Fifty-six percent, if you include the state government—56 percent of California. Now, thankfully, we are not on the

level of Alaska, but 56 percent, over half of the State of California,

is currently owned by state and Federal Government. That does

not include local government ownership, which is substantial as

well. And there is a huge concern over where it stops. The Mayor

of Valdez was talking about how difficult it is to finance his infrastructure, his budget, there. We have counties in California that

have filed bankruptcy because they are heavily owned by the Federal Government, and they cannot pay for their infrastructure

costs, their schooling, all of the basic necessities that a county depends on. And that is why I ask the question, how much is too

much?

Mr. FRONT. I guess the only answer I can give is, right now there

is a deliberative process in which the counties have, I hope and believe, a very influential voice in whether or not land should come

off their tax rolls. And the Administration and this Congress has

the capacity either to direct funds towards projects that make

sense to you all, or to suggest that those projects not proceed and

that conservation take a backseat to local economic interests. In

some instances, there are counties who take a look at a property

coming off the tax rolls, and nonetheless favor the acquisition because of the economic and other benefits that the public land base

might provide. And, so, because of that case-by-case dynamic, I

guess what we would suggest, rather than drawing the line in the

sand and saying the right number is 2 percent or 82 percent, is,

rather, to say that we favor a deliberative process in which the

counties and other interests do have a voice and in which good decisions can be made by you all.

Mr. POMBO. Well, unfortunately, in the real world, that is not the

way it works. I do know of one specific Federal purchase that was

done in my district that was opposed by the county, by the local

government, by the elected Representatives from that area, includVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:27 Jan 29, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00305 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\56081 pfrm08 PsN: 56081
300

ing myself, that the Federal Government purchased land, over my

objections and over the objections of local government, is a part of

a wildlife refuge. It is a decision that was made before I was elected to Congress that they wanted that, and they did it anyway, even

though people objected to it. It is precedence like that that makes

me very leery of opening this process in this way where we have

an additional billion dollars to spend on land acquisition. I am

very, very leery of being able to do that.

I do want to ask Mr. Cove a question. You said in your statement

that you were concerned, or your organization was concerned,

about directing two-thirds of these purchases to the eastern part of

the United States. Now, a lot of property owners in the east are

not wild about that either, but from your perspective, why? Why

are you concerned about this? Over half of the west is already

owned by the Federal Government. Why are you concerned about

focusing the attention on the eastern two-thirds?

Mr. COVE. Well, fundamentally, I am concerned that it takes

away from the flexibility of Congress to determine those priorities,

but let me give you the more specific example. As you know, Mr.

Pombo, many parts of the west are quickly becoming urbanized and

suburbanized as well. If you look at places like Las Vegas, one of

the fastest growing urban centers in the country, and Phoenix and

Boise, Idaho. Those places are taking on the same problems of

urban sprawl as in the East. They are seeing some of the older

parts of the city becoming dilapidated. They need some of the same

support that the eastern older cities do as well. That is our fundamental premise, there is enough work—and I can give you example

after example through the western states and Texas—where the

kinds of pressures I identify, the urban, suburban, the gender equity issues, the health and safety issues, are just as real in the

west as they are in the east.

Mr. POMBO. I do not disagree with that, but I think that we are

talking about different things. You know, in the State of Nevada,

Las Vegas is the fastest growing city in the country right now. At

the same time, it is in a state that over 80 percent of it the Federal

Government owns. Not all 80 percent of that is environmentally

sensitive land that should be held by the Federal Government.

Could we not sell part of that federally owned land in the State of

Nevada, and take that money and pay for urban parks?

Mr. COVE. That is a different question, and one which the officials within the Congress as well as in the State and county areas

of Nevada should take up. Our concern is that we need to provide

places for folks to recreate near where they live. UPARR and the

Stateside of the Land and Water Conservation Fund do exactly

that. I do not know of other ways, and I am well aware of the tensions about land exchanges, et cetera, but clearly we need to be

able to find places near where folks live for us to protect, and not

only for recreation but just to give them an ability to touch their

natural world. We need to enable kids in the cities to go out and

go fishing, to go out and understand what makes flowers bloom.

We need to protect those places for the good of all of us. That is

why we support across-the-board greater flexibility, rather than the

two-third/one-third.

301

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you, Mr. Pombo. Don’t you ever tell me that

you are not as articulate as Mr. Front—touching nature and watching flowers bloom. Just a couple of points. We do have the $1 million limitation, as

you all know, in the bill. It requires acquisitions of that nature to

at least come before this Committee again, we try to put some protections in.

Mayor, also, a final point, we also fully fund PILT, Payment In

Lieu of Taxes. I should hope that would have a serious and profound effect and assistance on communities like yours where property taxes are being lost. Comment?

Mr. COBB. It does. The PILT payments to Valdez I think roughly come in at about $130,000 a year. It is significant for a small community. As long as those continue to be funded, we fully support

that.

Mr. TAUZIN. And we funded them at 60 percent. This bill takes

it up to 100 percent.

Mr. COBB. Correct.

Mr. TAUZIN. So, again, it is a recognition that when communities

do lose taxes because of acquisitions of land to the public domain,

that the Federal Government owes some obligation to reimburse,

and we provide 100 percent reimbursement.

Gentlemen, thank you. Mr. John, do you have any further comments or questions of this panel?

Mr. JOHN. No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Pombo?

Mr. POMBO. No.

Mr. TAUZIN. Again, we thank you very much for your contributions, and we will assemble the next panel and get on with it.

Thank you.

The next panel will consist of Mr. Kevin Paap, Vice President,

Minnesota Farm Bureau, representing the American Farm Bureau

Federation, Washington, DC; Mr. Mark Shaffer, Vice President,

Defenders of Wildlife here in Washington, DC; third, Mr. Ralph

Grossi, President of the American Farmland Trust, of Washington,

DC, and Mr. Pietro Parravano, President, Pacific Coast Federation

of Fishermen’s Association, San Francisco, California. If you gentlemen would kindly assemble, and we will begin with Mr. Kevin

Paap. Kevin, welcome, and we appreciate your oral testimony. Remember, your written testimony is a part of our record. If you will

summarize and engage us in conversation, if you will.

Mr. Paap.

STATEMENT OF KEVIN PAAP, VICE PRESIDENT, MINNESOTA

FARM BUREAU, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. PAAP. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Kevin Paap.

My wife and I operate a fourth generation farm in Garden City,

Minnesota, where we raise corn, soybeans and boys. I am Vice

President of the Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation. Minnesota is

a coastal state identified in H.R. 701. I am appearing today on behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee

today to testify. We will direct our comments to the Land AcquisiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:27 Jan 29, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00307 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\56081 pfrm08 PsN: 56081
302

tion and Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Programs. If funding is to

be provided for Federal and state lands, we strongly urge that any

such funds be first earmarked for repair and maintenance to existing lands before being authorized to purchase additional land. The

Federal land management agencies have a significant backlog of

repairs and maintenance to their lands that totals billions of dollars. We should first use any funds to take care of lands that we

have. If our national parks are considered ‘‘American jewels,’’

America would be better served to have fewer jewels that are high

quality and polished, rather than more lower quality, unpolished

and imperfect ones.

Because farmers and ranchers own much of the remaining privately-owned open space in the country, they are natural targets

for having their land appropriated by governmental entities for

various purposes. We are naturally skeptical, therefore, about any

bill or action that involves or authorizes the acquisition of land by

government.

We are pleased that H.R. 701 contains such safeguards with respect to the Federal component of the Land and Water Conservation Fund amendments. By limiting Federal purchases only to existing inholdings and to willing sellers, H.R. 701 prevents the runaway and uncontrolled acquisition of Federal lands that many people fear, unlike similar positions in H.R. 798 and other bills. However, the state component of the bill contains no such safeguards.

We urge that the bill be amended to incorporate the same safeguards for state land acquisitions as exist for Federal acquisitions.

Also, unlike H.R. 798 and similar bills, H.R. 701 provides that

for any money collected above the maximum authorized for the

LWCF, the excess shall be applied to the Farm Bureau supported

Payment In Lieu of Taxes program. We support the effort of H.R.

701 to give this program a needed shot in the arm.

No less significant are the provisions that seek to further the

partnership between private landowners and the government to enhance wildlife and its habitat. Privately owned farm and ranch

lands provide a significant amount of the food and habitat for our

Nation’s wildlife. The agencies must have the cooperation of farmers, ranchers and private property owners if our wildlife is to

thrive.

The American Farm Bureau Federation believes that an appropriate balance between the needs of a species and the needs of people can be struck. Given the proper assurances, farmers and ranchers can play a significant role in management of species on their

property.

We are therefore very pleased that both H.R. 701 and H.R. 798

contain programs that acknowledge and seek to implement such a

partnership.

H.R. 798 provides a definite source of funding for its program

whereas H.R. 701 does not.

H.R. 701 would create the Habitat Reserve Program, a program

that provides those assurances and achieves that balance between

species and landowner that is necessary for the well being of both.

Under this section, farmers and ranchers would enter into contracts for the protection of habitat for species listed under the Endangered Species Act. This program will enhance the conservation

303

of species because it provides for their active, on-the-ground management by affected landowners while at the same time it provides

landowners with the flexibility to manage their property. The HRP

thus provides benefits for both the species and the landowner, the

type of win-win scenario that is needed.

In conclusion, we believe that H.R. 701 provides more overall balance than H.R. 798 and similar bills thus far introduced. We look

forward to working with the Committee on the issues we have addressed in our testimony today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Paap may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Paap.

Now we welcome Mr. Mark Shaffer, Vice President of Defenders

of Wildlife, here in Washington, DC.

Mr. Shaffer.

STATEMENT OF MARK L. SHAFFER, VICE PRESIDENT,

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you

for the opportunity to be here today and address the Committee on

H.R. 701 and H.R. 798. My name is Mark Shaffer. I am Vice President for Program for Defenders of Wildlife. Defenders of Wildlife is

a national nonprofit organization. We have nearly 300,000 members and supporters, and you may be aware that we are advocates

for the conservation of our native wildlife and natural habitats.

We would very much like to thank Mr. Young and his co-sponsors and Mr. Miller and his co-sponsors and the entire Committee

for your leadership in working to secure dedicated funding to conserve our Nation’s natural resources. We hope the following comments will prove useful to you as these bills work their way

through the Committee legislative process.

Defenders’ highest priority this Congress is to see the passage of

legislation that will provide dedicated funding to aid in the conservation of our Nation’s wildlife legacy. Of the two bills under consideration here today, we believe that H.R. 798, the Resources 2000

Act, would accomplish this goal more effectively. We have that view

for three reasons.

First, H.R. 798 would assure that monies directed to state fish

and game agencies to bolster wildlife management at the state

level would be for all wild plant and animal species. Also, it would

require that each state undertake a thoughtful and thorough assessment of all their wildlife species, their habitat needs, the

threats to these species and their habitats, and the management

actions necessary to address those threats.

It is, after all, habitat that is the key to conservation success.

Eighty-five percent of the more than 1,000 native species currently

listed as threatened or endangered by the Federal Government are

in that condition, at least in part, because of the loss or alteration

of habitat. Without proper habitat protections, game and nongame

species alike can become threatened or endangered in short order.

We believe that such comprehensive conservation planning as is

called for in H.R. 798, focused on habitat needs, is absolutely essential to assure the effective and efficient conservation of our wildlife heritage.

304

We would like to point out to the Committee that at least two

states, Florida and Oregon, have undertaken such habitat-focused

planning exercise. I have brought copies of each plan, and I offer

them for the record and for your consideration.

Each of these efforts has its own unique features, but each serves

as a prototype for the sort of comprehensive conservation planning

that will be necessary to maintain our Nation’s wildlife legacy.

Properly done, such plans could be the blueprints for conservation

success and could provide a common framework for effective coordination of conservation programs at the Federal, state and local levels.

The second reason we favor H.R. 798 is that, like H.R. 701, it

provides dedicated funding for the LWCF, but unlike H.R. 701 we

do not believe it provides any new incentives to expand offshore

drilling, nor does it place undue restrictions on the Federal part of

LWCF. I would just echo some of the concerns that some of the

other witnesses on the previous panel expressed about restrictions

on the Federal portion of LWCF, namely, the need for authorizing

legislation on any acquisitions of $1 million or more, requiring that

two-thirds of the yearly funding be spent east of the 100th Meridian, and the prohibition on the acquisition of properties outside of

current boundaries to existing Federal land management units.

We have noted in our written testimony some examples of the

problems that restrictions could create for addressing real conservation needs.

The third reason we favor H.R. 798 is that it includes significant

dedicated funding for incentives to private landowners to help them

be better stewards for threatened and endangered species. Private

lands will play a critical role in our Nation’s efforts to conserve its

wildlife legacy.

After all, over 40 percent of currently listed species are not even

known to occur on Federal lands. We know that many private landowners are good stewards of their land and want to do the right

things to help maintain our Nation’s wildlife heritage. We also

know that some affirmative stewardship activities have a real cost.

In those instances where landowners need assistance with positive

actions on behalf of listed species, we believe it is appropriate for

the government to provide that assistance.

By providing $100 million per year for endangered species recovery actions on private lands, H.R. 798 would enable the Fish and

Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to support private initiatives that would serve the public good. We believe

such an approach to endangered species management is long overdue, and we support it strongly.

Once again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in

working for dedicated funding for conservation of our natural resources, and for providing this forum to hear our views.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shaffer may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you, Mr. Shaffer. Mr. Ralph Grossi, President, American Farmland Trust, Washington, DC.

Mr. Grossi.

305

STATEMENT OF RALPH GROSSI, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN

FARMLAND TRUST, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. GROSSI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, American Farmland Trust appreciates this opportunity to provide your Committee with our views on the merits of

H.R. 701 and H.R. 798. I am the President of AFT and the managing partner of a family farm that has been in the dairy, cattle

and grain business in northern California for more than 100 years.

AFT is a national, nonprofit organization working to stop the loss

of productive farmland and promote farming practices that lead to

a healthy environment.

I want to suggest to the Committee today that it is long past

time that conservation policy be based on working with private

landowners. H.R. 798 contains provisions that move us in that direction. AFT supports the Resources 2000 Act because this bill recognizes the important role that private landowners play in the

stewardship of our natural resources, protecting their property

rights while compensating them for the environmental goods they

produce for the public.

At this time, we cannot support H.R. 701 because except for the

Habitat Reserve Program provisions, it does not contain the provisions needed to address the critical needs of farmers and ranchers.

My comments today will focus primarily on the specific provisions

in H.R. 798 that direct conservation incentives toward private landowners.

For the past quarter century, conservation and environmental

objectives in our country have been largely achieved by either imposing regulations or through government purchase of private land.

However, these actions have failed to resolve conflicts over important environmental problems, like species and farmland protection,

that rely on the participation of thousands of private landowners.

At AFT, we very strongly believe that in the 21st century new approaches to land conservation will be needed that address the concerns of private landowners.

The farmland protection provisions of the Resources 2000 Act

recognize that America cannot—indeed, should not—buy all the

land that needs protecting. Instead, it acknowledges that America’s

private landowners play a vital role in producing conservation benefits for all Americans to enjoy, and rightfully offers to provide

$150 million annually for the protection of the best farmland,

ranchland, and forestland, while leaving it in private ownership.

I would urge you to consider similar provisions in H.R. 701, or

whatever consensus bill emerges from the Committee. The easement acquisition or purchase of development rights approach proposed by 798 provides an innovative voluntary opportunity for appropriate local agencies to work with landowners by offering them

compensation to protect the most productive farmland, farmland

that is critical to both the agricultural economic base of our rural

and suburban communities and the environmental values provided

by well managed farms. It would also provide important matching

funds to the many local and state efforts now underway to protect

farmland.

Under the bill’s provisions, protected lands would remain on the

local tax rolls contributing to the local economy. The value of this

306

approach to local communities should not be understated. In every

case, the studies that AFT has conducted around the country have

shown that farmland provides more property tax revenue than it

demands in public services, while sprawling residential development almost always requires more in services than it pays in taxes.

Conservation policy does matter to farmers and ranchers, who

are strong believers in individual freedom and private property

rights. Their support for conservation policies is absolutely critical

because they own the land that is at stake in the increasing competition for land. But as competition for land has increased, so has

disagreement over how to balance economic use with conservation

of natural resources and the increasing demands being placed on

private landowners to achieve objectives whose benefits accrue

largely to the public.

The fact remains that for most landowners the equity in their

land represents the hard work and savings of at least one, if not

numerous, generations of the farm family. Their land is their

401(k).

As farmers, we are proud of the abundant supply of food and

fiber we have provided Americans and millions of others around

the world, and we are pleased that we also produce scenic vistas,

open spaces, wildlife habitat and watershed integrity for our communities to enjoy.

In many cases, our farms and ranches serve as crucial buffers

around our parks, battlefields and other important resources.

These are tangible environmental goods and services that farmers

should be encouraged to produce and appropriately rewarded for.

It is only fair that the cost of producing and maintaining these

goods that benefit so many Americans be shared by them.

The recent surge in local and state efforts to protect farmland

suggests rapidly rising national concern over the loss of farmland

and the environmental benefits it provides.

In last November’s elections, 72 percent of 240 initiatives to protect farmland and open space were approved by voters across the

Nation. In recent years, Governors Engler, Voinovich, Ridge,

Pataki, Wilson, Whitman, Weld, Glendenning and others have supported or initiated farmland protection initiatives to protect their

important farmland.

I see that my time is up. I can wrap up in about a minute and

a half, if I might.

Mr. TAUZIN. Proceed, sir.

Mr. GROSSI. An AFT 1997 AFT study found that over the past

decade over 400,000 acres of prime and unique farmland were lost

to urban uses each year. The loss of soil to asphalt, like the loss

of soil to wind and water erosion, is an issue of national importance.

However, food security is not the reason farmland protection has

emerged as a national issue. Communities across the Nation are

working to protect farmland because farmland protection is seen as

an inexpensive way to protect those other values associated with

the working landscape, and keeping land on local tax roles.

The Resources 2000 Act achieves that balance by adding carrots

to the existing sticks of regulation among the tools available to

local communities to protect their farmland.

307

Mr. Chairman, during this Congress you will have unprecedented opportunities to develop policies to encourage and reward

stewardship on this Nation’s private lands, and to redirect financial

resources in a way that shares the cost of protecting our great natural resources between the taxpayers who enjoy them and the

landowners who steward them. While it is not the domain of this

Committee, in closing I call your attention to the Federal farm programs.

At a time when the public is demanding more of private landowners every day, I ask you and all of Congress to consider a major

shift of commodity support payments into conservation programs

such as farmland protection that will help farmers meet those demands that the American taxpayers and the public are putting on

them.

Thank you very much for providing me with this opportunity

today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grossi may be found at the end

of the hearing.]

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you very much, sir.

Finally, on this panel, Mr. Pietro Parravano, of the Pacific Coast

Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, San Francisco.

Welcome, Mr. Parravano.

STATEMENT OF PIETRO PARRAVANO, PRESIDENT, PACIFIC

COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS, SAN

FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

Mr. PARRAVANO. Thank you, sir. Good afternoon, Members of the

Committee.

My name is Pietro Parravano, and I am a commercial fisherman

from HalfMoon Bay, California, and President of the Pacific Coast

Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, representing working men

and women in the West Coast commercial fishing fleet. Thank you

very much for the opportunity to be here today to talk about Resources 2000 and the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999.

The lives of the fishing men and women my organization represents are impacted every day by the health of our Nation’s fisheries and, in particular, by the many species of salmon. Unfortunately, a number of these salmon stocks have been listed or are

now candidates for listing under the ESA. Those of us that are

coastal family fishermen, salmon has historically been the most important fishery.

The legislation we are discussing here today brings us optimism

and hope for our future and that of our Nation’s resources. It is

time that we began putting money in instead of just taking it out

of the fisheries. It is time that we begin funding fish habitat restoration instead of destroying it. That is why our Federation is vitally interested in the legislation being addressed here today, specifically Resources 2000.

Resources 2000 has two titles that are of particular importance

to the fishing industry. The first is the title that establishes a permanent trust fund for the conservation and restoration of living

marine resources and fish habitat. Much of this money will be allocated to the states to develop and implement conservation and

management programs for living marine resources and their habiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:27 Jan 29, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00313 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\56081 pfrm08 PsN: 56081
308

tats. This will be especially important to states developing conservation and management plans for the myriad of nonfederally

managed fisheries. Two examples are the following: One, legislation which was authored by Mr. Young and Mr. Miller that extends

the state’s jurisdiction of the Dungeness crab fishery into Federal

waters, and the second example is California’s passage of AB 1241,

which implements research, conservation and management program for its fisheries. The permanent funding source in Resources

2000 could assist states such as California in working and promoting sustainable fisheries.

The permanent funding source in Resources 2000 could also be

used to complement existing Federal programs. Two examples are

CalFed and the President’s proposed $100 million program for

salmon on the West Coast. The permanent funding source in Resources 2000 clearly defines that this money goes out to the states

and specifies the areas that it is needed.

The second title of Resources 2000, also of great importance to

us, is the one which establishes the endangered and threatened

species recovery fund. We all know that listing a species under the

ESA, by itself, does not guarantee species protection or recovery.

Species protection and recovery, as we have seen on the West Coast

with the number of salmon, requires political will on the part of the

agencies to enforce the law and funding to implement protection

and recovery programs. In the West, species such as Coho salmon

that once supported major economic activities are now listed in

California and Oregon. It is not enough that we merely stabilize

the populations or get them to some threshold above listing qualification, but that we fully recover these fish so that they may once

again support commercial and recreational fisheries, fish processing, tourism and coastal communities, but to do this will take

political will and permanent funding.

The problem is not the ESA, but our failure to fund recovery of

listed species. The quicker we develop and fund recovery programs,

the sooner we can lift restrictions on other interests. Moreover, this

fund will be invaluable for assisting landowners and water districts

in making changes or taking actions, such as installing effective

fish screens or fencing riparian areas to help protect and recover

listed fish.

We appreciate the fact that H.R. 701 includes a provision that

addresses endangered species, however, our preference is for the

current language in Resources 2000 for a number of reasons. First,

it provides an identified source and dedicated amount of money

that will be spent annually to contribute to the recovery of endangered species. The current language in the proposed Conservation

and Reinvestment Act does not do this.

Second, Resources 2000 uses this money specifically for recovery

of species, a focus that has been missing all too long from existing

ESA programs. If we do not recover salmon on the West Coast,

they will never be removed from the Endangered Species list and

our industry itself will never recover.

Third, Resources 2000 will only provide grants for recovery activities that are beyond the requirements of the law. The provision

in H.R. 701 could potentially pay landowners to merely comply

with the law. We do not think this is fair. As fishermen, we do not

309

get paid when we are told we cannot harvest salmon that has been

listed due to a loss of habitat which is out of our control. We do

not think others should be paid to merely comply with the law. Resources 2000 provides incentives to those who want to go beyond

the law to recover our threatened and endangered species. We

think this is the right approach.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the fact that some of the money allocated to the states in H.R. 701 could also be used for the purposes I have mentioned, but we are concerned that there is no

guarantee that the money would be targeted directly to salmon and

other marine fisheries and their habitats. The deliverables are just

not there.

Mr. Chairman, I have about a minute left. Thank you.

Mr. TAUZIN. Proceed, sir.

Mr. PARRAVANO. We feel that this could once again force fisheries

to compete with numerous other state programs and get the short

end of the stick, as they have done for so many years. Therefore,

we believe that it is imperative that the Marine Resources Fund

found in Resources 2000 be part of any legislation that is supported

by this Committee. Only then can we guarantee these resources

will get funding that they desperately need and deserve.

In summary, we support Resources 2000 because it is comprehensive and it defines mechanisms with which altered and damaged habitat can recover. I want to express the gratitude of the

working fishing men and women that I represent to you, Mr.

Chairman, for your vision in introducing your two bills. Utilizing

receipts from nonrenewable resource extraction from the marine

environment to reinvest in renewable marine and fish resources is,

we believe, good public policy.

Fishing is America’s oldest industry. It is a wonderful calling.

The members of my organization take pleasure in deriving our livelihoods on the beauty and bounty of the ocean. We take pride in

providing the public wonderful and wild sources of healthy food.

But our fish stocks and their habitats need investment desperately

to be conserved and rebuilt. Members of my organization have dug

deep in their own pockets to pay for fishery programs, but we cannot do it all by ourselves. We cannot, and should not, pay for damage done by others. That is why we need a permanent source of

public funding to invest in and recover our public fishery resources.

Thank you so much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Parravano may be found at the

end of the hearing.]

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you very much, sir.

I don’t have to tell you that, coming from Louisiana, where fishing is not just a profession, it is a way of life. We call ourselves

sportsmen, that is fair, but we also have commercial fisheries as

an industry. But I am very empathetic to your concerns.

By the way, I want to put into the record with unanimous consent, a letter from the West Coast Seafood Processors Association,

which is endorsing the CARA Bill, for the very reason that it authorizes monies to be spent on marine research, which is a deep

concern. I think we share that concern.

310

I understand you may prefer one language over the other, but we

share that concern. Without objection, this will be made part of the

record.

[The information may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. TAUZIN. Let me point out, as David Waller testified yesterday, that the reason in CARA that we have created the state flexibility in how it spends its money in these areas is because the ‘‘one

size fits all‘‘ may not work. It may be that in California, for example, where the legislature has already established programs for marine research and assistance and marine habitats, that that state

will, using the authority of CARA and the state guaranteed program, direct more money into that area than perhaps another state

in the Great Lakes, which may have a different set of problems to

deal with.

It is the state flexibility in this area that we have tried to capture in our bill, and I hope you understand, Mr. Parravano, it is

not that we care less about the marine ecosystems or marine biologies, it is simply that flexibilities give our state some chance to actually make their programs fit.

Let me also address what, Mr. Paap and Mr. Grossi, you both

talked about here, which is the issue of private property rights and

the different versions of the bill as they apply to conservation easements and purchases of land and what have you. Let me first inform you that I think the Land and Water Conservation Fund can

be now used for conservation easement type work.

There is controversy over that, however. There is controversy

within our support group as to whether we ought to clarify it in

the law. I think we ought to, frankly; I like the idea, and I think

it makes good sense for us to encourage private owners to, indeed,

go beyond the law, if you will—not only do what the law requires,

but assist in creating habitat for species that are either threatened

or endangered, or to help prevent them from ever getting there because that, indeed, impacts farmers and communities a great deal

if that is allowed to happen.

So, we have some differences to the language and how we treat

it, but I want to point out that in our bill we do have provisions

in the last section for assistance to landowners with ESA problems.

I caught an argument today that might argue against it, but we

intend hopefully to fund that in the process of going through this

Committee work.

So, funding the assistance to encouraging landowners to not only

obey the law, but actually to take aggressive action to increase and

encourage the propagation of species on their property that either

are threatened or endangered or scheduled one day to be there if

we do not do something now. It makes good sense, and I think you

are going to see as we work the process of these bills we continue

that effort.

The final thing I wanted to point out is that we keep hearing

from a lot of folks about the incentives in this bill that might

incentivize oil and gas drilling or something. I want to point out

that interior states now share 50 percent of the revenues from the

Federal Government from interior drilling, interior mining, interior

production of minerals. In a perverse way, you could argue that

that is an incentive for the states to encourage those activities inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:27 Jan 29, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00316 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\56081 pfrm08 PsN: 56081
311

side the state. Again, we are trying to be as neutral on that proposition as possible so that that argument does not come back to bite

us as we move this bill forward.

It is not a bill to try to encourage more offshore drilling, it is a

bill that captures a permanent fund, some of those revenues to do

the wildlife preservation that we have lacked for too many years,

in too many areas, and to preserve marine ecologies and do research that might help us in the future.

We have also been joined today by Governor Carper, who has finally made it, so I do not want to prolong this panel, but if any

of you have a comment to make in regard to my statement, I will

be happy to receive it now. Any of you want to come back to me?

Mr. Parravano.

Mr. PARRAVANO. I really appreciate your comments, and I feel

that too long our public policy has been directed by this one-sizefits-all, and it is something that there are a lot of entities that suffer from that attitude.

It is time that somebody takes the lead in addressing the problems that are facing America’s natural resources. I know in California we have been doing a lot of work with a lot of different

groups, a lot of different agencies, in trying to promote sustainable

fisheries and coastal communities because, if it was not for the natural resources that we find out in the ocean, our coastal communities would not exist.

Mr. TAUZIN. I only ask you to take that into consideration as you

look at the two bills because instead of directing funding, we are

trying to give the states flexibility in that area. And, again, my assumption is that California regards its fisheries as extraordinarily

important, as we do in Louisiana. My assumption is California is

going to make the right decisions when it comes to applying the

marine research funds, et cetera.

Mr. GROSSI. On that front, Mr. Chairman—and I certainly do not

mean to imply that H.R. 701 does not have incentives, clearly there

are a number of incentives for private landowners, particularly in

the habitat section—but I suggest that you consider taking Title IV

from H.R. 798 and incorporating it in a final bill. Title IV is the

title that deals specifically with the efforts that local communities

and states are trying to put together to purchase development

rights and keep good land in farming by making up some of the

difference between its development and its farm value.

Mr. TAUZIN. Yes, and, again, it is something that I have great

affinity for. I just want you to know that there are some differences

of opinion among the co-sponsors on that somewhat controversial

issue, but we are trying to get there.

Mr. GROSSI. I would just close that point by saying that Title IV

in H.R. 798 is the companion piece to Senate Bill 333 that has very

bipartisan support over in the Senate to reauthorize the Farmland

Protection Program that was part of the 1996 Farm Bill. So, this

would be in keeping with what is going on in other areas of policy.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you very much. Mr. Paap, thank you very

much, too, for your statements in support of our efforts to preserve

private rights in this thing.

Mr. Shaffer, I cannot argue at all with your comments, they have

been very excellent. Thank you.

312

Mr. John.

Mr. JOHN. Very quickly, Mr. Grossi, just, I guess, a point of clarification in my mind and in the minds of the Members that are at

the desk today, as it relates to conservation easements. Do you feel

that they will reduce the value of property, or devalue property,

thus eroding the tax base for local government?

Mr. GROSSI. No. In fact, I think there always is a concern when

there is the removal of certain value off the property that is going

to impact local property taxes in the local community. In fact, in

the case of farmland protection, almost every state already has usevalue taxation on farmlands so that the property taxes are based

on that use-value.

Putting an easement on the land rarely has any additional impact on the property but, to the contrary, if the easement is purchased, it provides the landowner with significant liquid capital.

And our survey showed that they spend this money, that some of

them put it in savings like any other American would, but a lot of

it goes right back into improving their farm operations, buying new

equipment, buying more land.

So, the money used to buy the easements turns over in the community quite rapidly. In fact, about 85 percent of it turns over in

the community within 24 months, according to our surveys.

Mr. JOHN. Thank you for that clarification because I agree with

that observation also.

Final question to Mr. Parravano. In your testimony you mentioned funding of aquatic research. Obviously, that is very important to all of us, especially in Louisiana where we actually represent about 35 percent of the domestic seafood industry in the

lower 48 states.

Mr. TAUZIN. Most in my district, by the way.

Mr. JOHN. Well, I have a few in my district, too. We have the

bigger fish over on our side. We send them all to you guys. You do

not have anything left, it is all eroding. So, we are very, very interested in aquatic research, and obviously coastal erosion impacts

those estuaries, so that is something that is very, very dear to myself as I represent 300-plus miles of coastline. You specifically

talked about two measures in California, about two laws that address fishing research.

I just would like to bring your attention to the language in H.R.

701, the CARA bill, on page 13, when it talks about the uses of the

funds in section 104. It specifically says—and let me read this to

make sure that it calms your fear about research. It says: Funds

received pursuant to this title shall be used by the coastal states

and eligible political subdivisions for—and it enumerates—air quality, water quality, fish and wildlife (including cooperative and contract research on marine fish).

So we do provide funding for research, although it is not mandated. As my colleague from Louisiana said, I think this language

is consistent with the State of California and their concerns. I believe that a healthy coastline, a healthy estuary, is good for fishermen, and I know you would agree with that.

Mr. PARRAVANO. I certainly do, sir, and I appreciate those comments. One of the things we have been able to undertake in California is a partnership program that we have initiated with univerVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:27 Jan 29, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00318 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\56081 pfrm08 PsN: 56081
313

sities, with various colleges, where they utilize the resources of the

fishermen in going after research programs because what we have

seen too many times is that somebody does a study, or will go out

and do some research, and the actual resources, the people that

spend their time on the ocean, are never invited to participate in

the programs.

So, that is one of the things we have found has worked out really

well, that in order to really get proper research and proper analysis

done of the resources, one has to incorporate the uses of the user

groups.

Mr. JOHN. That is one of the reasons why you are sitting at this

table today, to make sure that we have input of guys that have actually gotten their hands bitten a couple of times as they were

grabbing all those fish. Thank you very much.

Mr. PARRAVANO. I would also like to express my thanks to the

Committee for the flexibility in my presentation. My flight was canceled coming here, so I literally just got here. I do not even have

my baggage. It is probably going to be waiting for me at the airport

when I return.

Mr. TAUZIN. As a seafaring man, I know this has been rough on

you. We appreciate you coming.

We also have an honored visitor who came a long way, so I want

to thank this panel for your participation and contributions. Again,

we will continue this dialogue to see if we can’t get as perfect a

product as we can, understanding that we have a lot of interests

to balance here. Thank you very much.

We are now very pleased to welcome Governor Thomas Carper,

who himself has spent many years with us here in the Congress

and who we are pleased to see again.

Governor Carper, we often look back on those days with great affection and memory, and appreciate seeing you again, and have

been very aware and following your career in Delaware, and want

to congratulate you for the great job you are doing for the great

people of Delaware. Governor Carper.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, GOVERNOR, STATE

OF DELAWARE

Governor CARPER. Mr. Chairman—and I am really not sure if

you are the Chairman of this Committee or Subcommittee. You

used to be my Chairman when we were on the Merchant Marine

and Fisheries Committee.

Mr. TAUZIN. I have moved around a lot since you were here.

Governor CARPER. Old habits die hard, so I am happy to call you

‘‘Mr. Chairman,’’ and other Members of the Committee. We used to

meet just down the hall there at the old Merchant Marine and

Fisheries Hearing Room. In fact, that is where I went first, looking

for all of you, and glad to have found you here.

I appreciate very much the chance to be back and to share some

thoughts with each of you. I have a prepared testimony here, I am

not about to ask you to let me go through it, given how long you

have been here already, but I would ask for permission to have it

entered into the record.

Mr. TAUZIN. Without objection, so ordered.

314

Governor CARPER. Let me just make three or four points, and I

will be done and you all can be on to what you need to do. I understand there is a bill up on the House floor today, maybe expansion

of education flexibility that my Congressman Mike Castle along

with Tim Roemer from Indiana are pushing, and I hope that it will

do well. It is important to the Governors and to the states.

Just a few points, if I could, Mr. Chairman and Members of the

Committee. One is some thoughts on sort of the basic theory that

underlies these bills that you are considering. The notion that finite resources, nonrenewable resources, gas and oil, as those resources are depleted, what should we do with the money.

And what we would suggest, as Governors, is that those dollars

be used to invest in things of lasting value, to provide in some

cases permanent resources such as recreational areas, park improvements, to help us with preserving open space AG land habitat, wildlife, and fishery resources as well. We would urge that as

you go forward, this theory that seems to underlie both pieces of

legislation that you are dealing with. That is a sound theory, and

we would certainly support that.

Second is who ought to be involved in the decisionmaking as how

any monies that come to the state are invested. Surprisingly, as

Governor and Chairman of the National Governors Association, I

would suggest the Governors should have a role in that. I understand that at least one of the bills provides for a more direct role

for Governors.

Having said that, I would not say for a moment that Governors

are omniscient and have the ability to know how all these dollars

should be invested. It is one of those deals where we were actually

better off, I think, for the decisionmakers to come up from the bottom, and from folks who live in the communities, live in the counties in the coastal areas, to have them be very much involved in

the decisionmaking, and for Governors and other elected leaders in

our states to recruit and to welcome that kind of input.

When I sat where you sit, I was more interested in making those

decisions from Washington, but I hope not blindly so. Sitting where

I sit today, I still remember how I felt when I was here, and would

acknowledge that, but I would just ask you to keep in mind that

some of the local folks have a real good feel for what their needs

are, and we need to be mindful of that and remember that.

Another point I would make is there are some concerns that if

we are not careful, the monies that flow back to the states might

somehow provide a perverse incentive for us to go out and do more

offshore development and activities. As Governors, we would say

we are big boys and girls, we are not interested in doing that, we

do not believe that perverse incentives lie there, certainly that is

not our intent or spirit, and we would not use the financial resources in that way. In fact, we just adopted an NGA when we

were in town here a couple of weeks ago, the policy that says that

is not what we are about and that is not what we want to see happen.

The other point I want to make—this is kind of on a personal

note. I used to run when I was down here. I used to go out and

run a lot on the Mall and work out in the House gym just next door

in the Rayburn Building. I do not get to do that much anymore,

315

but I still work out pretty regularly. And every Sunday morning I

go for a run usually before my family wakes up, before we go to

church, I go out and run five or six miles. And I run through a

park called Bellevue.

And that was a park that was bought I want to say 25 years ago,

and it was bought with monies from Land and Water Conservation

Fund.

Over the years, those monies have been used to build bicycle

paths, bicycle trails, other recreational amenities, and those monies

have come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It has

been a couple of years, several years, since monies have flowed to

the states for those purposes.

But I just wanted to tell you on a very personal level, that I see

on a weekly basis as I get out on Sunday mornings right after daylight, what we can do and what states can do with these kind of

financial resources.

I do not know if you have ever been to our beaches in Delaware,

but we have some places called Rehobeth, and Dewey, and Bethany, just wonderful places. And if you go through the parking lots

at the Delaware beaches, you find the license tags on the cars—

there is a bunch from Delaware, of course—but there is a bunch

from Virginia, from the District of Columbia, from Maryland, from

New Jersey, Pennsylvania, they come from all over. And people not

just from our state enjoy those recreational assets, but people from

throughout the region and actually throughout the country, actually throughout the world.

That park I mentioned, Bellevue State Park, not far from my

home, where I like to run, if you go through the parking lot there

on a weekend in the spring, summer or fall, you see license tags

on the cars, they are not just from Delaware. We are only five

miles from Pennsylvania. We have people from PA there, New Jersey, Maryland, and from all over the Eastern Seaboard, and we use

these resources—that is just a great case in point where we have

used these resources, financial resources, through the Land and

Water Conservation Fund in ways that benefit not just the people

in our own state, but people from throughout our region.

The last thing I would mention, when I was down here, a bunch

of us were concerned about deficit reduction and balancing budgets—in fact, some of us worked together on that stuff for a number

of years—and I commend you on the good work you are doing now

with the President to get the budget under control.

I would just say, as you go through this process and there is

some give-and-take, I understand, with the Budget Committee, you

make a permanent source of funding without ongoing appropriations, a question of offsets, and you come to Governors and say,

‘‘What offsets would you be willing to live with?’’

One Governor is going to say one thing, another will say another,

depending on what our needs are. And I would just ask as we get

to that point, if we are looking for permanent reauthorization and

without going back for appropriations that are offsets that are

needed, that we just continue to have a conversation on that point

and we would welcome that.

The last thing I would say, just kind of looking back to when,

Mr. Chairman, you and I served together, that Merchant Marine

316

and Fisheries Committee always amazed me. Our Chairman was

Walter Jones, and walking by the hearing room I saw his name

over the hearing room and it made me smile.

Chairman Jones and Members of the Committee were uncommonly good at taking different points of view—in some cases a

Democratic proposal or Republican proposal—and working them

through, and being able to set aside our differences to work things

out and to go over to the floor and get our bills passed, almost

without exception. In fact, it was in some ways the most productive

Committee here, and was one of the smallest committees and one

of the least known committees.

You have a couple of good proposals here from people that I have

served with, you have obviously served with, and people I certainly

respect, and I hope at the end of the day that kind of bipartisan

spirit that used to characterize so much of what we did in Merchant Marine and Fisheries can come to the fore here and help you

to work this out and, if you do, in ways that we will have a chance

to provide some input, and we appreciate that chance today.

[The prepared statement of Governor Carper may be found at the

end of the hearing.]

Mr. TAUZIN. Governor, thank you very much.

Obviously you know Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee

is gone, it has sort of merged with the Interior Committee, which

has not always been as bipartisan as our old Merchant Marine and

Fisheries Committee, but we are reaching for that here. As you

know, Mr. Miller and Mr. Young have a lot of commonalities in the

two bills we are going for, and I thank you for that message again,

that we need to go back to those days.

I know when you mentioned Walter Jones, my young colleague

from Louisiana, Chris John, said, ‘‘Walter Jones, he was Chairman?’’ His dad was Chairman. As you know, his son is now serving

with us. Just to indicate how old we are all getting, I served with

Chris’ father in the state legislature, and I hunted with his grandfather. You know how old I feel right now?

[Laughter.]

Mr. TAUZIN. Again, Governor Carper, thank you for those comments. Indeed, it is true that we are trying to focus decisions on

more of the states and local governments in many of these areas.

We got a complaint this morning, someone wanted us to have all

the decisions made here in Washington, the Federal Government

overseeing and deciding all these questions. I think you bring the

other perspective to us, that there are folks back home who have

a better sense of what the needs in Delaware are.

Finally, Thomas Cove was here earlier, speaking for the Sporting

Goods Manufacturers, and he put a real human face on how communities, like those in Delaware, are tested because there is not

enough space for all the young ladies to play their sports and fields

that are reserved for other sports that perhaps they are not as interested in, and how soccer fields are not available to kids who

want to play soccer in many places in America. So, I think we have

had some great testimony coming from others.

Finally, I would just mention to you that we heard one witness,

Mr. Jack Caldwell, our Secretary of Natural Resources in Louisiana, who testified that without this bill, without help somewhere

317

soon, that in Louisiana we are about to lose in land acreage, acreage the size of the State of Delaware, to coastal erosion. That is

how huge a problem we have. So, I guess that puts in perspective

how big a problem it is for us and how much we appreciate your

coming to urge us on in this effort. My good friend, Mr. John.

Governor CARPER. That also puts into perspective how big Delaware is.

[Laughter.]

Mr. JOHN. Thank you, Mr. Tauzin. I appreciate that when you

were talking about age and serving with my Dad and Grandfather,

I did a little figuring here as it relates to the bill, of what we are

trying to address—the coastal erosion in Louisiana. If we, in fact,

lose about 35 square miles every year, then we have lost, since you

have been in Congress, about 1,750 square miles.

Mr. TAUZIN. The size of Rhode Island. Yes, I know.

Mr. JOHN. Actually, as it relates to age, it might be the size of

Texas. No, I am just kidding. Governor Carper, thank you so very

much for being here today. As I read your testimony, I was very

encouraged by the bipartisanship and the geographical pull that is

pulling everyone together and is really alive and well; How someone from your state and Louisiana can think so very much alike

because we are brought together with the problems of our coastlines that are so important to us economically in a lot of ways.

However, some Members of Congress question whether states that

do not have any OCS production off their coast, should receive

funding or have a need for coastal assistance.

Do you believe that any comprehensive bill that comes out of this

Congress, whether it is this bill or any other bill, must provide

funding for coastal restoration as part of that piece of legislation?

Governor CARPER. I believe it should be. Having said that, the

lands that are off of our coasts and under the oceans, the question

is who do they belong to, do they belong to the states alongside

which they are located, or do they really belong to all of us? And

we, as Governors, are convinced that they really belong to all of us,

and we are a coastal state, you are a coastal state, but the idea

that folks in Kansas and Iowa and Minnesota as well have some

claim on those lands and the revenues derived from them, we believe that is an important point.

Mr. JOHN. I happen to agree, thank you very much for that. Also,

would you clarify that the State of Delaware really does not have,

as it relates to incentives, any plans of putting any oil rigs off its

shores in exchange for any coastal revenues, is that a fact?

Governor CARPER. You got it.

Mr. JOHN. And, lastly, I do not believe that I would anticipate

that you would come up and lobby the Congress to eliminate the

Federal leasing moratorium just to get some of these funds up here

as an incentive measure, isn’t that true?

Governor CARPER. No, we would not do that. Actually, I think it

is the——

Mr. JOHN. I’m sorry, I make light of that because I am trying to

make a point about drilling incentives; We are trying to address

those concerns as much as possible. I appreciate your answers to

those questions.

318

Governor CARPER. Thank you. Can I make one other quick point? In Delaware, we have spent over the last four years almost $100

million of our own money—in fact, probably more than that—for

open space preservation, ag-land preservation, for parks—and for

our state, that is a huge amount of money. It is money spent out

of our own pockets, so we are not just coming to the Federal Government and saying we want the Federal Government, with these

revenues from the Outer Continental Shelf, to do this work for us.

I just want you to know that we are putting our own money where

our mouths are as well, and we feel that that is our obligation and

we are trying to meet that obligation.

Mr. JOHN. We are hoping we can help you. Thank you for coming.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you, Chris. Governor Carper, you know the

call, we have got to go. Deeply appreciate your coming and sharing

your time with us, and great seeing you again. Good luck to you,

sir.

The hearing stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

319

1The National Association of Counties is the only national organization representing county

government in the United States. Through its membership, urban, suburban and rural counties

join together to build effective, responsive county government. The goals of the organization are

to: improve county government; serve as the national spokesman for county government; serve

as a liaison between the nations counties and other levels of government; achieve public understanding of the role of counties in the Federal system.

STATEMENT OF JAVIER GONZALES, NACO SECOND VICE PRESIDENT AND

COMMISSIONER, SANTA FE COUNTY, NEW MEXICO

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Javier Gonzales. I am

a Commissioner from Santa Fe County, New Mexico and I am here today representing the National Association of Counties (NACo)1, in my capacity as Second

Vice President.

NACo is pleased to testify on behalf of these important bills that, if enacted, will

have very positive effects on our Nation’s counties and communities. These bills

present an exciting opportunity because of the genuine support from such a broad

range of interests and the fact that the Administration, the U.S. Senate and this

Committee have very similar proposals. It is important to note the bipartisan nature

of these proposals and the distinct possibility that something will be done in this

arena in this Congress. Each bill uses OCS revenue as the source for funding the

distribution proposed by this legislation, and each has similar uses in mind. I need

not remind you that the potential budget pitfalls are significant and creative solutions need to be found.

Today I will focus my remarks primarily on the Conservation and Reinvestment

Act of 1999, (CARA), but will comment on H.R. 798 during my remarks.

At our recent Legislative Conference, our Board of Directors adopted a resolution

in support of the concepts embodied in the CARA legislation. Our resolution states:

‘‘NACo strongly supports the principles of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act

of 1999 (CARA’99) that would reallocate Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas

revenues to the LWCF, a coastal state revenue sharing program, add funding to the

Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) program and establish an innovative

procedure for adding funding for the Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program,

in addition to annual appropriated funds. NACo will advocate a change in the ‘stateside’ program to allow counties to directly apply for LWCF grants and provide authority for innovative and flexible methods for utilization of these grants such as

a leasing program, rather than outright purchase of land that removes them from

tax roles.’’

We also have another resolution, one that was passed in July 1998, supporting

OCS revenue sharing with coastal states, and one of our key principles for reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act parallels H.R. 701’s section on Habitat Reserve Program. We believe it is clear why NACo supports the approaches in this

legislation.

Let me take this opportunity to comment on some of the issues surrounding this

legislation.

First, NACo is very pleased that the authors have chosen to recognize the significant impact OCS development can have on coastal counties and have taken steps

to assure that any shared revenue from OCS development is shared with coastal

counties.

Second, the bill acknowledges the need to fund the stateside portion of the LWCF

and would assure that counties would share the revenues set aside of the states.

It would be preferable to have counties be able to utilize their share of the Fund

without having to work within the mandated structure of a state plan, but we believe an acceptable approach can be worked out during deliberations on the bill. We

also believe we need to look at innovative approaches, such as conservation leasing

to meet the goals of the LWCF without removing land from the tax roles.

Third, the innovative approach to adding money to the PILT program in Titles

I and II should be applauded and the authors should be commended for recognizing

the need to fund the PILT program at reasonable levels. Let me share with you

some interesting facts from a soon-to-be-released PILT study by the Federal Government:

• Overall PILT payments are about $1.31 per acre LESS than the property taxes

that would be generated. PILT entitlement lands in the sample counties would

have generated an average of $1.48 per acre if taxed by the county, but PILT

payments only amount to an average of 17 cents, only 11 percent of the potential

tax bill.

•To fully fund PILT another $2OO million would have to be added to the $125

million currently appropriated.

320

•To achieve overall PILT/tax equivalency another $696 million would have to

be added to full funding of the PILT program, and even then 18 percent of the

counties would not be equivalent.

• In the case of the East, taxes would exceed PILT payments by over 1,000 percent.

• Counties in the Interior West responded that moderate or substantial costs

were imposed by the presence of Federal lands, particularly in the areas of

search and rescue, law enforcement and road maintenance.

•The presence of Federal lands in a county provide virtually no direct fiscal

benefits (other than PILT and existing revenue sharing programs) to counties.

NACo is the only national organization advocating for additional funding for the

PILT program, and we appreciate this attempt to do something about this shortfall.

NACo, through its Large Urban County Caucus, applauds the inclusion of funding

for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act (UPARR). Parks and open space

are important factors in improving the quality of life in America’s urban counties.

We believe improving our parks and preserving and acquiring additional open space

will assist our efforts to attract new economic opportunities for our counties. The

synergism created by inclusion of this provision helps bring together urban, suburban and rural counties in support of this legislation. It also brings to the debate

on resources other interest groups, such as The U.S. Conference of Mayors, that

have not traditionally been involved with legislation of this type.

NACo also supports the additional funding for the Pittman-Robertson Act, but we

believe counties should play a larger role in the allocation and utilization of the disbursements.

On other matters, NACo is confident that this legislation does not adversely effect

private property rights without due process and local involvement. This is an important consideration as this bill moves through the process. We believe there are adequate protections built into the bill to preclude an incentive for opening new areas

for OCS oil and gas development. While supporting this bill approaches, NACo will

make every effort to assure there are no unfunded mandates or requirements that

would effectively preclude counties from participating and enjoying the benefits of

this legislation.

H.R. 798, the Resources 2000 Act, has a role to play in the consideration of legislation in this area, however, we do not believe it is as ‘‘county friendly’’ as the CARA

proposal and it attempts to fund a much broader array of programs that could reduce the amount of money available for counties to meet local needs. It also does

not make any provision to assist the PILT program, which again is very important

to the hundreds of counties nationwide that receive payments from this program.

Title VIII speaks to the concept of incentives for the conservation and recovery of

endangered species, as mentioned in our resolution on the subject, however, we

would defer judgment at this time on the specifics of the Title.

I would like to take this opportunity to touch on specific provisions of H.R.701.

Title Section 103 (a)(2) addresses the issue of incentives for new OCS development,

the Committee may want to be even clearer in its intent. We applaud Section

103(a)(3) for its innovative approach to adding money for the PILT program. Section

103(e) assures that counties will benefit from OCS revenue sharing and we believe

this is a critical element of the bill. In Section 105(a) dealing with state plans, the

role for counties needs to be strengthened and expanded and subsections (b) and (c)

need further review and fine tuning. Section 202 (a) needs clarification where it refers to the utilization of any excess revenue above $900 million where the excess

would be available without further appropriation to the PILT program or the Migratory Bird Act of 1935, but does not make clear what entity decides where the money

shall be allocated. I specifically wanted to note that the legislation in Section

202(b)(1) requires that 2/3 of the Federal LWCF be spent east of the 100th Meridian. Many county officials in the west would wholeheartedly support this requirement because, as you well know, the bulk of the Federal lands inventory is in the

west. I wanted to reiterate our concern about mandates and Section 202(g) may

present some concern. Section 205 establishing a voluntary Habitat Reserve Program is consistent with the principles of NACo’s resolution on reauthorization of the

Endangered Species Act. Section 205(c) specifically limits lands eligible for the program to no more than 25 percent of the land or water of any county at any one

time unless a determination is made that exceeding that level would not adversely

affect the local economy of the county. While in concept this is a good idea, the provision allows a state agency to make the economic determination rather than the

local county commission. This needs to be changed. My final comment about the

specifies is that counties need a larger role throughout Title III.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I have attached copies of the relevant

policy resolutions adopted by the NACo Board of Directors. I would like to thank

321

you, and members of the Committee for your interest in the needs and concerns of

America’s counties. We stand ready to work with the Committee, the Senate and

the Administration to hammer out an acceptable bill that will set the tone for conservation in the 21st century.

Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify on this important legislation.

ATTACHMENTS:

RESOLUTION TO RE-ALLOCATE STATESIDE FUNDING FOR THE LAND

AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

Issue: Support for additional funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund

(LWCF) and for other purposes.

Adopted Policy: NACo strongly supports the principles of the Conservation and

Reinvestment Act of 1999 (CARA’99) that would reallocate Outer Continental Shelf

(OCS) oil and gas revenues to the LWCF, a coastal state revenue sharing program,

add funding to the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) program and establish an innovative procedure for adding funding for the Payments In Lieu of

Taxes (PILT) program, in addition to annual appropriated funds. NACo will advocate a change in the ‘‘stateside’’ program to allow counties to directly apply for

LWCF grants and provide authority for innovative and flexible methods for utilization of these grants such as a leasing program, rather than outright purchase of

land that removes them from tax roles.

Background: The Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund was created in

1965 to provide matching funds to encourage and assist local and state governments

in urban and rural areas to develop parks and ensure accessibility to local outdoor

recreation resources.

In the past several years Congress has diverted Land and Water Conservation

monies to programs unrelated to parks, conservation and recreation. This action has

resulted in total elimination of state grant programs to assist counties to meet the

needs of our rapidly increasing populations, and has created a backlog of upgrades,

renovations and repairs to outdoor recreation facilities.

Past benefits to counties have been accessing, through a grant process, dedicated

monies to provide important economic, social, personal and resources benefits to our

citizens. Outdoor recreation reduces crime by providing positive alternatives and experiences for our citizens. Millions of state and county dollars have been invested

in outdoor recreation and have been matched by local funds in the form of donated

labor and materials and community force accounts.

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impacts: Coastal state counties, both urban and rural,

would receive substantial payments from the OCS revenue sharing program should

this legislation be passed. Urban counties would benefit from additional funds for

the UPARR program, rural public land counties would benefit from additional funds

for PILT and all counties would potentially benefit from LWCF grants.

Adopted by: NACo Board of Directors

February 28, 1999

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF OCS COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE

Whereas, the coastal regions of the United States are fragile environmentally

and under intense pressure from storms and natural disasters, population growth

and, in some counties and states, from onshore support activities that are necessitated by the development of the nation’s oil and natural gas resources on the Federal outer continental shelf; and

Whereas, each year the Federal Government receives billions of dollars in revenues from the development of oil and natural gas resources on the Federal outer

continental shelf, a capital asset of this nation; and

Whereas, the Federal Government does not share directly with the coastal states

or counties a meaningful share of these revenues, while the Federal Government

share with states 50 percent of the revenues from onshore Federal mineral development; and

Whereas, at least a portion of the revenues from this capital asset of the national

should be reinvested in infrastructure and environmental restoration in the coastal

regions of this nation; and

Whereas, states and counties that host onshore activities in support of offshore

Federal OCS mineral development should receive a share of these revenues to offset

state and county impacts of this development; and

322

Whereas, the OCS policy committee of the United States Department of the Interior has recommended that all states and the territories should receive a portion of

these revenues as an automatic payment annually pursuant to a formula based on

proximity to offshore production, miles of shoreline and population; and

Whereas, members of Congress representing coastal states are preparing Federal

legislation to enact the proposal to share a portion of Federal OCS revenues with

all coastal states and the territories:

Therefore, Be it resolved, that the national association of counties (NACo) commends the members of Congress that are pursuing this initiative and the OCS policy committee for their recommendations; and

Be it further resolved, that NACo supports Federal legislation to share a meaningful portion of Federal OCS mineral revenues with all coastal states, their counties and territories pursuant to the formula recommended by the OCS policy committee.

Adopted by: NACo Board of Directors

July 21, 1998

RESOLUTION ON THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT REAUTHORIZATION

Issue: Provide for increased participation in the listing and recovery of endangered species by local officials and increase flexibility and innovation in responding

to the need to recover species.

Adopted Policy: NACo shall petition Congress to amend the Endangered Species

Act through its reauthorization process to provide:

1. A recognition that if it is in the national interest to protect species, then it

must be a national priority to attempt to forestall listing by aggressively providing for pre-listing incentives to affected governments, public land lessees and

private property owners to avoid the negative impacts of the Act by entering

into conservation agreements with the Secretary of the Interior.

2. For greater involvement by local governments in planning and management

decisions affecting the listing process.

3. For a significant improvement in the scientific review process by including

verifiable peer review by a qualified agency other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

4. The effects on the economic, social and cultural aspects of human activity,

and their communities, must be fully studied, and taken into account in all decisions made pursuant to the Act.

5. Provisions should be adopted to require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

to use professionally trained specialists to rescue and remove threatened or endangered species within 120 days whenever it is necessary to maintain, repair

and rehabilitate critical structures that provide for human health and safety.

6. Provisions should be included to require previously adopted habitat recovery

plans for threatened and/or endangered species that were not developed in consultation with affected county governments, to be reviewed and modified to reflect genuine consultation with the affected county government.

7. A full partnership for the affected state, its local governments, public land

lessees and affected private property owners in the post-listing consultation and

decision making process, including critical habitat, habitat conservation plans

and full-scale recovery plans.

8. Adequate protection of private and public property rights.

9. Prior to a listing, no action shall be taken to restrict or interfere with the

use of private or public property without consultation with the affected land

owner. Every effort should be made by the Secretary and the affected land

owner to establish voluntary agreements for species conservation and habitat

protection.

Following a listing, no action shall be taken to diminish the use of property until

full consultation has taken place with affected landowners, or lessees, and full compensation is agreed upon between the landowner, or lessee, and the Secretary. If

the Secretary refuses to act or limits the compensation to below fair market value,

the affected landowner is granted status to pursue due process in the appropriate

Federal District Court.

NACo believes that the land and wildlife management agencies must make a full

accounting of funds spent since 1985 for mitigation, research, habitat studies and

land acquisition, including private fund expenditures, and economic losses from land

uses diminished or cancelled by agencies.

Background: After 22 years of experience in implementing of the Endangered

Species Act, there now appears to be ample evidence of the need for reauthorizing

323

and revising the Act. It should be the policy of the United States to avoid the need

for listing threatened and endangered species, by involving all affected parties in

pre-listing conservation activities and by providing a range of incentives to those affected parties to enter into conservation agreements to avoid the need for listing.

Counties can be involved to a much greater extent in sustaining of species, through

the management of lands, and in making decisions which affect their habitat.

The Federal Government needs better verifiable peer review of the science that

leads to listing of species, and the identification of critical habitat. There needs to

be greater emphasis on the affects of listing of a species and designation of critical

habitat on human individuals, their communities, and on the economic, social and

cultural aspects of such a listing and/or designation of habitat. All affected parties

should be involved in the postlisting decision and consultation process to assure that

all concerns are raised, if not addressed.

The current Act provides too little flexibility for the Secretary of the Interior to

utilize creative and innovative management approaches to address the conservation

of the species, and does not provide for the full participation of state and local governments in the recovery process. Protection of some species has led to substantial

loss of jobs, property loss due to natural disasters, (such as fire, flood, etc.) and economic hardship and reduced county revenues.

In many instances, the burden of protection of species has fallen on private property owners, who have been forced to provide habitat without adequate compensation for use of their land, while the decisions are made in Washington, DC, and the

current Act lacks provisions for a full and complete analysis of proposed listings on

the economic, social, and cultural values of humans and their communities. It does

not contain provisions for adequately compensating affected private property owners

for losses incurred by listing.

Counties depend upon a healthy economy to maintain viable communities and to

produce revenues to provide needed services and counties have a strong interest in

maintaining community sustainability while protecting natural biodiversity because

reputable scientific evidence suggests that long-term stability for those communities

that are natural resource dependent is directly related to adequate biodiversity:

Fiscal/Urban Rural Impacts: There are substantial costs to counties of all sizes

from implementation of recovery plans under the ESA. Changes proposed by this

policy would provide more flexibility and potentially reduce costs. More participation

by county officials could improve recovery plans and avoid potential economic losses.

Adopted by: NACo Board of Directors

February 28, 1999

STATEMENT OF HON. RON MARLENEE, ON BEHALF OF SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for giving Safari Club International (SCI), the

opportunity to testify before this Committee on H.R. 701 and H.R. 798. We have

reviewed both bills.

SCI has verified the need for additional money for state fish and wildlife agencies.

State agencies have been forced to spend money, raised by sportsmen, on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and other Federal mandates not related to sportsmen’s

interests. This has resulted in a tremendous drain on Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act funds, otherwise known as Pittman-Robertson funds.

SCI strongly supports H.R. 701 and the wildlife conservation that it will accomplish with the broad-based support of fish and wildlife agencies, implementing essential wildlife preservation. By creating a sub-account under ‘‘Pittman-Robertson,’’

and funding it with a 10 percent draw on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues, H.R. 701 will effectively expand the species restoration efforts which, in the

past, have largely been funded by hunters and anglers nationwide.

These new funds will be available to State fish and wildlife agencies for conservation of game and non-game wildlife; endangered species conservation; conservation

education; and other aspects of wildlife conservation, as the individual states deem

appropriate.

As you know, over 60 years ago, Congress passed the Pittman-Robertson law and

created a wildlife conservation and restoration program that is among the most successful Federal programs ever instituted. It has also become one of the most successful wildlife conservation programs in the world and has been responsible for the restoration of many species, such as white-tailed deer, elk, and wild turkey, which were

rare or on the brink of extinction a century ago. Since then, Congress has added

the Dingell-Johnson and Wallop-Breaux laws, to provide a complete program for fish

and wildlife species. Under the provisions of these bills, sportsmen have willingly

324

paid user fees, in the form of excise taxes, on hunting and fishing equipment for

six decades.

Using OCS money, Title III of H.R. 701 will expand state wildlife conservation

efforts and allow state agencies to work with the Federal Government, tribal governments, private landowners and interested organizations to ensure achievement

of state specific goals in virtually all areas of wildlife conservation, healthy habitat

conservation, and a diversified variety of wildlife, as well as conservation education.

During the 104th and 105th Congresses, a concept to increase funds available to

States for wildlife conservation was conceived as a new and additional excise tax

on all outdoor recreation equipment. However, this idea, called ‘‘Teaming with Wildlife (TWW),’’ was never introduced as legislation.

Although SCI supported the general concept of providing funds to the State fish

and wildlife agencies for wildlife conservation, we could not support the TWW approach. To begin with, in the newly conservative political climate of Congress, a tax

of any kind was unlikely to ever become law. In addition, the TWW draft would

have forced the States to use most of the funds for non-game wildlife and outdoor

recreation activities, regardless of state needs. We feel that it is critical to leave the

decision to the State wildlife agencies as to how best to use any additional funds

for wildlife conservation. Like a lot of Federal legislation, the TWW proposal would

have been an incentive to spend valuable taxpayer money on unwanted, or perhaps

even unnecessary programs. However, H.R. 701, introduced by Representatives Don

Young and John Dingell, corrects that.

In the 105th Congress, Chairman Young wisely saw a way to achieve the important goals of increasing state funding for wildlife conservation without imposing an

unpopular tax, and without robbing the State fish and wildlife agencies of the discretion to make professionally-sound decisions on directing wildlife conservation

funds to where they are needed most. This bill has been reintroduced in the 106th

Congress as H.R. 701.

As one of the leading organizations representing sportsmen nationwide, SCI supports Mr. Young and the co-sponsors of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. H.

R. 701 is a focused and carefully crafted effort. By contrast, H.R. 798 scatters its

funds on issues, and thinly distributes the OCS revenues. H.R. 701 is an effort to

solve a few important needs; whereas H.R. 798, although well intentioned, is an inappropriate approach that reaches into new programs and appears to expand other

programs. It circumvents the committee process by pouring money into programs

that have not been authorized, approved, or debated.

H.R. 701 enhances the time-tested mechanisms of the Pittman-Robertson program

to increase the funds available to the States for wildlife conservation. Under Pittman-Robertson, both game and nongame species have benefited dramatically. Species, which were nearly extinct, from the white-tailed deer to the beaver in the Eastern United States, are now back in force. By contrast, H.R. 798 would put a smaller

amount of OCS revenues into the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980, a law

that has never been implemented and in which the ‘‘Findings’’ section fails to recognize a need for funding the full diversity of wildlife needs by emphasizing only those

species called ‘‘non-game’’ wildlife.

Both bills deal with the acquisition of property. While this is not the primary expertise or interest of SCI, many concerns about these provisions have been expressed to us, both from within and from outside of our organization and so we

would like to make a comment on the subject. We appreciate Mr. Young’s sensitivity

to those concerns and we feel that Congressman Young’s bill, H.R. 701, contains

provisions intended to guard against an undue infringement on private property

rights. As a matter of fact, the League of Private Property Voters has published a

rating of the members of Congress for 1998. Attached to this statement is the rating, which indicates that Congressman Young had a 100 percent ‘‘protection of private property’’ rating in 1998. With this kind of record, I’m sure Congressman

Young will support provisions which strengthen private property rights even further.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, we would like to congratulate you for recognizing the

need to provide more funding for the State fish and wildlife agencies and for finding

an inventive way to accomplish that goal. We believe your bill appropriately recognizes the primary role of the States and their professional wildlife agencies in wildlife conservation.

We encourage the States to seek local and regional management solutions to wildlife conservation problems and we think that the funds provided by H.R. 701 can

be an important part of that effort. We would rather see States using the funds provided by H.R. 701 to work together to manage various wildlife species and their associated habitats, than to see an escalation of Federal listings of endangered species.

We feel that the States have both the proper interests and qualifications needed to

325

manage and conserve wildlife, and we do not favor unnecessary Federal intrusions

on the lives and properties of people throughout the country.

Much of what the States have lacked in order to accomplish their conservation

mission has been adequate funding to conserve wildlife before it reaches the point

of endangerment. H.R. 798 does not provide enough funds and attempts to use an

untried mechanism for distributing those funds. Its focus on wildlife conservation

is watered down by its efforts to be all things to all people. H.R. 701 is a much better vehicle for the important work of wildlife conservation.

STATEMENT OF SARAH CHASIS, SENIOR ATTORNEY AND DIRECTOR OF WATER AND

COASTAL PROGRAM, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

My name is Sarah Chasis and I am a Senior Attorney with the Natural Resources

Defense Council (NRDC) and Director of its Water and Coastal Program. I appreciate this opportunity to testify today before the House Resources Committee on

H.R. 701, The Conservation and Reinvestment Act (‘‘CARA’’), a Bill introduced by

Chairman Young, and H.R. 798, the Resources 2000 Act, a Bill introduced by Congressman George Miller.

My testimony on behalf of NRDC focuses on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)

Impact Assistance Title of H.R. 701, the Living Marine Resources Title of H.R. 798,

and the OCS revenues used to fund all Titles of both Bills.

NRDC is a national environmental organization, with over 400,000 members,

dedicated to protecting natural resources and ensuring a safe and healthy environment. NRDC has a long history of involvement with the protection of ocean and

coastal resources and has worked on a number of coastal and ocean issues, including

offshore oil and gas drilling, coastal zone management and marine fish conservation.

In our view, the overarching goal for the coast and ocean Title of these Bills

should be protection and restoration of our nation’s fragile, but extremely valuable

coastal and marine resources which are increasingly under pressure from a variety

of forces. In achieving that goal, 5 principles should be closely adhered to:

•The legislation should provide no financial benefit to states from the lifting of

current moratorium or from new leasing or new drilling. This should apply to

all Titles of the legislation, not just the coastal or OCS impact assistance Title.

•The state or local share of money should not be tied to the acceptance of new

or closer leasing or drilling.

• Money that goes to the states and local governments must be spent on environmentally beneficial projects.

•There should be Federal agency oversight of how money is spent to ensure

compliance with Federal environmental laws.

• Any offsets should not come from existing environmental programs.

These same basic principles are set out in the February 2,1999 letter to Chairman

Young and other representatives from nineteen of the nation’s major national conservation organizations that is attached to our testimony. This letter states that:

‘‘Our organizations are strongly opposed to any financial incentives that promote offshore oil and gas development,’’ identifies incentives included in earlier versions of

the legislation and recommends ways of removing them.

H.R. 701, while containing improvements over last year’s Bill (H.R. 4717), still

falls seriously short when measured against the above prjnciples. In contrast, H.R.

798 adheres to these principles very closely. As a result, we support H.R. 798, but

must continue to oppose H.R. 701 unless and until the concerns we have raised are

satisfactorily resolved. We stand ready to work with the members of the Committee

and their staff to do this.

Following is our analysis of the two Bills with respect to the principles enunciated

above.

H.R. 701, THE CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT

REVENUE SOURCE

H.R. 701 includes revenues from new leasing and new drilling as a funding source

for all Titles of the Bill, with one exception. Excluded from revenues for Title I (‘‘Impact Assistance Formula and Payments’’) are revenues from leased tracts in areas

under moratorium on January 1, 1999 (unless the lease was issued prior to the establishment of the moratorium and was in production on january 1, 1999).

While this latter language represents a definite improvement in the Bill, it only

affects Title I. In addition, it does not exclude revenues from new leasing and drilling in sensitive frontier areas not covered by the moratorium. The Bill thus still

falls short of meeting the first principle.

326

The obvious concern is that if the many and varied beneficiaries of this legislation

see that it is in their financial interest for new leasing and drilling to occur—in

order to provide more funding for the legislation overall and for them in particular—

it will erode support for the existing offshore oil and gas moratorium, which currently protects the east coast (with the exception of existing leases off Cape Hatteras), the coast of Florida (with the exception of existing leases off the Florida Panhandle), the central and northern California coast (with the exception of existing

leases off the central California coast), Oregon, Washington and Bristol Bay in Alaska. It will also lead to support for new leasing and drilling on existing leases off

North Carolina, the Florida Panhandle and central California, as well as in sensitive areas off Alaska—none of which are currently protected by moratoria and

many of which, if not all, are extremely controversial.

It is crucial to remember that the moratorium only exist because Congress each

year reenacts it as part of the Interior Appropriations legislation. Presently, a oneyear congressional Outer Continental Shelf Moratorium contained in the FY 1999

Department of Interior appropriations Bill precludes the expenditure of funds for

new Federal offshore oil and gas leasing in specific coastal areas until October 1,

of this year (1999).

This congressional OCS moratorium prevents new leases for offshore drilling on

any unleased tract along the entire U.S. west coast, the east coast, portions of Florida, and Bristol Bay in Alaska. Now in its seventeenth year, the moratorium must

be renewed each year. As recently as the 104th Congress, the moratorium was removed in the House Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, and was only narrowly reinstated after a big fight in the full House Appropriations Committee, in

spite of strong opposition to the measure by then-chairman Rep. Bob Livingston.

There have been previous years in which the OCS moratorium has survived in the

House Appropriations Committee by a narrow single-vote margin.

Related actions have been taken by two successive presidents, which supplement,

but do not replace, the protection granted by the congressional moratorium. These

‘‘Presidential Deferrals’’ are political in nature and are not considered to be as dependable in providing assured protection over time. In 1991, former President

George Bush announced that he was directing that any further OCS Leasing within

the areas protected by congressional moratorium, except in ALASKA, be deferred

until after the year 2002. No formal executive order was issued by Mr. Bush, and

it is considered that any subsequent president could reverse this decision.

During the 1999 ‘‘Year of the Ocean Conference’’ in Monterey, California, President Clinton, accompanied by Vice-President Al Gore and four Cabinet Secretaries,

announced that they were directing the Minerals Management Service of the Department of Interior to extend the previous Bush OCS Deferrals until the year 2012.

No formal executive order has been issued by the Clinton Administration since this

announcement, and it is considered vulnerable to possible policy reversals by subsequent administrations.

Even for Title I, the improvement is incomplete because revenues from new leasing and drilling in sensitive frontier areas not covered by the moratorium would still

fund the Title. In addition, it is not clear from the language whether revenues from

drilling on existing leases off North Carolina, the Florida Panhandle and central

California would be used to fund Title I. These leases are in moratoria areas but

are not covered by leasing moratoria. Drilling on these leases is an extremely controversial issue in each of those states.

To address the problem, the legislation should define the term ‘‘Qualified Outer

Continental Shelf Revenues’’ in the definitions section (section 102) to exclude revenues from new leasing and new drilling after the date of enactment of the legislation, as the Resources 2000 legislation does. This would remove the financial incentive to support new leasing or drilling in moratoria and other sensitive coastal

areas.

ALLOCATION OF STATE AND LOCAL SHARES

The legislation ties a state’s share of funding under Title I directly to the amount

and proximity of OCS leasing and production off its coast. This provides a clear financial incentive to states to accept new leasing and drilling.

Fifty percent of a state’s allocable share is dependent on its being within 200

miles of a leased OCS tract. The more production on such tracts and the closer in

to shore these tracts are, the more money the state gets. See section 103 (c)(1) and

(2). An improvement in this section of the Bill is the exclusion of moratoria tracts

from this calculation. Thus, even if moratoria tracts are leased or drilled, a state

would not get more money. However, the language is ambiguous with respect to existing leases/production on tracts inmoratoria areas. These tracts also should be excluded. Moreover, new leasing and drilling outside moratorium areas, including senVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:27 Jan 29, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00332 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\56081 pfrm08 PsN: 56081
327

sitive frontier areas off Alaska would still be factored into the allocation formula,

thus providing a significant incentive for allowing such activities to proceed.

We believe that the formula for allocating funds under Title I should not be tied

to OCS leasing and production, but instead should rest on shoreline miles and population alone. Alternatively, if OCS activity has to be a factor, it should be based on

a fixed, flat percentage based on historic OCS activity, not new activity that occurs

after passage of the legislation. This would acknowledge states that have suffered

OCS impacts to date, without providing an incentive for new leasing, exploration or

production.

Another major concern with the Bill concerns the method of allocating funds to

local jurisdictions. Fifty percent of a state’s share goes directly to eligible local political subdivisions. Section 103(e). Eligible political subdivisions are defined to be

those that lie within 200 miles of any leased tract (including tracts in moratoria

areas). Section 102(6). As a consequence, a locality with OCS leasing off its coast

is entitled to share in 50 percent of the state’s allocable share, with its share increasing the closer the leased tract(s) are, localities with no leasing are not entitled

to any part of the state’s allocable share. Obviously, this creates a major incentive

for localities to accept new OCS leasing.

To address this problem the definition of eligible political subdivision should exclude tracts leased after enactment. Such tracts should also be omitted from the calculation of how much an eligible political subdivision receives.

USES OF THE MONEY

It is extremely important that funds distributed to state and local governments

be used to restore and enhance coastal and ocean resources and not to cause further

environmental degradation. For this reason, we strongly recommend that uses be

restricted to:

Amelioration of adverse environmental impacts resulting from the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of OCS facilities, above and beyond what is required of permitted under current law;

Projects and activities, including habitat acquisition, that project or enhance air

quality, water quality, fish and wildlife, or wetlands in the coastal zone;

Administrative costs the state or local government incurs in approving or disapproving or permitting OCS development/production activities under any applicable law including CZMA or OCLSA; and/or repurchase of OCS leases.

The uses of the money authorized in section 104 of H.R. 701 do not ensure that

further environmental degradation do not take place. Their focus is not on restoring

the environment or ensuring activities do not further degrade the environment.

While states may use funds for such purposes, there is no requirement that they

do so. Moreover, states and localities would be free to use the money for a huge

array of purposes, including promoting more offshore drilling, highway construction

and the like.

We urge that our proposed language be substituted for that in the Bill, or that

the approach taken in H.R. 798, discussed below, be utilized.

OVERSIGHT

To ensure that the Federal dollars are spent responsibly, in an environmentally

sensitive manner that complies with Federal law, it is important that there be Federal oversight and approval of state plans for utilization of the funds.

While the legislation requires the states to develop plans for use of the money and

to certify the plans to the Secretary of Interior, the Secretary is given no authority

to review and approve these plans. In addition, it is the state that determines consistency of local plans with Federal law, not the Federal Government! Section

105(c). The lack of Federal oversight combined with the broad uses to which the

funds may be put and the large Federal dollars involved mean that environmentally

damaging projects could well be funded under this legislation.

OFFSETS

It is essential that OCS impact assistance not be funded at the expense of existing

environmental programs.

H.R. 798, THE RESOURCES 2000 ACT

We strongly support H.R. 798 because it adheres to the principles we support. It

does not provide incentives for new offshore leasing or drilling. The Bill specifically

excludes revenues from new leasing and production as a funding source for the entire Bill. See section 4(4) definition of qualified OCS revenues.

The Bill also does not allocate revenues among states (or local jurisdictions) based

on proximity to leased tracts or production. Title VI (‘‘Living Marine Resources Conservation, Restoration, and Management Assistance’’) makes financial assistance

328

available to coastal states based on coastal population and shoreline miles. Section

602(B)(1).

Finally, the Bill requires that Title VI money be spent on the conservation of living marine resources, not on activities that could contribute to further environmental degradation. It provides significant new funding ($300 million) specifically

for marine conservation.

We recommend that consideration be given to having some portion of the money

under Title VI go to help fund existing underfunded marine and coastal conservation programs, such as coastal zone management, marine sanctuaries, and essential

fish habitat protection. A portion of the funding under this Title could be used to

assist in achieving the goals of at least some of these programs; however, it would

not appear to directly fund them. Similarly, we would like the opportunity of working with Congressman Miller and the Committee on the standards that apply to the

state conservation plans to ensure that these plans are effective as possible and on

ways to encourage states to move from the planning phase to the implementation

phase expeditiously.

We appreciate this opportunity to testify and look forward to working with the

Committee on this important legislation.

STATEMENT OF ALAN FRONT, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Alan Front, and I am

pleased to appear before you today representing the Trust for Public Land (TPL)—

a national nonprofit land conservation organization that works with communities,

landowners, and public agencies across the country to secure recreational, scenic,

historic, or other important resource lands for public use and enjoyment—as you

consider the much-needed establishment of a truly dedicated Federal funding source

for land conservation.

First, I would like to express TPL’s gratitude and my own to Chairman Young

and to Congressman Miller, along with their respective cosponsors, for their leadership in introducing legislation addressing this vital need and for their expeditious

handling of these bills. We appreciate the inclusive process the sponsors of both bills

have pursued from the outset, and particularly want to commend Chairman Young

and his staff for considering diverse input from the conservation community. Given

this cooperative spirit—and given the common threads in both proposals, the positive budgetary climate in which you will consider them, and the time-sensitive nature of many willing-seller resource land conservation opportunities now confronting

us—we are extremely hopeful that today’s hearing will be an important early step

on the path to enacted permanent-funding legislation.

We are encouraged that both The Permanent Protection of America’s Resources

2000 Act (H.R. 798) and The Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 (H.R. 701)

propose to reinvigorate, and to amend the distribution and uses of, the Land &

Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which for 35 years has stood as the principal

Federal engine for parkland protection at all levels of government as well as for

state and local recreation projects. Both bills also restore the Federal Government’s

partnership, through a revitalized and modified Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act (UPARR) program, in metropolitan park projects.

H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 differ significantly, though, in their approaches to these

programs, and in provisions regarding other programs. Based on these differences,

as I will describe further, The Trust for Public Land supports Resources 2000 as introduced, but is unable to support The Conservation and Reinvestment Act at this

time.

From the standpoint of TPL’s on-the-ground work in the real estate marketplace,

I would like to offer some perspective on the land conservation titles of these bills

and some specific modifications we suggest, particularly regarding Title II of H.R.

701. First, I will share a few thoughts as to why the permanent funding approach

envisioned by both bills is so urgently needed.

The Need for Increased, Improved, Permanent Conservation Funding

The Land & Water Conservation Fund was established in 1964 to enable priority

additions to Federal conservation areas and grants to states and localities for land

acquisition and recreational facilities projects. LWCF was founded on a simple, elegant premise of finance: a portion of Federal revenues from the sale of non-renewable assets are reinvested in other irreplaceable assets for the nation’s benefit. I

would be pleased to provide the Committee with a recitation of statistics on annual

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) receipts and annual LWCF levels, though I suspect

329

these all are known to you; for today’s purpose, suffice it to say that the fund’s unappropriated balance exceeds $12 billion.

Many members of Congress have worked to sustain LWCF through challenging

budgetary times and have advocated for specific projects and programmatic uses of

the fund. But because LWCF, despite its elegant logic, was not truly set aside from

OCS receipts but rather is addressed annually within the Interior Appropriations

allocation, funding has varied widely from year to year and has fallen far short of

the needs in America’s parks, forests, refuges, and other public landscapes. Consequently, there is an immense backlog of willing-seller acquisition needs, support

to state and local agencies essentially has dried up, and key opportunities are lost

each year.

The shortage of LWCF dollars has posed extreme challenges to resources, effective

public management, landowner needs, and community needs. The inability to acquire lands as they become available often leads to private inholding development

that can take a toll on resource quality and recreational opportunities of adjacent

public lands. Where inconsistent uses occur on private lands amid protected parklands, the true costs of ‘‘managing the holes’’ in public ownership can drain agency

budgets, and in fact can far outstrip the cost of acquisition. The paucity of purchase

funding can place willing-seller property owners in a difficult and unjust position;

those who have public-spirited aims for their lands, or face excessive controversy

over proposed private uses due to the public resources they host, often have to wait

years for the just compensation that acquisition provides. For communities that depend on public land protection not only for recreation but also to provide safe drinking water, support tourism, or meet other local needs, the inability to secure public

lands can have severe economic consequences.

Revitalizing LWCF and UPARR

Recognizing these challenges, both Resources 2000 and The Conservation and Reinvestment Act would provide reliable, permanent funding to fulfill the original purposes and expectations of LWCF. H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 would set aside a portion

of OCS revenues each year, without further appropriation, to fund LWCF at its currently authorized level. In both bills, this substantial, predictable annual commitment affords the opportunity to restore LWCF’s stateside program, striking an important and overdue balance between essential funding of Federal needs and appropriate investment in state and local conservation and recreation. From our work

with constituencies, landowners, and agencies on both sides of this equation, the

Trust for Public Land applauds this big-picture approach.

In a number of salient details where the two bills diverge, however, TPL has substantial concerns regarding provisions in The Conservation and Reinvestment Act

that we believe would result in undue restrictions and delays. Among these are the

following:

—H.R. 701 would limit Federal LWCF funds to lands exclusively within exterior

conservation area boundaries. But while most acquisition currently takes place

inside these lines, our work with such agencies as the U.S. Forest Service sometimes takes us near but outside the boundaries to secure priority lands that

contribute to established agency programs. In some cases, single ownerships are

transected by agency boundaries. Congress and the agencies now pursue these

sorts of ‘‘outholdings’’ with LWCF funds; hemming in this already-existing flexibility would be counterproductive.

—H.R. 701 would direct 2/3 of Federal LWCF to the eastern United States.

There are pressing needs in these states, but the needs are no less pressing

elsewhere. Currently, annual Congressional direction of LWCF and Administration budget proposals can focus dollars on priority projects when and where

properties become available, irrespective of geography. To remain responsive to

communities and property owners in these priority areas, Congress needs to retain this existing flexibility.

—H.R. 701 would require enactment of new law for any LWCF project whose

Federal cost exceeds $1 million. Such a requirement would create enormous and

often insuperable obstacles to timely project completion. Congress routinely deliberates and appropriates funds substantially in excess of this proposed limit

with no new enabling legislation; in fact all acquisitions rely not only on those

deliberations but also on existing authorizing statutes that already provide for

these land purchases.

TPL firmly believes that this provision mandates duplicative enabling legislation and threatens to overload the apple-cart of this Committee’s workload.

Moreover, the resulting inevitable delays are certain to leave landowners and

communities hanging, and in many cases to doom win-win projects that happen

(as is so often the case) to be on short fuses. We therefore believe it is absolutely

330

essential that you retain the kind of project scrutiny that the Hill and the Administration now exercise, as H.R. 798 provides for, but that you not unnecessarily add to it.

TPL appreciates the inclusion in H.R. 701 of Indian Tribes and Alaska Native

Corporations as eligible recipients of stateside LWCF funds. We are now working in a number of areas on tribal land conservation projects. To foster that

work, we ask that this eligibility be extended, as it is to other stateside recipients, to include tribal land acquisition.

Both H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 also guarantee restoration of meaningful funding levels to the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act program. As an organization

dedicated to meeting community conservation and recreation needs, particularly

where people live and work, TPL witnesses daily and first-hand the urgent backlog

of urban park protection and reclamation needs. We therefore strongly support the

proposed recommitment to this vital program. We also are grateful for the prposed

updating of the program to better address the facilities and land protection demands

facing our urban partners.

Given the demonstrated need across the nation for a fully-funded LWCF and for

adequate UPARR investment, we urge the Committee to fund UPARR from OCS

revenues beyond those intended for LWCF, as proposed in Resources 2000, rather

than relying on LWCF funds for both programs as provided for in The Conservation

and Reinvestment Act.

Other Conservation Provisions

Beyond LWCF and UPARR, Resources 2000 also includes a number of other titles

that TPL fully endorses, and to which we hope the Committee will give its full attention and support. Taken together, these provisions would establish a strong and

integrated family of funds for resource protection, restoration, and management. We

appreciate this holistic approach to the nation’s environmental infrastructure.

Among the important threads in this fabric of stewardship is Title IV of the bill

(Farmland, Ranchland, and Forestland Protection), which extends the conservation

reach of the bill in extremely important ways. It provides for a steady investment

in the Forest Legacy Program, which TPL has participated in extensively and which

has done much to preserve working timber landscapes in a number of areas. Similarly, it provides critically needed funding to protect agricultural lands from loss to

urban sprawl or other conversion. We hope the legislation the Committee advances

will include this exceptionally useful, voluntary mechanism for sustaining traditional resource-based livelihoods and lifestyles.

The Road Ahead

TPL greatly appreciates the opportunity to share these perspectives with you as

you review this landmark legislation. We look forward to providing any additional

help we can to assist the Commmittee’s consideration, and we hope that the 106th

Congress will take advantage of this unprecedented chance to restore and enhance

its commitment to conservation.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. COVE, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS,

SPORTING GOODS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Thomas Cove. I am Vice President of

the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association (SGMA). SGMA is the national trade

association for producers and distributors of athletic equipment, footwear and apparel. We have more than 2,000 member companies.

I welcome the opportunity to testify this morning and would like to start by commending both the Chairman and Ranking Member for the leadership they have

shown in calling for greater resources to be devoted to our nation’s conservation and

recreation programs. Both bills under consideration by the Committee this morning

represent bold initiatives in an area that vitally needs visionary thinking and commitment. My industry and the broader recreation community are deeply encouraged

by the introduction of these bills. We believe it is high time to debate how to reestablish the promise made to the citizens of this country 35 years ago to invest in

natural, cultural and recreational resource protection with the proceeds of offshore

oil and gas drilling. We have seen the unique promise of the Land and Water Conservation Fund cheapened for too many years.

A well-funded and widely supported LWCF will provide the tools for stewardship

of our public lands, and, for the first time in years, is attainable. The recreation

community sees this as an unprecedented opportunity and we intend to play whatever role we can to ensure the legislative process results in bold, breakthrough, biVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:27 Jan 29, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00336 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\56081 pfrm08 PsN: 56081
331

partisan legislation that will indeed rekindle the auspicious LWCF vision. We need

to get to work.

I recognize there are substantive differences between H.R. 701 and H.R. 798. The

two proposals raise several important policy issues that must be addressed. These

hearings are serving to highlight many of them. I share some of these concerns, and

will speak to them later in my testimony. But initially, I would like to focus on provisions of the proposed bills that are quite similar, and are critically important to

my industry and to America’s families and communities, namely the state assistance

program of the LWCF and the UPARR program.

Almost two years ago to this day, I testified before Chairman Hansen’s National

Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee in an oversight hearing on the state grants

program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. At that time I brought a message of lament. The stateside program had been virtually eliminated due to lack of

funding. UPARR also was getting no appropriations. The Federal side of LWCF had

to scratch for every dollar it could, and was annually funded at hundreds of millions

of dollars below authorized levels. Backlog was increasing. More important, precious

resources at the local, state, regional and Federal levels were being lost. Never to

be recovered.

Today, it is with great expectation that I come before the Committee again. In

place of lament, there is hope. In place of indifference, there is leadership. In place

of a moribund program, there is new legislation. And, in place of tired claims of

empty coffers, there is a real possibility for mandated spending of the incoming OCS

revenues. What has not changed, and what I would like to spend a moment addressing this

morning, is the tremendous need in America today for the kinds of resources the

Land and Water Conservation Fund and the UPARR program can protect and make

available to the people.

In inventory of America’s sports and recreation infrastructure today shows a simple equation way out of balance. The demand for accessible, safe, clean, recreation

facilities—ball fields, courts, trails, rivers, greenways, bike paths, lakes, nature preserves and the like—is far outstripping supply. The problem is particularly acute,

not surprisingly, near major metropolitan centers, but it is truly a nationwide concern. It is a basic quality of life issue that full funding of LWCF and UPARR would

go a long way to alleviate.

Let me explain how the problem manifests itself around the country.

It is an urban issue. In the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota, it is estimated that

literally thousands of young girls and boys want to but will not get to play soccer

this year, due to lack of playing fields in their neighborhood. There is only one public soccer field in the entire city, (a second one is now under construction), while

there are 341 soccer fields built and maintained in the Minneapolis suburbs.

Inner-city focused programs like Reviving Baseball in the Inner City (RBI), Soccer

in the Streets, and Boys and Girls Clubs Housing Project program all report lack

of fields and facilities as constraints to serving greater numbers of at-risk youth.

Just last month at a meeting of mayors and large urban county executives, securing

additional Federal support for urban parks was identified as the top priority of the

group.

Images of unscathed community gardens and parks adjacent to torched buildings

after the 1992 Los Angeles riots offer a powerful illustration of the value urban communities place on protected open space.

It is a suburban issue. The explosion of soccer participation is America is well

established and the trend is continuing. Let me cite the example of a single Maryland county. In this county, 25,000 girls and boys play organized soccer, with only

74 soccer fields to serve them. Last year in one age-specific league, 550 children

were turned away due to lack of field space. In the next two years, county officials

estimate 60-120 fields will be required to meet recreational demand. By the year

2005, 40,000 county kids are expected to register for soccer. This is a single, not

atypical, county.

In Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, there is a waiting list of 1,000 children to play in the

American Youth Soccer Organization League. According to AYSO officials, the reason is that sub-divisions are being constructed without zoning requiring open space

and parks.

Nationally, the United States Soccer Foundation has received 1,050 formal grant

applications to build soccer fields in urban, suburban and rural areas in the past

four years. The Foundation believes this represents a small fraction of the actual

demand for more fields. The Foundation has been able to award grants to only 7

percent of the applicants.

The problem is not unique to soccer. There is no football field in Hopewell, New

Jersey and the surrounding area. This year, after ten years without football, HopeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:27 Jan 29, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00337 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\56081 pfrm08 PsN: 56081
332

well parents decided to gauge interest in setting up a local Pop Warner league. More

than 130 kids signed up at the first call. Now this community is scrambling to find

a usable space for its youth football program, while simultaneously raising thousands of dollars to buy equipment and supplies, hire referees and pay operating expenses. Lack of a field may yet keep those Hopewell kids from playing youth football.

It is a gender equity issue. In Georgia, girls and women’s softball league administrators are forced to do battle with baseball officials over allocation of scarce

fields. In one fairly typical Georgia city, there are five fields for the 800 boys (and

several girls) who play baseball, while there is only one field for the more than 300

girls who play softball. Already at capacity, this girls softball program would expand

substantially if more fields were made available. Such conflicts are documented

across the country.

As Title IX has opened doors for girls and women to play non-traditional field

sports like lacrosse, rugby and field hockey, conflicts over field usage have risen.

With the United States hosting the Women’s World Cup this summer, and the

American women favored to gain international soccer’s ultimate prize, we envision

even greater rates of participation in girls and women’s soccer, further complicating

the field dilemma.

It is a cultural issue. Field scarcity forces many youth sports leagues to schedule games on Sundays, often from early morning until dusk. This presents a serious

conflict for many parents who want to take their families to religious services or

keep Sunday devoted to ‘‘family time.’’ Many Pop Warner football leagues use the

local high school football field for games. On any Saturday when the high school

hosts a home game, the Pop Warner kids must play on Sunday. Frazzled league administrators are left with little choice but to schedule Sunday games, even though

they know substantial numbers of would-be players won’t be able to participate.

It is a socio-economic issue. One response to these field conflicts among local

parents and supporters has been to develop and operate private, fee-based sports

facilities. This market-based approach has produced some of the nation’s finest

fields, courts and support facilities, truly first-class athletic complexes. They are

serving a valid purpose, especially for the elite athlete. But use of these facilities

comes with a price, and often the price of admission effectively excludes large segments of the community from participation. The development of private fee-based

facilities is welcome news for many, but it is not the fix to the widespread challenge

of providing affordable recreation to all Americans. We should not allow a family’s

financial resources to limit young people’s basic access to sports and recreation.

Economics also play a role in allocation of many public parks and ball fields.

Cash-strapped public recreation departments establish fees for field rentals that

only adult leagues can comfortably pay. Many youth leagues, already challenged to

provide registration scholarships and equipment donations, cannot raise sufficient

funds and are left with less desirable fields, or time slots.

It is a health and safety issue. A recently-released study by the Centers for

Disease Control established that people living in neighborhoods they perceive as unsafe are demonstrably less likely to get outside for physical activity. Almost 40 percent of people ages 18 to 64 living in ‘‘not at all safe’’ neighborhoods reported no

physical activity or exercise the previous month. The impact on older Americans is

severe. The study found 63 percent living in unsafe areas got no exercise, compared

with 38 percent in safer areas. The provision of safe, clean, nearby parks would provide vitally needed opportunities for Americans of all ages to get out and appreciate

their natural environment.

Similarly, quality recreation facilities and programs offer safe haven to thousands

of at-risk urban youth and their parents. Police Athletic League, Boys and Girls

Clubs, public recreation departments in every major city in this country—they all

provide recreation opportunities for young people during after-school and summer

hours where few desirable alternatives exist. These safe haven programs often serve

to reduce rates of violent crimes, teen pregnancy and truancy. Just ask the local

police officers and social workers.

It is an educational issue. One of LWCF’s greatest legacies is the preservation

of the natural environment for generations to learn about in a hands-on, experiential manner. Scores of LWCF sites have served to awaken young people’s awareness

of, and appreciation for, the natural world around them. We are concerned that

unabated sprawl and unchecked urban degradation may lead to generations of

Americans who have no connection to the wonders of our country’s vast natural legacy. We must ensure that refuges, parks, and nature centers are protected in places

close to where people live, thereby guaranteeing children and families the chance

to learn environmental ethics on their own terms.

333

I provided anecdotes to put a human face on the tremendous needs facing America’s communities. The stories truly represent a nationwide challenge. The National

Council of Youth Sports represents more than 53 national youth sport organizations,

whose membership consists of more than 45 million children participating in organized sports programs. In its 1997 Member Survey, NCYS reported that 97 percent

of its members organizations conduct outdoor programs and believe there is an immediate need to advocate for Federal support for LWCF-type legislation. At the

same time, NCYS reported that up to that point in time 98 percent of its membership maintained no advocacy capability in Washington. The National Recreation and

Park Association estimates the backlog of capital investment needs for state and

local parks exceeds $25 billion.

State and local parks are where the vast majority of Americans recreate day in

and day out. Though most Americans might love to visit our showcase national

parks regularly, they are unable to for reasons of economics, geography, or competing leisure alternatives. Most Americans recreate close to home—in local, regional and state parks. Whether for toddlers in a playground, teenagers on a ball

field or senior citizens on a nature trail, easily accessible recreation opportunities

contribute significantly to quality of life for individuals, families and communities

across the country. Participation in recreation is valued not just for enjoyment, but

because Americans know it leads to improved physical and mental health, better appreciation of nature and the environment and stronger, shared values.

As such, the recreation industry and community regards LWCF (both Federal and

Stateside) and UPARR, when funded, as an unqualified success story. The Land and

Water Conservation Fund was a promise made to the American people beginning

in 1965 that has delivered a return on investment that any Wall Street financier

would be proud to call his/her own, even in today’s high flying market.

The problem is that the investment was drastically reduced in the 1980’s and

early part of this decade. Today, we are feeling the impact. We cannot continue to

pass on these needs to the next generation without action.

Which brings me back to the bills under consideration by the Committee.

Let me be clear. We generally support H.R. 701 because it will provide a permanent, dedicated, sustainable funding source for Federal and state LWCF and

UPARR. This is the heart of the bill for us. SGMA supports H.R. 798 as presented.

But the provisions I am about to address represent areas where H.R. 701 can be

improved. We sincerely hope the Committee can address these concerns before the

bill is brought to mark-up.

I want to raise specific legislative concerns we see in Title II, as they relate to

the administration of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The ‘‘Allocation’’ provision in Section 202 is unnecessarily restrictive in its limitation of purchases to

lands solely within the exterior boundaries of Federal land management units. This

poses a particular problem for my community because it will exclude many important recreation lands that fall outside a designated management unit. We strongly

believe willing sellers of land on Utah’s Bonneville Shoreline Trail or on the Ice Age

Trail in Wisconsin should be able to be accommodated in order to protect valuable

recreation resources.

Similarly, we oppose the requirement that 2/3 of Federal moneys be spent east

of the 100th meridian. We believe Congress annually takes very seriously its obligations to determine priority uses of LWCF. We see this provision as overly constraining the flexibility of Congress to determine the nation’s land acquisition priorities.

We believe that a $1 million cap on Federal contributions to individual projects

is redundant and therefore, unnecessary. We believe there exists adequate control

over the potential expenditures, through State Action Plans and congressional committee oversight.

With regard to Title I, my industry is strongly against the use of coastal impact

assistance as an incentive to promote increased offshore oil and gas drilling. We are

not in a position to adequately assess what might serve as an incentive, so we urge

that all consideration be given to ensuring that final language represents as clearly

as possible the notion that any funds distributed according to the three titles be incentive-neutral.

With regard to Title III, the sporting goods industry supports the need to develop

a dedicated revenue stream to provide funds for wildlife and habitat management.

We applaud the drafting work of this title, particularly as it moves away from previous proposals to impose excise taxes on sports products to produce the desired revenue stream. This appears to be an ideal resolution to a longstanding problem.

We believe one element of Title III should be changed. We would like to see modified the state matching requirements for the Title III funds so as to conform to mandated state matching requirements in Title II. It is illogical for recipient state and

334

local park agencies to be required to match 50 percent funding under Title II, while

recipient state wildlife agencies are required to match as little as 10 percent.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, we applaud your leadership in proposing a bold return

to the original promise of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and UPARR. We

recognize competing interests hold strong views about how these funds should be

administered. My message today is these programs will deliver immeasurable value

and enjoyment to millions of American communities and families. We need to find

a way to fund them. We urge the Committee to work together to develop a broadly

supported, bipartisan bill that can be passed by the House and Senate, and signed

into law. We stand ready to work with you to this end.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF KEVIN PAAP, VICE PRESIDENT, FOR THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU

FEDERATION

Good afternoon. My name is Kevin Paap. I am a dairy farmer from Garden City,

Minnesota, and serve as Vice President of the Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation.

Minnesota is a coastal state identified in H.R. 701. I am appearing today on behalf

of the American Farm Bureau Federation.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee today to testify on

H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999. The bill provides a dedicated source of funding from revenues derived from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)

leases for a variety of programs such as OCS impact assistance, land acquisition,

payment in lieu of taxes, urban parks and recreational development, and wildlife

enhancement. We will direct our comments to those programs that involve land acquisition and wildlife habitat enhancement.

One section of the bill provides a dedicated source of funding to the Land and

Water Conservation Fund, which has been used primarily for the purchase of land

by state and Federal Government agencies. This Fund has a Federal component,

which provides money directly to Federal agencies, and also has a state component,

which provides matching funds for use by state agencies.

If funding is to be provided for Federal and state lands, we strongly urge that

any such funds be first earmarked for repair and maintenance of existing lands before being authorized to purchase additional land. The Federal land management

agencies have a significant backlog of repairs and maintenance to their lands that

totals billions of dollars. The U.S. Forest Service recently issued a moratorium on

further road building in the National Forests because it could not keep up with

maintenance of existing roads, which has an estimated $8 billion backlog.

We should first use any funds to take care of the lands that we have. If our national parks are considered ‘‘American jewels,’’ America would be better served to

have fewer jewels that are high quality and polished, rather than more lower quality, unpolished and imperfect ones.

Because farmers and ranchers own much of the remaining privately-owned open

space in the country, they are natural targets for having their land appropriated

by governmental entities for various purposes. In addition, condemnation of private

lands by governmental entities results in the removal of those lands from the tax

rolls, thereby increasing the tax burden for the remaining private landowners in the

area. Farmers and ranchers have experienced numerous problems with different levels of government condemning their property for whatever purpose. We are naturally skeptical, therefore, about any bill or action that involves or authorizes the acquisition of land by government. We carefully review such proposals to ensure that

there are adequate safeguards for private landowners.

We are pleased that H.R. 701 contains such safeguards with respect to the Federal component of the Land and Water Conservation Fund amendments (LWCA).

By limiting Federal purchases only to existing inholdings and to willing sellers, the

bill prevents the runaway and uncontrolled acquisition of Federal lands that many

people fear. Other bills such as H.R. 798 do not contain these safeguards. Unlike

similar provisions in H.R. 798 and other bills, we feel that the conditions placed on

the expenditure of Federal LWCA funds in H.R. 701 adequately protect private

property interests.

The state component of the bill contains no such safeguards. We urge that the

bill be amended to incorporate the same conditions on the use of Federal matching

funds for state purchases as exist for Federal acquisitions.

Also unlike H.R. 798 and similar bills, H.R. 701 provides that for any money collected above the maximum authorized for the LWCA, the excess shall be applied to

the Payment In Lieu of Taxes program. This Farm Bureau supported program,

which seeks to make up for lost local tax base resulting from the presence of Federal

335

lands by making payments for use in local areas, has been traditionally underfunded. We support the effort of H.R. 701 to give this program a needed shot in the

arm. No less significant are the provisions that seek to further the partnership between

private landowners and the government to enhance wildlife and its habitat. Privately owned farm and ranch lands provide a significant amount of the food and

habitat for our nation’s wildlife. For example, over 90 percent of plants and animals

listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) have some of their habitat on nonfederal lands, with 78 percent occupying privately owned lands. Approximately 34

percent of all listed species occur entirely on nonfederal lands. The agencies must

have the cooperation of farmers, ranchers and private property owners if the ESA

is going to work. Private landowners are clearly the key to the Act’s success.

The American Farm Bureau Federation believes that an appropriate balance between the needs of a species and the needs of people can be struck. We agree with

the basic goals of wildlife enhancement. No one wants to see species become extinct,

yet at the same time no one wants to see people lose the capacity to produce food

or to be without essential human services. Given the proper assurances, farmers

and ranchers can play a significant role in management of species on their property.

We are therefore very pleased that both H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 contain programs

that acknowledge and seek to implement this partnership. Both of these programs

contain positive elements. Both programs provide for agreements between agency

and landowner to benefit species on their property. H.R. 798 provides a definite

source of funding for its program, whereas H.R. 701 does not.

H.R. 701 would create the Habitat Reserve Program (HRP). The HRP is the type

of program that provides those assurances and achieves that balance between species and landowner that is necessary for the well-being of both. Farm Bureau is

committed to making this type of program work.

Under this section, farmers and ranchers would enter into contracts for the protection of habitat for listed species. The private landowner would be paid for managing and protecting species habitat, similar to the way that the Conservation Reserve Program works. This program effectively recognizes the public benefit that

private landowners provide for listed species, and responds in an appropriate manner. It encourages landowners to voluntarily provide needed management for species

and habitat while at the same time allowing the landowner to productively use the

land through payments received through the program.

This program will enhance the conservation of species because it provides for their

active on-the-ground management by affected landowners instead of the current

passive government management practices of easements and land use restrictions.

At the same time, it provides landowners with flexibility to manage their property.

The HRP thus provides benefits for both the species and the landowner—the type

of ‘‘win-win’’ scenario that is needed.

In conclusion, we believe that H.R. 701 provides more overall balance than H.R.

798 and similar bills thus far introduced. We also believe that is offers the best

chance of achieving any sort of consensus on the issues contained therein, so long

as appropriate amendments as suggested in our testimony are incorporated.

We look forward to working with the Committee on the issues we have addressed

in our testimony today.

STATEMENT OF RALPH GROSSI, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST

Mr. Chairman, American Farmland Trust (AFT) appreciates this opportunity to

provide your Committee with our views on the merits of H.R. 798. I am Ralph

Grossi, president of AFT and the managing partner of a family farm that has been

in the dairy, cattle and grain business in northern California for over 100 years.

American Farmland Trust is a national, non-profit organization with 31,000 members working to stop the loss of productive farmland and to promote farming practices that lead to a healthy environment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest that it is time that working with private landowners be the foundation of future conservation policy. H.R. 798 contains provisions

that move us in that direction. American Farmland Trust supports the Resources

2000 Act because this bill recognizes the role that private landowners play in the

stewardship of our natural resources, protecting their property rights, while compensating them for the environmental goods they produce for the public.

My comments today will focus on the specific provisions in H.R. 798 that direct

conservation incentives toward private landowners. For the past quarter century

conservation and environmental objectives in our country have been largely

achieved by either imposing regulations or through government purchase of private

336

land. However, these actions have failed to resolve conflicts over important environmental problems like species or farmland protection, for example—that rely on the

participation of thousands of private landowners. At AFT we very strongly believe

that the in the 21st century new approaches to land conservation will be needed

that address the concerns of private landowners.

The farmland protection provisions of the Resources 2000 Act recognize that

America cannot—indeed should not—buy all the land that needs protecting. Instead

it acknowledges that America’s private landowners play a vital role in producing

conservation benefits for all Americans to enjoy, and rightfully compensates them

by providing $150 million annually for the protection of America’s best farmland,

ranchland and forestland while leaving it in private ownership.

The easement acquisition, or purchase of development rights, approach proposed

by the bill provides an innovative, voluntary opportunity for appropriate local agencies to work with landowners by offering them compensation to protect the most

productive farmland—farmland that is critical to both the agricultural economic

base of our rural and suburban communities and the environmental values provided

by well-managed farms. It would also provide important matching funds to the

many local and state efforts working to protect farmland.

Under the bill’s provisions, protected lands would remain on the local tax rolls

contributing to the local economy. The value of this approach to local communities

should not be understated. AFT has conducted more than forty Cost of Community

Services Studies around the country. In every case, these studies have shown farmland provides more property tax revenue than it demands in public services, while

sprawling residential development almost always requires more in services than it

pays in taxes.

Conservation policy does matter to farmers and ranchers, who are strong believers

in individual freedom and private property rights. Their support for conservation

policies is absolutely critical because they own the land that is at stake in the increasing competition for its use. But as competition for land has increased, so has

disagreement over how to balance economic use with conservation of natural resources and the increasing demands being placed on private landowners to achieve

objectives whose benefits accrue largely to the public. Debate over land use has focused on private property rights and the appropriate role of government in protecting resources while polarization on this issue has in many cases stalemated effective policymaking.

Landowners often complain that government regulations infringe on their freedom

and force them to bear an unfair share of the cost of protecting the environment,

while the public argues that landowners have a duty to conserve resources for future generations.

But the fact remains that for most landowners the equity in their land represents

the hard work and savings of at least one if not numerous generations of the farm

family. Their land is their 401(k)! As farmers we are proud of the abundant supply

of food and fiber we have provided Americans and millions of others around the

world; and we are pleased that we also ‘‘produce’’ scenic vistas, open spaces, wildlife

habitat and watershed integrity for our communities to enjoy. And in many instances, our farms and ranches serve as crucial buffers around our parks, battlefields and other important resources. These are tangible environmental goods and

services that farmers should be encouraged to produce and appropriately rewarded

for. It is only fair that the cost of producing and maintaining these goods that benefit so many Americans be shared by them.

Farmers are the caretakers of the land, and voters are starting to realize this fact.

The recent surge in local and state efforts to protect farmland suggests rapidly rising national concern over the loss of farmland and the environmental benefits it provides.

In last November’s elections 72 percent of 240 initiatives to protect farmland and

open space were approved by voters across the nation. In recent years Governors

Engler, Voinovich, Ridge, Pataki, Wilson, Whitman, Weld, Glendening and others

have supported or initiated farmland protection efforts to address this problem.

Nearly every day this year major newspapers have carried articles about sprawl and

‘‘smart growth,’’ frequently citing farmland protection as one of the key components

of the latter. And the President highlighted the need to help communities protect

‘‘farmland and open space’’ in his State of the Union speech.

Recent studies by American Farmland Trust have documented that more than 80

percent of this nation’s fruits, vegetables and dairy products are grown in metropolitan area counties or fast growing adjacent counties—in the path of sprawling development. And a 1997 AFT study found that over the past decade over 400,000 acres

of prime and unique farmland were lost to urban uses each year. The loss of soil

337

to asphalt—like the loss of soil to wind and water erosion—is an issue of national

importance.

But one should not get caught up in the ‘‘numbers game.’’ The fact is that every

year we continue to squander some of this nation’s most valuable farmland with the

expectation that this land can be replaced with other land in this country or abroad,

or with new technologies that promise to help maintain the productivity gains of the

past half century. The reality is that we don’t know whether new technologies will

keep pace. What we do know is that whatever those technologies will be, it is likely

that they will be more efficiently applied on productive land than on marginal land

where higher levels of energy, fertilizer, chemicals and labor per unit of output are

required. Simply put, it is in the nation’s best interest to keep the best land for

farming as an insurance policy against the challenge of feeding an expanding population in the 21st century.

However, food security is not the reason farmland protection has emerged as a

national issue. Communities all across the nation are working to protect farmland

because it produces a lot more than food and fiber. • In many regions of the nation, enough farmland is being paved over to place

the remaining farms at risk, due to the lack of a critical mass of land and services to support agriculture—farm machinery, supplies, marketing outlets, etc.

Too often, while local leaders work to bring new business to a community they

overlook agriculture as a true ‘‘wealth generator’’—an industry that brings

value to the community from renewable natural resources. In many traditional

farm communities citizens are awakening to the prospect that this important,

consistent economic base is at risk; and they recognize that one of the solutions

is to ensure that the land base is protected. This calculus has little to do with

the global food supply and everything to do with the value of farming to local

economies.

• Residents increasingly frustrated with long commutes, deteriorating public

services and a loss of the scenic views, watershed protection and wildlife habitat, that is so much a part of their quality of life, are among the strongest advocates for farmland protection. The working landscape around our cities adds

value to the life and property of all the residents of a given community. And

in some cases, farms that are far from the city add critical values; for example,

the protection of farms hundreds of miles from New York City is helping improve the water quality and reduce water treatment costs for the residents of

Manhattan.

Increasingly, farmland protection is seen as an inexpensive way to protect scenic

vistas that enhance the community for both residents and visitors while keeping the

land in productive use on local tax roles. Farmers are ‘‘producing’’ a valuable product for their new suburban neighbors—environmental quality; and farmland protection programs such as purchase of development rights and the use of conservation

easements proposed by H.R. 798 have become mechanisms to compensate them for

these ‘‘products.’’

As more communities struggle with the problems of suburban sprawl, private

lands protection is emerging as a key strategy of smart growth. The techniques proposed by the Resources 2000 Act add an element of fairness to the difficult challenge

of achieving public goals while balancing private property rights, by providing a

means of compensation for value received by the community at large. They are a

reasonable balance to the regulations that often lack fairness when applied alone.

The findings of a recent AFT survey show that most landowners are willing to

share the responsibility of protecting the environment with the public through ‘‘hybrid’’ programs that combine reasonable regulations with adequate financial incentives. The Resources 2000 Act helps to achieve this balance by adding carrots to the

sticks of existing regulation.

This bill will help protect the working agricultural landscape of America, and do

it in a manner that shares the responsibility of stewardship between private landowners and the public at large by fairly compensating for value received. The Resources 2000 Act is an excellent example of how to govern in a better way, a way

that involves communities and local and State government, a way that empowers

farmers rather than imposing on them.

Mr. Chairman, during this Congress you will have unprecedented opportunities

to develop policies to encourage and reward stewardship on this nation’s private

lands; and to re-direct financial resources in a way that shares the cost of protecting

our great natural resources between the taxpayers who enjoy them and the landowners that steward them. While it is not the domain of this Committee, in closing

I call your attention to the Federal farm programs. At a time when the public is

demanding more of private landowners every day, I ask you and all of Congress to

consider a major shift of commodity support payments into conservation programs

338

such as farmland protection that help farmers meet those demands in a way that

is fair to all.

Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to working with you to establish a truly farmer-friendly conservation policy.

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF WYOMING

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding two days of hearings on this legislation. I

appreciate the fact that you and the key sponsors of H.R. 701 have shown a willingness to work with members of the Committee and others on various provisions of

this bill.

While I certainly share your interest in making sure that those States affected

by offshore resource development are provided the necessary Federal revenues to

mitigate those impacts, I remain concerned that this legislation should be subject

to annual appropriations. In my view, if the bill does indeed create a dedicated fund,

not subject to Congressional appropriation, we will be leaving the door open to possible land acquisitions by all levels of government. As I understand it, that is not

the specific intent of Title I of your bill. However, absent specific barriers to land

acquisition, my fear is that it is bound to happen. For example, there are too many

instances of members on both sides of the aisle introducing legislation to establish

a national park or monument in someone’s honor. We in Congress are infamous for

doing just that. Unfortunately, we don’t always provide the money to pay for these

new areas. As a result, we have a tremendous backlog of acquisitions already on

the books. And, sadly, the Federal Government has far too difficult a time managing

and maintaining the lands already in its possession.

In my own State of Wyoming, we have an overwhelming backlog of maintenance

problems in Yellowstone National Park alone—from road construction to sewer system repairs—and it has become a priority of mine to address those needs. From that

perspective, I’d like to reiterate my intent to work with you, Representative Tauzin

and members of the Appropriations Committee to fashion a provision in H.R. 701

which would combat those problems. They are substantial and I personally would

feel remiss in my responsibilities to my constituents if I failed to attempt to resolve

them.

Aside from that, I would like to applaud your efforts to fund the Payments in Lieu

of Taxes (PILT) program at the fully authorized level.

This has been another priority of mine for quite some time and I am hopeful that

with your assistance we can convince the appropriators how vitally important these

funds are to local communities. As I’m sure you are no doubt aware, the oil and

gas industry throughout the West has been experiencing a severe downturn in production, resulting in a cumulative loss of 41,000 jobs and the shut-down of more

than 136,000 oil wells and 57,000 natural gas wells since prices crashed in November, 1997. States like Wyoming rely heavily on those royalties for their school systems, not to mention fire and rescue and public safety funding. Absent those revenues and a PILT program that is not adequately funded, local counties have been

struggling in recent years to make ends meet. So I look forward to working with

you on that aspect of this legislation as well to see if we can provide some much

need economic assistance to municipal activities and programs.

Again, thank you for holding this second day of hearings. I see we have some distinguished panels of witnesses and I welcome their testimony and the opportunity

to seek their views on how we can improve upon H.R. 701.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MALCOLM WALLOP (RET.), CHAIRMAN, FRONTIERS OF

FREEDOM

Chairman Young, thank you for inviting Frontiers of Freedom to testify today on

these important issues. My name is Malcolm Wallop, and I am chairman of Frontiers of Freedom. From 1977 until 1995, I represented Wyoming in the Senate,

where I served on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. As a rancher near

Big Horn, Wyoming, I have a lifetime’s experience of private stewardship and of

Federal land management practices. I founded Frontiers of Freedom to defend the

constitutional rights of all Americans and to restore constitutional limits on government at all levels.

Frontiers of Freedom opposes enactment of the Conservation and Re-investment

Act, the Permanent Protection for America’s Resource’s 2000 Act, and other similar

proposals, such as the Clinton-Gore Administration’s Lands Legacy Initiative. While

339

my remarks today are directed at H.R. 701, most of them apply just as well to H.

R. 798 and the Lands Legacy program.

Before discussing our objections to the bill, I would like to urge you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the Committee to hold extensive field hearings

before you proceed to mark-up. This is major legislation, which would have serious

consequences far into the future for a great many people. But from what I could

see from the witness list released last Friday, nearly all the witnesses at these hearings represent institutions that would be financial beneficiaries of this legislation.

I really don’t think you need two days of hearings to find out that those who are

to receive large sums of money from the Federal treasury are generally in favor of

it.

There are people all across the country, however, who will be the targets rather

than the beneficiaries of H.R. 701. It seems to me that you should at least listen

to them. In 1988 when this Committee considered similar legislation, Chairman

Udall’s American Heritage Trust Act, Representative Vento’s subcommittee heard

testimony from a number of prominent opponents who have not been invited to testify at these hearings. I therefore urge you to hold field hearings, not in places such

as Louisiana that stand to gain hundreds of millions of dollars a year from Title

I, but in places where you can hear from people whose livelihoods and ways of life

may be destroyed by enactment of H.R. 701. In particular, I hope you will travel

to the Northern Forests of Maine, upstate New York, New Hampshire, and

Vermont, which are now under assault by the preservationists; and to an area in

the West, such as my own State of Wyoming, where the Committee can learn about

the negative environmental and economic consequences of massive government land

ownership.

Frontiers of Freedom agrees that revenues from Outer Continental Shelf oil and

gas production should be shared with the States. However, we believe that it should

be shared only with the States that actually have OCS production off their shores

and in the same way that revenues from onshore Federal leases are shared with

those States in which they are located—that is, fifty-fifty. We urge you to introduce

legislation that would do that in a straightforward way and would enthusiastically

support your efforts to pass such a bill. The method that H.R. 701 adopts is in our

view much less satisfactory because it will send much less money to the six OCS

States than the 50 percent that they should be receiving and because the funds distributed will be earmarked for a specific purpose rather than going into the States’

general treasuries.

These shortcomings are insignificant compared to the way H.R. 701 ties OCS revenue sharing to a massive increase in government acquisition of private land. Simply put, Frontiers of Freedom believes that the land acquisition provisions are much

too high a price to pay for any benefit’s the bill may contain.

I have noticed that H.R. 701’s proponents, when they have mentioned it at all,

have downplayed the magnitude of land acquisitions mandated in Title II. Thus proponents have claimed that the $378 million per year for Federal land acquisition

is only $50 or $60 million dollars per year higher than the historic average for Land

and Water Conservation Fund acquisitions appropriated by Congress. Further, they

seem to assume that state and local acquisitions are somehow more acceptable to

private property owners. And they suggest that because the $378 million per year

for state and local acquisitions can be spent on development projects, it therefore

will be spent mostly on development projects.

If only this line of obfuscation were true. The fact is that H.R. 701 would vastly

increase the rate of socialization of private land in this country. Title II turns the

Land and Water Conservation Fund into a dedicated fund—that is, not subject to

further congressional appropriation. Twenty-three percent of OCS revenues would

be deposited into the fund up to the authorized level of $900 million per year. Of

this $900 million, $378 million would go to the four Federal land agencies for land

acquisition and $378 million to the States (of which 50 percent would then be distributed to local governments) for land acquisition and related development costs.

Two key facts are regularly not mentioned by H.R. 701’s supporters. First, the bill

would require that all Federal funds for state and local acquisitions be matched

fifty-fifty by state and local governments. This means that the total available for

buying land is twice times $378 million, or $756 million per year. The leveraging

of Federal grants in this way is designed to make it very attractive for state and

local governments to spend a lot of money buying private land, regardless of what

their taxpayers might think.

Add this $756 million to the $378 million for Federal acquisitions for a grand total

of $1.134 billion per year for land acquisition. But this is not all. The second fact

not mentioned by the bill’s proponents is that Title I funds can also be spent on

buying land. According to the Committee’s own projections, Title I would distribute

340

$1.24 billion in FY 2000 to the 34 ‘‘coastal States.’’ It is likely that a large chunk

of this money will be used to buy land.

As evidence, I would point to the fate of the Exxon Valdez trust fund. At the time

that Exxon agreed to put $900 million into a fund to remediate the harmful environmental effects of the oil spill, few people thought that a lot of the money would be

used to buy land. Yet, this is precisely what has happened. According to Senator

Frank Murkowski, to date $380 million from the trust fund has been used to buy

over 700,000 acres of private land, some of it far removed from Prince William

Sound. Senator Murkowski recently complained that the trust had purchased 16

percent of the private land in Alaska ‘‘and they aren’t done yet.’’

There is an obvious reason why Federal, state, and local land management agencies like to buy land. It increases the size of their empires, which leads to increases

in agency budgets and staffs.

Thus I conclude that several hundred millions of dollars per year from Title I will

likely be spent on land acquisition. This could well bring the total from Titles I and

II to over $1.5 billion per year. This would represent approximately a five-fold increase in funds for land acquisition over the historic average of LWCF appropriations.

This is an appalling possibility. Before you lead Congress down this path, I urge

you to consider how much land government already owns, the environmental condition it is in, and the political and economic consequences of that ownership.

According to the BLM, the Federal Government controls about 676 million acres

of the nation’s land. This constitutes just under 30 percent of the total. I don’t have

any idea how much land is owned by state and local governments, and I don’t think

anybody else does either, including state and local officials. The Cascade Policy Institute did a study of how much property just one county in Oregon owned. The total

was staggering and came as a complete surprise to the county commissioners.

My point is this. All levels of government already own an enormous amount of

land—far too much in my view and unquestionably far more than they can take

care of adequately. Therefore, before embarking on a land-buying spree, it seems to

me that this Committee could do a great service to the nation by initiating an inventory and assessment of the extent and nature of government land ownership in this

country. Then the question needs to be asked, What is the public purpose for government to own this particular piece of land? I suspect that in many cases no plausible reason can be given.

Preservationists will undoubtedly reply that the purpose of all this government

land ownership is to protect the environment. Can anyone who has first-hand

knowledge of the poor condition of many of the Federal lands really take this claim

seriously?

Private property ownership is widely recognized as the source of our economic

well being and as the keystone of our system of limited government and individual

liberty. Insofar as H.R. 701 lessens private property ownership, it thereby harms

our prosperity and threatens our liberty. H.R. 701 should be defeated for that reason alone.

But it must also be recognized that private property ownership provides a higher

level of environmental protection than does public or common ownership. This is

simply because private property owners have an incentive—their own self interest—

to take care of what is theirs. That incentive is usually lacking with public or common ownership. We had recent confirmation of this fact when the Iron Curtain fell.

The preservationists who tout government ownership as an environmental panacea

led us to believe that we would find a Garden of Eden in the land of socialized property. Instead, we saw one environmental horror after another—dead lakes, poisoned

land, vanishing wildlife.

In this country, public accountability has prevented some of the worst consequences of socialization. But we must not be blind to the degradation caused by

public ownership. Even Representative Ralph Regula, a staunch defender of Federal

land ownership, has opposed major land acquisition increases simply because the

Federal Government already owns far more land than it can manage properly. Representative Regula recently pointed to the fact that the four Federal land agencies

have themselves identified a $12 billion backlog in maintenance and operations.

Adding land to the Federal inventory at a $378 million per year clip can only increase this colossal figure. This in turn can only lead to the further environmental

degradation of our great national parks, forests, and refuges. In terms of stewardship of resources, H.R. 701 is irresponsible in the extreme. Nonetheless, proponents

claim at every turn that the opposite is true: H.R. 701 ‘‘. . . represents a responsible

re-investment of revenue from non-renewable resources into renewable resources of

conservation and recreation.’’ This claim overlooks that fact that buying the land is

341

just the beginning. After buying it, government must then take care of it. And that

costs a lot of money and is annual expense in perpetuity.

Where is all the money to manage these new government lands going to come

from? As far as I am aware, none of the bill’s supporters has said a word about that

crucial issue. It appears there are only two choices: either the budget caps for Interior must be increased by nearly two billion dollars per year; or Interior’s budget

must be slashed by nearly two billion dollars per year.

The first choice would be bad news for American taxpayers. The second choice

would be catastrophic for the environmental condition of the Federal lands. With

a current backlog in maintenance and operations of $12 billion, cutting $2 billion

out of the Interior budget simply cannot be done without destroying the Federal

land agencies.

The situation with respect to the state and local land acquisition side of Title II

is even more troubling and raises serious federalism concerns. Removing hundreds

of millions of dollars of private land from productive uses each year will significantly

reduce economic activity in many States and local jurisdictions and consequently reduce the tax base. After all that is accomplished, these state and local governments

will then be burdened with the cost of maintaining their new public lands. In effect,

H.R. 701 encumbers state and local governments with an unfunded liability that

will never end. This should be a serious objection to anyone who values federalism.

Finally, I would like to touch on the effects H.R. 701 will have on people whose

land is targeted for acquisition. The fact that several provisions have been included

to try to protect landowners signifies that you, Mr. Chairman, are aware of the real

nature of land acquisition. For its advocates, the purpose of land acquisition has little to do with preserving the environment. Rather, it has everything to do with acquiring and using power over people and their resources. Land acquisition is used,

in conjunction with the whole panoply of environmental regulations, to stop economic activity and to destroy local communities, to deny recreational access and to

block transportation and utility corridors. It is also used as a weapon to threaten

and control private landowners.

Prohibiting condemnation for Federal purchases and requiring congressional approval for acquisitions over one million dollars will help to curb some of the worst

of these abuses, and so I commend you for including them in your bill. However,

the efficacy of either of these provisions should not be overestimated. Government

agencies have perfected techniques using environmental regulations to turn unwilling sellers into willing sellers. Moreover, this protection is given only to targets for

acquisition by Federal agencies. State and local governments should also be required to purchase land only from willing sellers. Requiring congressional authorization for acquisitions over one million dollars is fine as far as it goes for protecting

the rights of people who own property worth more than one million dollars. But I

cannot understand why one class of citizens should be given more protection than

another class of citizens. Indeed, it seems to me that small landowners are more

in need of congressional protection from rapacious and unscrupulous land agencies

than are big landowners. We would therefore suggest that congressional authorization be required for all acquisitions.

For all these reasons, I urge the Committee to abandon and defeat this unfortunate relic from the era of command-and-control environmentalism. Mr. Chairman,

this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions that you

or other members of the Committee may have.

STATEMENT OF MARK DAVIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COALITION TO RESTORE COASTAL

LOUISIANA

My name is Mark Davis and I am the executive director of the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana. On behalf of the Coalition, I would like to express our appreciation to the Committee and the Chairman for inviting us to come here today.

The Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana is a broad based not-for-profit organization comprised of local governments, businesses, environmental and conservation

groups, civic groups, recreational and commercial fishermen, and concerned individuals dedicated to the restoration and stewardship the lower Mississippi River delta

and Louisiana’s chenier plain.

We welcome this opportunity because the matters before the Committee today are

of vital concern to anyone interested in the future and stewardship of this nation’s

waters, coasts, wildlife, and public lands. They are certainly of vital concern to those

of us who live at the southern end of the Mississippi River for whom the ability to

be better stewards of our coastal resources is vital to the survival of those things

we hold most dear. Indeed for years, the Coalition has striven to raise awareness

342

of the need to protect and restore the vast but threatened system of wetlands and

barrier shorelines that define coastal Louisiana culturally, ecologically, and economically. For that reason we have followed with great hope and interest the proposals

now before this Committee and before the Senate to invest in the stewardship of

this nation’s natural treasures and to address the coast-side impacts of the production of OCS oil and gas.

In considering the bills that are the subject of this hearing, this Committee and

this Congress are undertaking the laudable task of determining how best to invest

in future of our invaluable natural heritage—our waters and coasts, our wildlife,

and our public lands. Both bills, even with their differences, represent an important

step forward in the stewardship of those resources and we commend their authors

and sponsors for taking up this challenge. There is much hard work ahead as the

bills are refined and reconciled as they must be if they are to deliver on the promise

of better stewardship. As that work proceeds, we believe it is essential that it be

guided by clear goals and policies so the end result is measured not primarily in

dollars devoted to issues and locales but to the achievement of positive conservation

and stewardship results.

While we strongly support the public lands and wildlife initiatives embraced by

both Chairman Young’s and Representative Miller’s bills, it is the issue of coastal

stewardship to which I will direct the bulk of my comments to today. Specifically,

I would like to address the issue of the need to ameliorate the damages to coastal

environments and communities as a result of their hosting the transportation, processing, and servicing facilities associated with OCS oil and gas activity. Apart from

a few dollars provided under the Section 8g program, little has been done recognize

those impacts, much less to address them. It is time to take them seriously and it

needs to be an integral part of any legitimate effort to refocus the use of Federal

OCS revenues.

Before wading too far into the issues of OCS revenues and coastal impact assistance it is important to note a couple of points. First, the impacts are very real. To

anyone who has visited coastal Louisiana—which, along with Texas, supports in a

logistical sense virtually all of the existing OCS activity in this country—those impacts on the natural resources, communities, and public infrastructure are undeniable. To anyone who hasn’t, they are largely unimaginable.

The second point to be made is that those impacts deserve real solutions, not

merely money and programs. The two great fears we hear from people who live in

affected areas are (a) that nothing will be done and (b) that the impacts will be used

to justify large infusions of cash that are not sufficiently directed toward effective

solutions and that, if fact, could further exacerbate the problem. Of course the fear

of many people who live in states that do not have OCS activity off their shores

is that the availability of impact assistance funds could serve as an incentive to

state and local governments to acquiesce to new OCS leasing and development. The

challenge facing those wrestling with the coastal impact issue is how to define and

address those impacts legitimately associated with oil and gas activity while not creating more problems elsewhere. We understand that will not be easy. You must understand that it must, nonetheless, be done.

Because if it is not, areas of vital natural, cultural, and economic importance are

not to be lost forever—areas like the great Mississippi River delta and its neighboring coastal plain. Areas of that have already lost more than 1 million acres of

coastal wetlands and barrier islands this century and that continue to disappear at

the rate of nearly 30 square miles each year. This is serious stuff and it demands

serious attention. Indeed, a failure to act may well be judged by not too distant generations as one of the greatest failures our time.

But knowing that one must act and knowing what to do are very different things.

Various efforts have been mounted before, based on everything from amorphous

fairness claims to fine spun legal arguments and none have worked. And the problems continue to get worse. If this history teaches anything it is that solutions to

this coastal crisis will continue to be elusive until the nature of the problem and

the nature of the solutions are better explained. Indeed, to approach it is any other

way would be irresponsible.

With that in mind, the balance of my testimony will lay out in brief terms the

range and scope of coastal impacts that the coast of Louisiana has incurred as a

function of its role in serving as a support base for the offshore oil and gas industry.

Obviously, that oil and gas activity does not occur in a vacuum. Other forces have

been at play in our coast as well and they will also be noted to provide context. Indeed, it is probably impossible to pigeon-hole causes and effects. Flood control, navigation and oil and gas activity have combined to so completely alter the face of

coastal Louisiana as to render it unsustainable without major corrective action.

343

I have chosen to focus on Louisiana for several reasons beyond the obvious one

of it being the place that I know best. First, the vast majority of OCS activity in

this country takes place off Louisiana’s coast and is supported by on shore facilities

and service providers. Second, as home to the mouth of the Mississippi River and

its associated coastal plain, Louisiana contains the largest expanse of coastal wetlands in the lower 48 states, comprising more than 25 percent of the nation’s coastal

wetlands and 40 percent of its salt marshes. In short, the area most impacted by

the OCS activity is also the most unique and productive wetland and estuarine system in North America. Any effort to address coastal impacts that does work for this

case is fatally flawed, as is any effort to earmark a portion of OCS revenues for environmental and conservation purposes that fails to address the impacts associated

with the generation of those revenues.

Nature and Coastal Louisiana

To understand what is happening in coastal Louisiana it is crucial to have some

understanding of its natural and geologic history. The geology, biology, and culture

of coastal Louisiana are defined by the Mississippi River and the deltas it has built

over the years. The eastern half of Louisiana’s coastal zone is a deltaic plain comprised of deltas created over thousands of years of seasonal flooding by the river.

The western half of the coastal zone, the chenier plain, was built in large part by

river borne sediments that were transported west by Gulf currents and deposited

along the coast. The result of this process is a vast area of coastal wetlands unmatched in size and productivity anywhere in this nation. To put this in perspective

consider the following:

• Coastal Louisiana contains over 25 percent of the nation’s coastal wetlands

and 40 percent of its salt marshes.

•Louisiana’s coastal wetlands support the largest fisheries in the lower fortyeight states.

• Its coastal wetlands are a vital nursery and feeding area for millions of birds

and waterfowl that traverse the Mississippi flyway.

Even under the best of conditions, land tends to be ephemeral stuff in Louisiana’s

coastal region. Through compaction and subsidence it, in essence, sinks. Only

through the natural process of freshwater influx and deposition of new sediment

from the Mississippi which would spread in a sheet-flow manner across the vast

swamps and marshes was it possible to offset the losses attributable to compaction

and subsidence. Coastal Louisiana is in fact not so much a place as it is a process,

a process in which land building must balance land loss just to maintain a ‘‘no net

loss’’ situation.

The Causes of Coastal Impacts on Coastal Louisiana

The fundamental problem facing the region today is the loss of that balance.

Human activities such as levee construction, and channelization have to a large extent shut down the land building part of the process. Millions of tons of land-building sediment are now dumped into the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico rather

than into the marsh where they could create or stabilize land.

At the same time the land-building process was effectively halted, human activities were also altering or stressing existing wetlands to the point that, during the

twentieth century, more than one million acres have been lost. Lost not primarily

to actual development but to open water. Thousands of miles of oil and gas canals

and navigation channels have carved up the coastal marshes, changing their hydrology and making them vulnerable to saltwater intrusion.

It is critical to highlight these impacts in order to counter two widely held misconceptions. First, that land loss in coastal Louisiana is primarily a natural phenomenon. It is not. The pace and scale of coastal collapse is entirely out of synch

with the natural cycles of even a geologically dynamic area such as the Mississippi

River delta. And second, that the human induced impacts were largely the doings

of local residents for their enrichment or benefit. They aren’t. The vast bulk of navigation, flood control and oil and gas activity in the region have been pursued as part

of national programs to facilitate interstate commerce, develop oil and gas resources,

and control Mississippi River flooding. To be sure, locals benefited to some extent,

but, without a doubt, the primary beneficiaries of all this activity lay outside of the

state of Louisiana.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the area of oil and gas activity. Oil and gas

exploration and production have been part of Louisiana’s history for more than a

century. It developed over the course of many years. It began in an era when wetlands were considered ‘‘worthless’’ and continues today in an era when many now

view them as priceless. It saw the very first successful OCS rig erected 10 miles

off its coast by Kerr-McGee in 1947. No one knew how to drill for oil in such depths

344

then, much less how to manage the impacts—not that such impacts were at that

time even really been much of a concern. And in the 25 years between the first production from that rig and the First Earth Day in 1970 (and the Santa Barbara spill

that preceded it) more than 8,800 wells were in place in the Federal OCS waters

off Louisiana’s coast. By last count, Louisiana had more than 30,000 oil and gas

wells in its coastal zone with another 20,000 in its offshore OCS area. The Federal

OCS of its shores area are more than 50 percent leased and its coastal area is crisscrossed by tens of thousands of miles of pipelines that serve coastal and OCS facilities (more than 20,000 miles of pipelines offshore alone). Pipelines that run through

its marshes, swamps and barrier islands. Pipelines that leave behind canals up to

70 feet wide and run for miles. Pipelines whose spoil banks serve as dams that disrupt the natural sheet-flow that is essential to the survival of the wetlands. Pipelines whose canals serve as conduits for salt water to penetrate deep into fresh

water habitats. Pipelines that, in the case of a 24 inch pipe, can spill 2.5 million

gallons of oil in an hour if ruptured.

In many other parts of the country, the effect of this scale of activity would be

significant but limited in time and space. That is not the case in the coastal regions

of Louisiana. Here they accumulate and magnify. That is why today, when the annual direct impacts of newly permitted projects measure often only in the hundreds

of acres, the overall landloss rate continues to exceed 25 square miles per year. That

is why the risk of major oil spills increases as the coast deteriorates thereby exposing literally thousands of older wells, pipelines, and production facilities that once

were protected by miles of buffering marsh and barrier islands to open bay and open

Gulf conditions. The impact genie is out of the bottle.

And it is critical to emphasize that even with the protection afforded by the Clean

Water Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act the impacts continue. Indeed, new

pipelines are being laid each day. Crewboats and immense platforms ply the

dredged bayous and canals to service and expand the OCS industry. Waterways that

were once fifty feet wide now span hundreds of feet from the wakes of these boats.

The Calcasieu Ship Channel long has been identified as one of the main causes of

the loss of nearly 80,000 acres of wetlands in southwestern Louisiana. And for the

residents of the coastal zone, the worst part is that they get little or nothing from

this OCS related activity. It produces relatively few jobs (and even fewer with

growth potential), it produces no direct revenue for the state or local governments

although it does require them to support the industry with roads, police and emergency services, and—when the inevitable down times come—to cope with the social

cost of unemployment and family stress.

It has also become dramatically clear, as demonstrated during the 1998 hurricane

season, that the future effects of these landscape and community pressures will be

worse than in the past unless action is taken soon. The combined effects of subsidence, sea level rise and coastal wetland loss will directly threaten population centers

such as New Orleans, transportation arteries, and the viability of the greatest estuarine fishery in the nation. Tropical Storm Francis, which did not even make landfall in Louisiana, left the main east-west highway in coastal Louisiana—a major

evacuation corridor—under water for more than a week. Gulf waters that once were

kept at bay by miles of marsh, lapped at the base of levees in towns such as Golden

Meadow and Leeville. Indeed, so much has changed in recent years that the children of the Isle de Jean Charles community now miss as much as two weeks of

school each year because the road to their town is too flooded to pass.

Conclusions and Solutions

In offering this testimony my purpose is not to sound a Cassandra warning, cast

blame, or merely stake a claim to a pot of money. Rather it is to make the simple

point that a coastal crisis is at hand as is the opportunity do something significant

about it. And both deserve very serious attention. This is especially true since, for

most Americans, the impacts to the Louisiana and Gulf coasts are abstractions if

they are aware of them at all. And one cannot prioritize that which one is not aware

of.

Because once one comes to terms with the extent of the unremedied impacts to

coastal regions that support our nation’s coastal and offshore petroleum activity, it

should become clear that delay is not an option and that without prompt action the

next generation of impacts will only be worse in terms of ecological, cultural, and

economic consequences.

It should also become clear that these impacts deserve a committed national response—not merely a Federal or state response. The impacts resulted from activities

that benefited the entire nation and that, by and large, reflected national priorities

and values.

345

And finally, it should be clear that responses to the problems should be aimed at

restoring sustainable function to our natural coastal ecosystems and addressing essential storm protection, drinking water, and transportation infrastructure that is

already compromised. Elevating an evacuation route that now floods and serves to

impede natural water flows is one thing, widening a road to allow new development

in flood prone areas is something else. In sum, any response that puts more people

in harms way, encourages more destructive impacts, or becomes essentially a general purpose block grant is not a solution. While we do not understand either of the

bills being heard today to intend such an interpretation, additional clarification may

be necessary. We would urge that the best way to ensure that any coastal impact

assistance is used in the way the drafters intend would be to expressly build upon

any existing watershed, coastal management plans, or restoration plans that may

already be in existence. Many hours and taxpayer dollars have been spent under

a multitude of authorities such as the Coastal Zone Management Act, the National

Estuary Program, the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act,

and others to produce strategies and plans for improving coastal resources and waters. The planning provisions of any new legislation should build on that history

rather than competing with them.

These suggestions are offered in the spirit of advancing this historic opportunity

to safeguard our posterity. We may never have such a good opportunity again. We

appreciate the efforts of the bills sponsors—we are particularly grateful to the members of Louisiana’s delegation—who have taken up this cause. The Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana pledges to be of whatever assistance we can be in this effort.

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to appear here today and share our thoughts

with the Committee.

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

STATEMENT OF PIETRO PARRAVANO, PRESIDENT, PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF

FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Congressman Miller. My name is Pietro

Parravano and I am a commercial fisherman from HalfMoonBay, California and

president of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA), representing working men and women in the west coast commercial fishing fleet.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today to talk about Resources

2000 and other legislation drafted to use offshore oil and gas receipts to protect marine resources and endangered species.

The lives of the fishing men and women my organization represents are impacted

every day by the health of our nation’s fisheries and, in particular, the many species

of salmon, a number of which have been listed or are now candidates for listing

under the Endangered Species Act. Salmon, as you know, has historically been the

single most important fishery for commercial, recreational and tribal purposes along

the Pacific Coast from Santa Barbara to Southeast Alaska. It has become readily

apparent to me and my membership that a source of permanent funding is needed

for the conservation and recovery of many salmon and marine fish stocks. For those

of us who are coastal family fishermen, there are no foreign fisheries for us to buy

quotas for, there are no fish for us to import; we depend directly on the fish stocks

off our shores.

My industry—America’s oldest industry—depends directly on the health of our nation’s fish stocks. Healthy fish populations and their habitats for us is not about

‘‘being green,’’ it’s about greenbacks in our wallets and our bank accounts. And it

is high time we begin looking at our fish resources as a financial investment. It is

time we begin putting money in, instead of just taking it out of, fisheries; it is time

we begin funding fish habitat restoration, instead of destroying it. That is why my

organization is vitally interested in the legislation being addressed here today and,

specifically, Resources 2000.

Resources 2000 has two titles that are of particular importance to the fishing industry. The first is the title that establishes a permanent trust fund for the conservation and restoration of living marine resources and fish habitat. Much of this

money will be allocated to the states to develop and implement conservation and

management programs for living marine resources and their habitats. This will be

especially important to states developing conservation and management plans for

the myriad of non-federally managed fisheries.

One example, is the Dungeness crab fishery, which last year, you Mr. Chairman

and you Congressman Miller co-authored successful legislation, supported by the

states of California, Oregon and Washington and the fishing industry, to extend

state jurisdiction over this fishery into Federal waters. This first title in Resources

2000 could augment state funding for the management of this fishery. And, in the

past two years, the State of California, for example, has embarked on an ambitious

program with the passage of state legislation (SB 346 and AB 1241) to develop a

research, conservation and management program for its fisheries beginning with

squid, nearshore rockfish, white sea bass, and emerging fisheries. This fund in Resources 2000 could assist states such as California that have begun working for sustainable fisheries.

We strongly support the way the funding for this program in Resources 2000 is

designed to get money out to the states and on the ground where it is needed. We

do not want this money to be used to fund existing Federal programs. Instead, we

think it should compliment existing programs. In California, for example, these

funds could compliment programs, such as CalFed—aimed at restoring the state’s

Bay-Delta ecosystem and fisheries (Central Valley fall-run chinook are now the

main population of salmon harvested offshore California, Oregon and Washington)

and providing the state a safe water supply, as well as the President’s proposed

$100 million program for coastal salmon stocks in Alaska, Washington, Oregon and

California. These funds would also compliment state funding programs, such as the

California Commercial Salmon Stamp program, which uses money from an industry

derived—and supported—fee to fund necessary salmon propagation and restoration

efforts. It is important to remember, too, that while salmon is finally beginning to

get the funding it needs, many other fisheries also need attention.

Mr. Chairman we appreciate the fact that some of the money allocated to the

states in your bill could also be used for the purposes I have mentioned above, but

we are concerned that there is no guarantee that the money would be targeted directly to salmon and other marine fisheries and their habitats. We feel that this

could once again force fisheries to compete with numerous other state programs and

get the short end of the stick as they have for so many years. Therefore, we believe

that it is imperative that the marine resources fund found in Resources 2000, that

421

allocates $300 million for marine species and their habitat be part of any legislation

that is supported by this Committee. Only then, can we guarantee these resources

will get the funding they so desperately need and deserve.

The second title of Resources 2000, also of great importance to us, is the one

which establishes the endangered and threatened species recovery fund. Listing species under the Endangered Species Act by itself does not guarantee species protection or recovery. Species protection and recovery, as we have seen on the west coast

with a number of salmon and other anadromous fish listings, requires political will

on the part of the agencies to enforce the law and funding to implement protection

and recovery programs. As you know, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Miller, listed species

are not just snail darters and spotted owls. In the west, species such as coho salmon, that once supported major economic activities, are now listed in California and

Oregon. It is not enough that we merely stabilize the populations or get them to

some threshold above listing qualification, but that we fully recover these fish so

they may once again support commercial and recreational fisheries, fish processing,

tourism and coastal communities. But to do this will take political will and money.

Let me also point out that the funding in Resources 2000 for threatened and endangered species is not just important to the fishing industry. Many private landowners, water districts, farmers and others are seeing the use of their land or resources restricted in order to provide some measure of protection for listed species.

The problem is not the Endangered Species Act, but our failure to fund recovery

of listed species. The quicker we develop and fund recovery, the sooner we can lift

restrictions on other interests. Moreover, this fund will be invaluable for assisting

landowners and water districts in making changes or taking actions, such as installing effective fish screens or fencing riparian areas, to help protect and recover listed

fish.

We appreciate the fact, Mr. Chairman, that your bill includes a provision that addresses endangered species, however our preference is for the current language in

Resources 2000 for a number of reasons. First, it provides an identified source and

dedicated amount ($100 million) of money that will be spent annually to contribute

to the recovery of endangered species. The current language in the proposed Conservation & Reinvestment Act, does not do this.

Second, Resources 2000 uses this money specifically for recovery of species, a

focus that has been missing all too long from existing ESA programs. If we do not

recover salmon on the west coast, they will never be removed from the Endangered

Species list and our industry itself will never recover.

Third, Resources 2000 will only provide grants for recovery activities that are beyond the requirements of the law. The provision in your bill, Mr. Chairman, could

potentially pay landowners to merely comply with the law. We do not think this is

fair. As fishermen, we do not get paid when we are told we cannot harvest endangered salmon and we do not think others should be paid to merely comply with the

law. Resources 2000 provides incentives to those who want to go beyond the law to

recover our threatened and endangered species. We think this is the right approach.

I want to express the gratitude of the working fishing men and women I represent

to you Mr. Chairman and you Congressman Miller for your vision in introducing

your two bills. Utilizing receipts from non-renewable resource extraction from the

marine environment to reinvest in renewable marine and fish resources, is we believe, good public policy. Fishing is America’s oldest industry. It is a wonderful calling. The members of my organization take pleasure in deriving our livelihoods on

the beauty and bounty of the ocean; we take pride in providing the public wonderful

and wild sources of healthy food. But our fish stocks and their habitats need investment desperately to be conserved and rebuilt. Members of my organization have dug

deep in their own pockets to pay for fishery programs, but we cannot do it all by

ourselves; we cannot pay for damage done by others. That is why we need a permanent source of public funding to invest in and recover our public fishery resources.

Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions Committee members of staff

may have.

Æ