U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–188 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–712

AMERICANS OUTDOORS ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

S. 2590

TO PROVIDE A CONSERVATION ROYALTY FROM OUTER CONTINENTAL 

SHELF REVENUES TO ESTABLISH THE COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE 

PROGRAM, PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO STATES UNDER THE LAND AND 

WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT OF 1965, TO ENSURE ADEQUATE 

FUNDING FOR CONSERVING AND RESTORING WILDLIFE, TO ASSIST 

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN IMPROVING LOCAL PARK AND RECREATION 

SYSTEMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

JULY 20, 2004

(

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman 

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BOB GRAHAM, Florida 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

ALEX FLINT, Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Chief Counsel 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

KELLIE DONNELLY, Counsel 

DAVID BROOKS, Democratic Senior Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from Tennessee ........................................ 2

Angelle, Scott A., Secretary, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, 

Baton Rouge, LA .................................................................................................. 29

Baughman, John, Executive Vice President, International Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies .......................................................................................... 41

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico .......................................... 2

Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana ................................................ 7

Clifton, Daniel M., Federal Affairs Manager, Americans for Tax Reform, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 57

Diamond, Henry L., Chair, Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation .......... 45

Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico ..................................... 1

Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota .......................................... 10

Jordan, Charles, Chairman, the Conservative Fund, Portland, OR .................... 35

Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., U.S. Senator from Louisiana ........................................ 5

Marzulla, Nancie G., President, Defenders of Property Rights ........................... 50

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska ................................................ 12

Nickles, Hon. Don, U.S. Senator from Oklahoma ................................................. 8

Scarlett, P. Lynn, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, 

Department of the Interior .................................................................................. 13

Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming ............................................... 7

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 71

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 89

(1)

AMERICANS OUTDOORS ACT 

TUESDAY, JULY 20, 2004

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici, 

chairman, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. This hearing of the Energy and 

Natural Resources Committee on S. 2590, the Americans Outdoors 

Act, will come to order. 

This legislation that is before us today dedicates for fiscal years 

2005 through 2010 approximately $1.425 billion per year of the 

revenue gained from oil and gas development from Federal waters 

of the Outer Continental Shelf in order to directly fund the coastal 

impact assistance programs, the State Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the programs under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 

Restoration Act and the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act. 

Although the Federal Land and Water Conservation program is not 

addressed in S. 2590, as introduced, the bill’s sponsors have stated 

their intent to offer an amendment to fully fund the program, as 

well as an additional $450 million. 

This committee considered legislation similar to this in the 106th 

Congress. There was a wide variety of views on both the policy and 

the budget implications. The makeup of our committee, as well as 

the provisions of the bill that we examine today, is different than 

in the 106th. 

So I look forward to today’s discussion. 

Testifying today—I am just going to state them and then yield 

to Senators—first is Lynn Scarlett, Assistant Secretary for Policy, 

Management and Budget; Scott A. Angelle, secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources; Charles Jordan, chairman 

of the Conservation Fund; John Baughman, executive vice president of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; 

Henry Diamond, chairman of the Americans for Our Heritage and 

Recreation; Nancie Marzulla, president of Defenders of Property; 

and Daniel Clifton, Federal affairs manager for Americans for Tax 

Reform. 

Once again, I welcome all the witnesses here today and I am 

very thankful that a number of Senators have arrived. This is a 

very important bill. 

2

With that, I will yield to Senator Bingaman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator BINGAMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having the 

hearing. 

This bill, S. 2590, would take a portion of the oil and gas revenues generated from the Outer Continental Shelf and dedicate 

those to various conservation programs. 

This is not a new issue for the committee. As you indicated, 5 

years ago we had several hearings on what was then entitled the 

CARA act, or the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, and created 

quite a legislative record in connection with consideration of that. 

A central position, which I urged at that time and think is still 

valid, is that we need to remain true to the intent behind the establishment of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The idea 

behind that was that at least some portion of the revenues from 

the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production, which was a 

non-renewable resource, should be used to protect other resources 

throughout the country. I thought that was a very useful concept 

and one that was worthy of maintaining. 

I commend Senator Alexander and Senator Landrieu for continuing to pursue this issue with this new legislation. 

I do strongly believe that we should include full funding for both 

the Federal and State components of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. If we enact legislation along these lines, as I understand it, the bill as introduced only funds the State portion of 

the fund. I am pleased that Senator Alexander and Senator 

Landrieu have both committed to addressing this at some point in 

the future. 

I do think it is very important legislation, and again, thanks for 

having the hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Bingaman. 

Now I ask your advice. A number of Senators want to make 

statements. Normally we stop after the chairman and ranking 

member and wait until we start questioning, but I think I will 

change that back to the old way and let every Senator make a 

statement now. So with that, let us go now to Senator Alexander. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, U.S. SENATOR

FROM TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

courtesy of that. 

Recognizing that there are several Senators here, I will try to be 

succinct in my remarks, but what I would like to do is to have a 

chance to make my point because I believe that what Senator 

Landrieu and I are suggesting here is a little different than some 

of what the committee has heard before, and I want to make sure 

that that distinction is made. We will have other opportunities to 

make those points before the witnesses, so I will make them very 

quickly. 

As the chairman said, the Americans Outdoors Act would provide 

a reliable stream of funding by creating a conservation royalty from 

drilling of oil and gas on offshore Federal lands. 

3

Now, Sharon, would you please put up the States and what they 

now get from onshore? 

[Chart.] 

Senator ALEXANDER. It is the idea of the conservation royalty 

that I hope the Senators will focus on. There are really two issues 

that created difficulty with the prior legislation. One was the budget issue, and we have the chairman of the Budget Committee here, 

and the other was private property rights. Senator Landrieu and 

I have tried very carefully to listen to our colleagues on those two 

issues and see if we could at least go a long way toward meeting 

those problems. 

Now, first on the budget. What we propose doing offshore is what 

we are already doing onshore. Today under the Federal Lands 

Leasing Act, which was passed in 1920, we take 50 percent of the 

money that we get from onshore oil and gas drilling and that does 

not go to the Federal Treasury for appropriation. That is a royalty. 

You pay a royalty to the landowner when you drill. You pay a royalty to other people with ownership rights. In this case, a royalty 

is paid to Wyoming, to New Mexico, to Colorado, to Utah, to Montana, to Oklahoma, and that money does not come up here. That 

money stays there, and that is why it is outside the appropriations 

process. 

We also do that, if I am not mistaken, with moneys from DingellJohnson and Pittman-Robertson, two provisions that take money 

we raise basically from sportsmen and gas taxes and we allocate 

them directly to help create other opportunities for sportsmen. 

Those are also outside the budget process. 

Now, I am well aware that since those laws have passed, we now 

have a budget law. While I have tried to think of ways to avoid it, 

I have not been able to think of one. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ALEXANDER. So the budget law will need to be taken into 

account if we take 25 percent approximately, as we propose, of the 

money from offshore oil and gas drilling and treat it as a State royalty in the same way we now treat 50 percent that we take from 

onshore drilling. I am aware of that issue, but I think philosophically it is the very same thing and it is appropriate to treat it differently as a State royalty. That is the first issue. 

And the second issue is the concern for private property rights. 

Sharon, if you could please put up the map of the country that 

shows where Federal land is. 

[Chart.] 

Senator ALEXANDER. We will hear testimony today about whether the Government should own any more land. That is a map that 

shows where the Federal Government owns lands today. As an 

easterner, I am over there in the white area where most of the people live. I am very much aware that out West, except for California 

where most of the people do not live, the Government owns an incredible amount of land. I have always been aware that a single 

policy that might apply to the West might not necessarily apply to 

the East. 

The fact is that in the Eastern part of the United States, there 

are plenty of places where we still think we need some help. Yesterday I helped release some eaglets down near Dandridge and 

4

Douglas Lake in east Tennessee. Our proposal would provide a 

steady stream of royalty funding to create more wildlife conservation places for eagles to go. 

As I have looked through the earmarked appropriations over the 

last few years, I have found there have been, even in the West, a 

number of desirable places where State governments and Federal 

land under the Land and Water Conservation Fund have used 

money in the Snake River and a whole variety of western States, 

which are already heavily owned by the Federal Government. 

There are still some appropriate places where things need to be 

done. 

Two weeks ago, I took a bicycle ride on the Hiawatha Trail between Montana and Idaho, which most of the Senators on this committee take credit for creating. It is a rails and trails. It is a beautiful thing. It takes it from private property, railroad, to public 

land, using dedicated funds. It is the old track from Chicago to Tacoma, Washington with high trestles and long tunnels. 

So those are the two issues. What Senator Landrieu and I are 

proposing is that we take about 25 percent of the revenues that we 

get from offshore drilling and devote it to a conservation royalty to 

fully fund the State side of the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund. The game and fish commissions of our country fully fund 

that, fully fund the city parks provision that is already in the Federal law, and create a new section that takes care of wetlands and 

other coastal mitigation issues. 

We have deliberately left out of our legislation the provision for 

the Federal side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund because 

we have not been able to reach a consensus among members of the 

committee and other Senators on how to deal with that, and we are 

hopeful that today what we hear is some good suggestions about 

how to fashion that in a way that will not just get it out of committee but will past the U.S. Senate. 

The CHAIRMAN. How much money is that? 

Senator ALEXANDER. The Federal side is $450 million a year. 

That is what is authorized in law today. So if you added the $450 

million a year, Senator Domenici, to the proposals we have, it 

would be $1.45 billion plus $450 million, $1.9 billion a year. 

Now, to conclude, if I could show the chart of how much money 

now is available from offshore oil drilling, about the amount I believe that we get from Saudi Arabia every year, it is about $6 billion this year. 

[Chart.] 

Senator ALEXANDER. The Department of the Interior’s estimates 

are it will be about that for the foreseeable future. If you take the 

amount of money that is now appropriated for these same kinds of 

programs for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, it is $4 million to $5 million a year. If you added what we are doing, that 

would take it up to $1.45 billion or $1.9 billion. So that is between 

25 and 33 percent of the anticipated offshore revenues would go 

into this royalty. 

Mr. Chairman, you have been generous with your time. I believe 

I have made my major points. I would simply say I believe there 

is a huge conservation majority in this country. I believe that there 

are legitimate budget issues and there are legitimate issues in 

5

western States where the Federal Government owns a lot of land. 

What we hope to do is fashion legislation that will look ahead for 

a generation and help us find a steady stream of money to fund our 

game and fish commissions, our city parks, and the State, and once 

we get more of a consensus, the Federal side of the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund, as well as provide some funding for 

mitigation in those States that now produce the oil and gas offshore. 

Those are the organizations to date that support what we are 

doing, and I hope we can reach a consensus on the committee. 

Thank you very much for scheduling the hearing and thank you 

for being generous with the amount of time you have given me. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator. My generosity on 

time stopped when you stopped. We will have 5 minutes per Senator from now on. 

Senator Landrieu. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARY L. LANDRIEU, U.S. SENATOR

FROM LOUISIANA 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, I am just happy he made all the right 

points. So I will just try to fill in. 

First of all, Mr. Chairman, thank you for agreeing to hold this 

hearing and for your support of this general concept and your willingness to help us work through some of the challenges that still 

remain. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his great leadership and partnership. 

I want to, before I begin, thank the folks from Louisiana that are 

here. Not only do we have our Secretary of Natural Resources that 

will testify in a minute, Mr. Scott Angelle, who has been a tremendous and effective advocate as he stepped into this position just a 

year ago with our new Governor’s help and support, but also we 

have 2 of our 19 parish presidents, one from Lafourche Parish and 

one from Saint Bernard Parish. Both of these parishes have been 

directly and dramatically, drastically impacted by the loss of land, 

thousands and thousands of miles of wetlands, which both Senator 

Bingaman and Senator Domenici have actually seen as they have 

flown over those parishes. So we thank them. 

As Senator Alexander said, colleagues, there are really two 

charts that tell the whole story, and I would particularly like the 

Senator from Oklahoma to look at this chart of the status of OCS 

leasing. 

[Chart.] 

Senator LANDRIEU. It is fairly dramatic. Not only are the numbers dramatic. It has been $140 billion since 1955, $140 billion that 

the Outer Continental Shelf of this country has produced for the 

Federal Treasury. It has produced more money from this portion of 

Federal land than any portion of land in the entire United States 

of America by far. As Senator Alexander pointed out, it provides 

more energy and more resources to this Nation than any country 

in the world, including Saudi Arabia, in terms of energy production. 

The Senator from Oklahoma will notice the red dots. That is the 

only part of the country where offshore oil and gas drilling is curVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:01 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\97188.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
6

rently allowed. So not only is it the only part, but it is the only 

part because all the other parts are prohibited and off limits. So 

this platform of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama basically produce off of our shores, with Alaska coming on line just 

slightly but open as the technology improves, for us to provide this 

amount of money for the Federal Treasury. Yet, year after year, 

these States or these programs that we are talking about receive 

basically no royalty whatsoever. 

Last year, Conrad, the State of Louisiana off of our shore alone 

produced for the Federal Treasury close to $6 billion and got less 

than 1 percent of the money, after serving as a platform for this 

offshore oil and gas drilling. 

We think it is a simple but profound idea to take what is a depleting resource, which will be gone one day and reinvest it in 

coastal programs, in wildlife programs, and in State and Federal 

land if we can come to some meeting of the minds about the Federal land. 

So I think this chart shows it all. There is only one place in 

America that is drilling offshore. There is only one place that is 

contributing this amount of money, and it is time that some of 

those revenues be redirected, as they are into the interior States. 

The other chart I would like Sharon to put back up, if she would, 

which is the chart that Senator Alexander showed, because I want 

to make one point before closing, Mr. Chairman—and you have 

been generous—about the private property issue. And it is this 

chart. 

[Chart.] 

Senator LANDRIEU. Clearly, in the West, there are acres and 

acres, thousands of acres that are owned and under the control of 

the Federal Government and State governments, but clearly, Senators, in the East there are still some great needs, through the 

Great Smoky Mountains, through Illinois, through New York. In 

our State, only 2.5 percent of the land is under Federal ownership. 

Clearly there is a need. And I could provide other evidence to suggest, not the least of which is the list of the billions of dollars of 

land that comes to us requesting from willing sellers and from Governors and from mayors all over the Eastern part of this country 

asking, please, help us with getting Federal property. 

And the final point is this. This effort is not to take land out of 

private property and diminish it or not care for it. This is to balance the needs of private property owners which we believe built 

this country. No one is arguing that. We want to support that concept. But we want to provide a steady, reliable stream of revenue 

to all States, particularly those eastern States, which will create 

and enhance, not diminish economic prosperity for this Nation. 

So we think this is a balanced bill. We look forward to working 

with the colleagues of this committee who have shown themselves 

to be far-sighted Senators in many ways and look forward to working with you particularly, Mr. Chairman, as we fashion a bill that 

is good for everyone. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

I was wondering, Senator, since you mentioned all of the money 

we have that comes from that one little offshore drilling area, if we 

7

might not consider a trade. You get us another area for offshore 

drilling and we will give you that money for this. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Mr. Chairman, I am a good Senator, but I am 

not sure I am that good. So we will just stick with our bill and 

move forward. But I hear what you are saying. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Burns. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS, U.S. SENATOR

FROM MONTANA 

Senator BURNS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Thanks for 

the hearing. 

I want to just make a point. If you all do not have enough Federal lands back East, if you want to figure on a little trade, we 

might wrangle that for you because there is some land out there 

we would like to turn into private lands, and if you want it back 

there, we will just make you a little trade and solve that problem. 

Of course, I think the same arguments that were made for and 

opposed to CARA still apply in this piece of legislation. When we 

take a look, it does open a flood gate of $1.4 billion from the Secretary of the Treasury for programs, while ignoring the investment 

that is needed in other areas, other programs, and policy initiatives. So the notion that a select group of Interior bill programs 

should be allocated significantly increase fixed funding on multiyear bases assumes that these programs are currently effective 

without any oversight. 

I think that is where we have a real problem because basically 

what we are setting up here is another entitlement, an entitlement 

that is written into law that prevents any oversight if it is abused 

or not being used in the way that maybe the law should allow. 

We do have needs for that money. We need it in Indian health. 

We need it in Indian schools. All of these appropriated accounts out 

of appropriations that sometimes we have to be versatile enough to 

take some money away from some programs and put it into others 

to address a specific crisis or situation. This legislation does not 

allow us to do that with those funds that come into the Treasury 

and usually allocated under the appropriated method and budget. 

I congratulate Senators Alexander and Landrieu because this 

does need to be addressed, but are we doing it the right way. That 

is where we sort of run afoul. So I look forward working with both 

Senators to pass the legislation that we think is probably good policy and good for our country. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

I am going on the order of arrival. As I have it up here, Senator 

Thomas arrived next. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR

FROM WYOMING 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

This, of course, uses the OCS revenues to fund programs in the 

Land and Water Conservation Act. I expect that you will have additional amendments which would fund the Federal Land and 

Water Conservation program, very much like the CARA decision 

we went through before. 

8

I am concerned about this idea of turning it into mandatory 

spending. I am concerned about the aspect of having additional 

lands. This is one that has an impact on property rights. Our State 

of Wyoming is half owned now by the Federal Government. I have 

had for a long time the notion that we ought not to have any additional. We ought not to have a net increase of Federal lands. If we 

are going to take some in, we ought to reduce it in some other 

places. 

I certainly think there are opportunities for inholdings of Federal 

lands. I just returned from spending some time at Glacier Park, 

and of course, I work on the parks all the time. It is, I think, pretty 

clear that we have a lot of backlogs to fund before we acquire more 

properties. So I think we have to take a long look at this bill and 

make sure that we are fiscally responsible, that we are responsible 

in terms of the total needs and what really ought to be done by the 

Federal Government, as opposed to some other governments. Everything you want to do is not the responsibility of the Federal 

Government, and we have expanded ourselves beyond where we 

want to go in a lot ways, and I think we need to be careful that 

we do not do it in this one as well. 

So I hope we focus on the fiscal responsibility, as well as the 

total land responsibility of private land, and I think we have to do 

a lot of work on this before it is acceptable to most of us. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

My recording here has Senator Nickles, Senator Johnson, and 

then Senator Murkowski. 

Senator Nickles. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DON NICKLES, U.S. SENATOR

FROM OKLAHOMA 

Senator NICKLES. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am 

pleased to join this hearing today, and I want to compliment Senators Alexander and Landrieu for their persistence, also compliment them on changing the title of the bill. I happen to like the 

Americans Outdoors Act a lot better than CARA. I opposed CARA. 

Maybe I should support this because it has a great title, but I will 

not. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator NICKLES. I saw the list of people who are sponsoring 

this, and I can see a lot of people saying, hey, we can get a chunk 

of this money. We want this because this is going to help us build 

parks or do projects that, frankly, they are not getting money for 

now. So sign me up. And I can see lots of organizations joining, just 

as they supported CARA. 

But I think it is fatally flawed legislation. I think it would be a 

mistake for Congress to pass it for a couple of reasons. 

I asked former Chairman Byrd on the appropriations process, 

what percentage of the budget today is discretionary, i.e., controlled 

by the appropriators that we actually really do control, and what 

part of it is mandatory. Since 1990 entitlement spending has increased from 45 percent to 54 percent. Entitlement spending has 

really been on an increase. I used to be chairman—and I think 

Senator Burns is chairman. Are you still chairman of Interior Appropriations now? 

9

Senator BURNS. Yes. 

Senator NICKLES. Interior Appropriations is a great committee. It 

has charge of most of those lands that are Federal lands. Frankly, 

we do not do a very good job. We do not do a good enough job in 

controlling our parks. This is saying that these projects that are 

funded here have a higher priority than Yellowstone or any of our 

national parks, some of which are not maintained as well as they 

should be maintained. But we are going to say that these items 

should have entitlement status. 

Just to give you an example, the Urban Park Recreation Pro- gram would be declared mandatory funding. It would receive $125 

million a year. That is more than it has received since 1985, but 

we are going to give them that much money every year and we are 

going to place that as a higher priority than taking care of our existing parks or existing wildlife refuges? We have one wildlife refuge in Oklahoma. We say it has more visitors than any other wildlife refuge in the country. But we are going to say, no, no, we are 

going to have new parks or new addition that have a higher priority than taking care of adequate maintenance and so on for existing facilities. 

The State Land and Water Conservation Fund would receive a 

guaranteed $450 million a year, which is $350 million more than 

it received in 2004. I hate to tell anybody this, but we have about 

a $400 billion deficit. So if you take a program that received, what, 

$100 million or something last year and now we are going to make 

it $450 million and we are making it an entitlement, that is not 

very good. That is just not very responsible. 

Somebody might say, well, wait a minute, we want to fully fund 

it because it is authorized. I will tell you if you fully funded everything that is authorized in the Federal Government, you would 

have a deficit that would be many multiples of what it is today. 

Thank goodness we do not fully fund everything that is authorized. 

We could not come close to affording it, whether you are talking 

about education, whether you are talking about other programs. It 

will not add up. 

And then there is the idea of, well, okay, we also want to do the 

Federal portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, so 

there will be additional land acquisition when we are not, frankly, 

maintaining the existing lands that we have control over today in 

a way that we should be proud of. 

So I just mention these concerns. I do not know how you can take 

some of these programs and turn them into an entitlement, make 

them a higher priority than existing programs. Those existing programs may be Park Service, they may be Fish and Wildlife Service, 

you name it. Those are all funded through the appropriations process, and I do not know that we should be saying these individual 

programs should be funded from an entitlement status, a higher 

status, you might say, than others, plus the fact they would add 

about $2 billion a year to the national deficit. So I have serious reservations about this. 

I appreciate the concerns that were addressed. Senator Landrieu 

I think has some points, although I want to be educated or make 

sure I am correct, but I think coastal States have 100 percent of 

the royalty within 3 miles. 

10

Senator LANDRIEU. Yes, that is correct. 

Senator NICKLES. I believe that is correct, and I believe they 

have 27 percent of the royalties the next 3 miles. Correct me if I 

am wrong, our experts in Interior. It is legitimate. Should that be 

extended? I think that is a legitimate debate. Should the States 

that are bearing the ‘‘environmental risk’’ have a larger boundary 

for that 3 miles? I think that is a legitimate debate and maybe we 

should consider that. But I am concerned about taking this ‘‘pool’’ 

of money for a few projects that are listed and turning those into 

an entitlement status. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Johnson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR

FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing. I will submit a full statement, and I will be brief with a 

few observations here. 

I have to say that as a member of both the Budget Committee 

and the Appropriations Committee, and as a Western State Senator, I am very supportive of the extraordinary work that Senator 

Landrieu and Senator Alexander have done and the leadership that 

they have provided. I am grateful for what they have been doing 

to put this legislation together. 

I also have to smile a bit at some people who are always willing 

to extend massive tax cuts for America’s wealthiest families, but 

when it comes time to provide resources for ordinary middle class 

to hunt, to fish, to enjoy the outdoors, then they become great fiscal 

conservatives. This is a legitimate philosophical debate about the 

role of government and what our priorities are. I understand that, 

but I do not think there is one side of this issue that is on the side 

of the fiscal prudence and one side that is not. It is a question of 

priority about where those next dollars should go. 

In South Dakota, a Western State, we have an enormous demand 

for public and open areas for recreation that is outstripping the 

available capacity. 

The Federal Government’s efforts to enhance and protect wildlife 

habitat rests I believe on a three-legged stool. One is management 

and restoration of habitat for game species through the longstanding Pittman-Robertson Act. Second is dedicated Federal funding for sports fish restoration through the Sports Fish Restoration 

Act. And what is missing is the third leg of the stool, a dedicated 

funding source for State-based efforts to enhance non-game species. 

Title IV of the Americans Outdoors Act establishes a dedicated 

funding source that States and tribes can leverage for the conservation and enhancement of both game and non-game species that are 

threatened with Federal protection. A permanent, stable funding 

source is extremely important to the efforts of States to better 

manage valuable resources to avoid the need for costly and burdensome Federal remedies. Cooperative and voluntary conservation 

agreements require long-term funding commitments, and title IV 

ensures that State and local partners will finally have all the tools 

11

necessary to enhance the sustainability of many of our most threatened species. 

I also believe that the rationale for preventing species from becoming endangered is practical, economical, and rooted in the common sense belief that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of 

cure. The wildlife conservation provisions in this bill provide funds 

for a diverse array of fish and wildlife species with an emphasis on 

preventing species from becoming listed through the Endangered 

Species Act. Ensuring that fish and wildlife do not become endangered will go a long way to helping private property owners who 

otherwise will face severe limitations on the management of their 

own lands due to endangered species. 

We in South Dakota right now are struggling with a management plan for the black-tailed prairie dog with a goal of creating 

the State solution instead of relying on the far more restrictive 

Federal remedies that would otherwise occur if in fact this species 

were listed as endangered. So a program like this is going to give 

State and local governments a greater level of resources which will 

permit them to keep species that are on the cusp of becoming endangered off the list and thereby not only preserving that species 

but also making certain that private landowners are not faced with 

severe Federal rules because of whether it be the black-tailed prairie dog or other species that otherwise may well become endangered. 

Senator NICKLES. The black-tailed prairie dog? 

Senator JOHNSON. We have millions of them. A lot of South Dakotans would raise an eyebrow at the thought that these critters 

are endangered, but the fact is that they are on the list of next to 

be listed if we do not do something. And our State is in the process 

in a multi-State plan right now to create sufficient habitat that we 

can assure our friends that indeed this species is not endangered, 

but we need some additional resources to make sure that that happens. Otherwise, we face very severe restrictions if in fact that animal were listed. 

Senator NICKLES. I have been worried about it. Thank you. 

Senator JOHNSON. An animal that hunters come to shoot from 

miles around and that ranchers curse daily—I appreciate that 

there are many who wonder about the endangered nature of that 

species, but the fact is if you look at the collapse of the nationwide 

population compared to what it was 100 years ago, the Endangered 

Species Act could, in fact, become operative in all of our States, and 

certainly in South Dakota if we do not have a proactive plan to prevent that from happening. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR

FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

Thank you Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman for convening today’s hearing on the Americans Outdoors Act. As a member of the committee who 

worked hard in previous years to enact similar legislation, and who was disappointed when we came up a little bit short in 2000, I am pleased that my colleagues from Louisiana and Tennessee have reintroduced this landmark conservation and recreation funding bill. 

The public continues to demand clean and abundant areas to recreate, hunt, fish, 

or simply enjoy the outdoors. Approximately 40 million Americans hunt and fish, 

12

generating $70 billion in annual expenditures for their sport. In South Dakota, the 

demand for public and open areas to recreate outstrips the available capacity; diminishing the experience for long-time sportsman, as well as the next generation 

of South Dakotans who derive such enjoyment from our open spaces. In a time of 

such great uncertainty abroad, Americans are looking to spend their vacations closer to home and states, counties, and cities are racing ahead to plan and develop 

local park and recreation facilities. 

The Americans Outdoors Act also fulfills a decades-long effort to bridge the gap 

in fully-funding wildlife conservation programs, and it is this section of the bill that 

I am particularly interested in finally accomplishing. 

The federal government’s efforts to enhance and protect wildlife habitat rest on 

a three-legged stool: management and restoration of habitat for game species 

through the long-standing Pittman-Robertson Act and dedicated federal funding for 

sportsfish restoration through the Sportsfish Restoration Act have proved highly 

successful at restoring declining species and their habitats. These long-standing and 

highly successful efforts paid for in part by anglers and hunters have created a solid 

model for the restoration of key fish and wildlife species. What is missing is the 

third leg of this stool: a dedicated funding source for state-based efforts to enhance 

non-game species.

Title IV of the Americans Outdoors Act, establishes a dedicated funding source 

that states and tribes can leverage for the conservation and enhancement of both 

game and non-game species threatened with federal protection. A permanent stable 

funding source is extremely important to the efforts of the states to better manage 

valuable resources and to avoid the need for costly and burdensome federal remedies. Cooperative and voluntary conservation agreements require long-term funding commitments and title IV ensures that state and local partners will finally have 

all the tools necessary to enhance the sustainability of many of the most threatened 

species. 

I also believe that the rational for preventing species from becoming endangered 

is practical, economical, and rooted in the common sense belief that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The wildlife conservation provisions in this bill 

provide funds for a diverse array of fish and wildlife species, with an emphasis on 

preventing species from becoming listed through the Endangered Species Act. Ensuring that fish and wildlife do not become endangered will go a long way to help 

private property owners. For example, in South Dakota the state is working with 

several counties, as well as landowners and producers to develop a management 

plan for the black-tailed prairie dog with the goal of creating a state solution instead 

of relying on more restrictive federal remedies. Preventing fish and wildlife now 

from becoming endangered later is an investment that will save landowners valuable time and money that would occur after a species has been depleted. 

The Americans Outdoors Act is an important investment in our states, cities, and 

local communities. Although we have few legislative days remaining in this Congress it is my hope that the committee will move forward on this bill in the same 

collaborative and bipartisan manner that greeted our previous efforts. Thank you 

and I look forward to hearing from our panel of witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Murkowski. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR

FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

effort that you, Senator Landrieu and Senator Alexander, have 

made on this issue. I need to echo some of the concerns that have 

been expressed here this morning, the financial implications, as 

well as the impact on land ownership. In Alaska, about two-thirds 

of our State is owned by the Federal Government. We quite honestly do not think that they need to have any more of that, and 

we would like to change that equation a little bit. So, Senator 

Burns, I concur with you that we might be interested in figuring 

out a way that we can swap some of this around. 

But I am eager to learn more about the proposal that we have 

before us, how it can benefit us in Alaska, how it can benefit us 

across the country. We have 6,000 miles of coastline in Alaska. 

13

6,000 miles is a lot of coast. Right now we are not doing much in 

the offshore production area, as you have noted, Senator Landrieu. 

That red dot is not yet visible in Alaska, but we anticipate that 

that is going to change over the next period of years. 

But again, I look forward to hearing the testimony this morning 

and to work with the two of you and the chairman on this issue. 

I think that there have been some comments raised this morning 

that whereas we might not agree on exactly what we have before 

us, there is certainly a need to be discussing the issues that are 

presented here today and this is a good format for it. So I appreciate you, Mr. Chairman, scheduling the hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

With that, Senators, we are going to proceed to the witnesses. 

Our first witness is Lynn Scarlett, Assistant Secretary for Policy, 

Management and Budget, U.S. Department of the Interior. We welcome you and we are sorry you had to sit there so long, but that 

is the way it is. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF P. LYNN SCARLETT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

FOR POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF 

THE INTERIOR 

Ms. SCARLETT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 

thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the Americans Outdoors Act of 2004. The act, as the Senators have noted, presents 

an ambitious vision. It proposes a permanent stream of funding 

using Federal offshore oil and gas revenues for grants and assistance to States, tribes, and local communities for recreation, habitat 

restoration, and other related purposes. 

The administration strongly supports the goals of these activities, but we cannot support moving funding for these programs off 

the discretionary spending ledger and converting funding into nondiscretionary, automatic spending. 

The legislation highlights many goals the administration has 

pursued through a variety of cooperative conservation grants. One 

of the criticisms of previous legislation on related topics was the 

focus on Federal land acquisition and its implications for private 

land ownership. Our cooperative conservation approach offers an 

alternative to land acquisition as the central way to achieve conservation. 

To implement our cooperative conservation vision, working with Congress, Interior has provided since 2002 over $1.3 billion in 

grants to States, tribes, local governments, and private landowners. 

Through these partnerships we have removed invasive weeds, replanted native grasses, improved riparian habitat along thousands 

of miles of streams, conserved limited water resources, and protected many threatened and endangered species. To continue these 

efforts, the President’s 2005 budget for Interior proposes over $500 

million for cooperative conservation programs. 

I would like to focus for a moment on a few of these provisions 

that reflect many of the goals and purposes of the Americans Outdoors Act. Our approach focuses on grants that leverage Federal 

dollars, sometimes as much as 4 to 1, 5 to 1, even 6 to 1. Our efforts enhance local innovations in conservation, drawing on the 

14

local knowledge of folks on the ground that live near and love 

places. They target high priority projects through a competitive 

process. They advance alternatives to land acquisition as the central way to achieve conservation and outdoor recreation goals, and 

they provide the kind of continual oversight for program results 

that has been mentioned here this morning. 

The grants include grants that facilitate local and private con- servation efforts, including $50 million for competitively awarded 

cost-share grants to States for landowner incentive programs. Our 

2005 budget also proposes grants that enhance habitat for fish and 

wildlife and for projects that support wildlife-based recreation, a 

goal of title IV of the Americans Outdoors Act. Indeed, more than 

50 percent of the Fish and Wildlife Service budget is currently devoted to payments and grants to States, local communities, and 

landowners to help in species protection and habitat conservation. 

One cornerstone of our suite of cooperative conservation programs is our challenge cost-share grant programs. These grants enable our land management bureaus to partner with local communities, gateway communities to achieve common conservation goals 

and resource management goals. Through our Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife program, Interior has worked with nearly 9,000 landowners and communities over the last 3 years to protect over 

150,000 acres of wetlands and over 700,000 acres of prairie and 

grasslands. Over the last decade or more, we have partnered with 

nearly 30,000 landowners and communities. 

A central focus of the Americans Outdoors Act is protection of 

coastal areas in States with offshore energy activities. While we 

recognize the importance of and are investing in coastal conservation, we would also like to mention that coastal communities enjoy 

benefits from these offshore development activities. Rather than establish a process for automatically distributing receipts from offshore activities to coastal States, the President’s budget proposes 

to allocate funds to priority coastal conservation needs through existing conservation programs. The Fish and Wildlife Coastal Program is one such program, a program that leverages Federal dollars on average by 4 to 1. 

Other programs in other Departments also provide coastal assistance, such as the Department of Commerce’s Coastal Zone Management grants. 

The administration strongly supports discretionary spending for 

conservation programs that are consistent with many of the principles set forth in the Americans Outdoors Act. However, as I noted 

earlier, we cannot support the mandatory nature of the funding 

mechanism which removes the ability of both Congress and the administration to weigh the programs funded under this legislation 

against other national priorities and trends such as parks maintenance, the forest and rangeland health issues, particularly adjacent 

to wildland/urban interface communities. 

I can pledge to you that this administration’s willingness to work 

with this committee and others in the Congress on issues embodied 

in the Americans Outdoors Act is strong. Those issues focus on 

working in partnerships with States, local governments, tribes, and 

individuals to conserve natural and historic resources and provide 

outdoor recreation opportunities. 

15

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions you or 

members of the committee might have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Scarlett follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF P. LYNN SCARLETT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY, MANAGEMENT & BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss S. 2590, the ‘‘Americans Outdoors Act of 2004.’’

The Americans Outdoors Act presents an ambitious vision. It proposes mandatory 

spending for a stream of funding, using revenues from oil and gas development from 

federal offshore lands, to (1) establish a Coastal Impact Assistance Program; (2) provide Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act assistance to states; (3) conserve and restore wildlife; and (4) provide grants to local governments consistent 

with the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act. The bill would provide for the 

automatic funding of four programs at levels higher than they have been funded in 

the past. The Administration strongly supports the goals of these activities. However, we cannot support moving funding for these programs off the discretionary 

spending ledger and converting it into non-discretionary automatic spending. The 

total cost of the bill would be $1.425 billion annually. 

A central goal of S. 2590 is to better enable local communities to carry out activities that benefit conservation and recreation. In this respect, the legislation highlights goals that the Administration has pursued in recent years through a suite of 

cooperative conservation grants. By partnering with states, tribes, community organizations, and citizens, the Department of the Interior is achieving conservation 

through cooperation. communication, and consultation—what Secretary Norton calls 

the 4 C’s. 

These partnerships exemplify Secretary Norton’s cooperative conservation vision. 

By applying a caring hand to the local lands where they live, work and play, citizen 

stewards are working with federal agencies to conserve habitat and enhance outdoor 

recreation opportunities while maintaining working landscapes that support dynamic economies and thriving communities. 

To implement this vision, the Department has provided since 2002 over $1.3 billion in grants to states, tribes, local governments, and private landowners through 

programs that conserve open space, restore habitat for wildlife, and protect endangered species. With our partners, we have restored millions of acres of habitat; removed invasive exotic species; replanted native grasses; improved riparian habitat 

along thousands of miles of streams; conserved limited water resources; and developed conservation plans for endangered species and their habitat. To help meet this 

challenge, the President’s fiscal year (FY) 2005 budget includes $507 million for cooperative conservation programs. 

These cooperative conservation grants leverage non-federal funding and the initiative of landowners, nonprofit organizations, tribes, and other governments to 

achieve conservation results and outdoor recreation opportunities. The Department 

has a strong interest in enhancing these efforts. 

We appreciate the efforts put forward in S. 2590 to support conservation at the 

local level, but we believe funding allocation decisions should be made through the 

appropriations process and not through new mandatory spending. Mr. Chairman, I 

would like to take a few minutes to walk you through the provisions of our recent 

budget proposal that reflect many of S. 2590’s purposes and goals. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND STATE GRANT PROGRAM

Title III of S. 2590 would provide for $450 million in LWCF state conservation 

grants to be apportioned among states, the District of Columbia, and territories to 

be used for the planning, acquisition (but not condemnation), and development of 

projects under the LWCF. Tribes, through a competitive grant program to be developed by the Secretary, and political subdivisions, through grants from states, would 

also be eligible to receive funds. The legislation would also require states to develop 

‘‘action agendas’’ that describe priorities and criteria for selection of outdoor recreation and conservation acquisition and development projects, among other things. 

The President’s FY 2005 Budget proposes, through the appropriations process, 

$900 million in LWCF funding for a mix of programs that advance many of the 

goals set forth in S. 2590. Over the past several years, we have developed a comprehensive approach to funding a wide array of state recreation and conservation 

needs through grant programs. This approach offers states, tribes, local governments, and citizens the flexibility to determine priorities among various program 

purposes. These grants also encourage innovation in conservation tools. ConservaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:01 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\97188.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
16

tion of wildlife and habitat is a major component of conserving and enjoying our natural resources. States, tribes, and local partners should be able to use these funds 

for projects that protect or enhance habitat for an array of fish and wildlife, including wetlands for migratory birds and other species. 

One of the criticisms of previous legislation like S. 2590 was the increase in funding for federal land acquisition and its implications for private land ownership. Our 

cooperative conservation approach offers an alternative to land acquisition as the 

central way to achieve conservation of land. The Administration’s Land and Water 

Conservation Fund’s budget for FY 2005 includes $679 million for such grant and 

cooperative programs. Secretary Norton strongly believes that conservation dollars 

can go farther and conserve more open space and wildlife habitat if more land is 

left in private ownership and private landowners are provided with incentives for 

private stewardship. The President’s budget proposal funds a number of programs 

to facilitate local and private conservation efforts, including $50 million for competitively awarded cost-shared grants for state landowner incentive programs, and $10 

million for competitively awarded private stewardship grants to support individuals 

and groups engaged in local, private, and voluntary land and wildlife conservation 

efforts. 

CONSERVATION AND WILDLIFE RESTORATION

Title IV of S. 2590 would provide $350 million in funding to the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Account established under recent amendments to the 

Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. These monies would be made available 

to states, the District of Columbia, territories, and tribes for use in fish and wildlife 

conservation and related recreational opportunities. 

The Department’s FY 2005 budget proposes a number of grant programs that enhance habitat for fish and wildlife and for projects that support wildlife-based recreation. More than 50 percent of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s budget is currently devoted to payments and grants to states, local communities, and landowners. 

One of the cornerstones of the Department’s partnering program is the Cooperative Conservation Initiative (CCI) challenge cost-share grants. These challenge cost 

share grants fund conservation partnerships with our land management bureaus, 

enabling them to work with local communities to achieve common conservation 

goals. Our CCI program also includes the coastal program, Migratory Bird Joint 

Ventures, and Partners for Fish and Wildlife, all in the Fish and Wildlife Service; 

and Take Pride in America, a public lands volunteer program. In FY 2005, we propose $129.5 million for CCI-related funding. Through the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife program alone, the Department has worked with nearly 9,000 landowners 

and communities to restore over 150,000 acres of wetlands and over 700,000 acres 

of prairie and grasslands from 2001 to 2003. 

Our FY 2005 budget also includes S90.0 million for the Cooperative Endangered 

Species Conservation Fund and $54.0 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund. A significant portion of the remaining request will support technical 

assistance at the local level under programs such as Endangered Species Act Consultation and Habitat Conservation Planning and Fish and Wildlife Assistance. 

COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE

Finally, Title II of S. 2590 would establish a new $500 million program of payments to states with approved coastal impact assistance plans. The bill delineates 

several purposes for these funds, including projects and activities related to the conservation, protection, infrastructure, or restoration of coastal areas. The funds protect wetlands, mitigate of damage to fish and wildlife or natural resources, as well 

as mitigate the impact of OCS activities. Generally, funds would be allocated to 

states in the proportion that the amount of qualified OCS revenues generated off 

the coastline of the producing state bears to the amount of qualified OS revenues 

generated off the coastline of all producing states. In addition, 35 percent of the 

funds allocated to each state would be further payable by the Secretary directly to 

coastal political subdivisions in the producing state. 

While we recognize the importance of and are investing in coastal conservation, 

we would also like to mention that coastal communities enjoy benefits from offshore 

development activities. Rather than establish a new and complicated process for 

automatically distributing receipts to coastal states, the President’s Budget proposes 

to allocate funds to priority coastal conservation needs through existing discretionary programs. Our proposed FY 2005 budget includes $13.1 million for the Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Coastal program, through which the Fish and Wildlife Service 

and its partners work to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitats to support 

17

healthy ecosystems. This program provides assessment and planning tools to identify priority habitats for protection and restoration; conserves coastal habitat 

through voluntary conservation easements and locally initiated land acquisition; restores degraded coastal wetlands, uplands, and stream habitat; and focuses resources through partnerships that leverage financial and technical resources. On average, the Coastal program leverages federal funding at a rate of 4:1. In addition, 

the Department provides coastal wetlands grants, over $90 million for refuge operations in coastal areas, and over $50 million in U.S. Geological Survey science, mapping, and hazards programs that pertain to coasts and ocean areas. Our Coastal 

Program protected over 200,000 acres of wetlands and more than 750,000 acres of 

uplands in 2001 to 2003. 

In addition, the Department of Commerce’s proposed FY 2005 budget includes a 

request for almost $64 million for Coastal Zone Management grants to states. These 

grants are intended to provide matching funds to support state and local projects 

that address a broad spectrum of coastal management issues. 

CONCLUSION

The Administration strongly supports discretionary spending for conservation programs that are consistent with many of the principles of set forth in S. 2590. As 

you know, the cost of this legislation, over $1.425 billion per year over the next 5 

years, is not in keeping with the President’s budget for FY 2005 or with the Administration’s efforts to control increases in federal spending over the next several 

years. Moreover, the Administration has stressed the importance of strong conservation funding under the programs listed above, under the conservation title of the 

2002 Farm Bill, for wetlands projects, for National Parks operations and maintenance, and for forest and rangeland fuels reduction. However, the Administration 

opposes the mandatory nature of the funding mechanism, which removes the ability 

of both Congress and the Administration to weight the programs funded under this 

legislation against other national priorities and needs. 

I can, however, pledge to you this Administration’s willingness to work with this 

Committee and others in the Congress on the issues embodied in S. 2590, those of 

working in partnership with states, local governments, and individuals in conserving the Nation’s natural and historic resources and providing outdoor recreation 

opportunities. This Administration has a clearly developed record of success with cooperative conservation initiatives. I believe that as more of the public becomes involved, our Nation will have healthier lands and a whole new generation of self-motivated citizen stewards. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I am pleased to respond 

to any questions that you or other Members of the Committee might have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. 

Senator Bingaman, do you have any questions? Then we will go 

down the line one and one. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me first ask something I raised with Secretary Norton when 

she testified earlier this year, I believe. As I understand the proposed budget that you have given us for 2005, it contains no funds 

for Federal land acquisition. Is that accurate? 

Ms. SCARLETT. No, that is not accurate. Our Land and Water 

Conservation proposal has a modest amount of Federal land acquisition in it. 

Senator BINGAMAN. How much is that? 

Ms. SCARLETT. In Interior, we have about $153 million proposed, 

of which about $40 million is for some proposed acquisition of oil 

and gas subsurface mineral rights. There is an additional portion 

of land acquisition in the Forest Service budget. 

Senator BINGAMAN. My impression—and correct me if I am 

wrong on this—is that the law that established the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund required that half go to the States for 

their land acquisition needs and half be retained by the Federal 

Government for its land acquisition needs. Essentially what you 

are doing each year and what you are proposing to do next year 

18

is to take the funds that by law are required to be spent on land 

acquisition and using them for these various things that you call 

cooperative conservation grants instead of land acquisition. Am I 

wrong? Do you read the law differently? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator, as we read the law, the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund in 1965 proposed $900 million in spending for 

land acquisition or—and these are the exact words—unless otherwise allotted in the appropriations act for purposes consistent with 

the conservation and recreation goals. We believe that the proposal 

that we have put forth is indeed consistent with the provisions of 

the Land and Water Conservation Act and does, in fact, achieve 

those purposes. There are many hundreds of millions of dollars in 

our proposals that go to States, tribes, and local communities for 

recreation and conservation purposes, using partnerships rather 

than strictly emphasizing one tool, land acquisition. 

Senator BINGAMAN. But it is fair to say that your budget proposal recommends to Congress that most all of the funds that are 

supposed to be on the Federal side of the Land and Water Conservation funding not be used for land acquisition, be used for cooperative conservation grants of one kind or another, and then if the 

Appropriations Committee agrees to that, then your view is that is 

legal? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator, just to clarify, the total Federal land ac- quisition piece is over $200 million, combining Forest Service and 

Interior, which is a substantial portion. 

But yes, we have been working with Congress and the appropriators. Indeed, in 2003 and 2004, they significantly agreed with this 

approach and did allot funding for our landowner incentive program, our private stewardship grant program, our partners program, and others through Land and Water Conservation, consistent I believe with the language that I read earlier. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Following the CARA debate, Congress established what was called the conservation spending category as part 

of the fiscal year 2001 Interior appropriation bill. Under this conservation spending category, there was a certain amount of funding 

that was fenced off in the budget each year for land conservation 

and related activities as critical national priorities. That was sort 

of a fall-back, as I recall it. Since CARA did not become law, there 

was a general agreement, okay, let us at least put it in the budget. 

This program has been in place now for 4, 5, 6 years. The 

amount has been decreasing. This year, as I understand your fiscal 

year 2005 budget request, you have asked for no funds for the conservation spending category. Am I right about that? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator, that would be inaccurate. This conservation spending category is a category that includes a lot of different 

programs within it, and in fact in 2004, I met with Congressman 

Dicks and walked through the programs that we have that fit within that conservation spending category. Overall, since 2001, our 

conservation spending in the Department of the Interior for our cooperative conservation programs is up some 240 percent, significant increases in conservation spending. 

Senator BINGAMAN. But in the budget submission that we received from you, there is no longer a conservation spending category identified for this upcoming fiscal year. 

19

Ms. SCARLETT. For this fiscal year, we did not present the budget 

in that way. I would be happy to go back and, as we have done 

in the past, align the programs that come under that category and 

provide you that information and that alignment. 

Senator BINGAMAN. I think that would be useful because then we 

can determine whether, as I believe is the case, we have seen a 

drop-off in spending for those activities over the last several years 

since we last had the CARA debate here. 

That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Madam Secretary, would you supply that information to each member of the committee please? 

Ms. SCARLETT. We will be happy to do that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Thomas. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, sir. 

When we talk about acquisitions and so on, do you have any interest in sort of the no net gain thing? In other words, if we are 

going to add Federal here, can we reduce some over here, particularly inholdings and things that have no particular significance? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator, this was a concept that I heard for the 

first time today expressed, and we certainly would be interested in 

discussing it with you. It is not something that we have discussed 

yet at Interior. 

Senator THOMAS. You know, we have always some expansion and 

so on, generally justified, but on the other hand, seldom do we ever 

see any exchange. For instance, we are exchanging in Yellowstone 

a State section. Then maybe we ought to reduce some. 

What about the backlog? I just returned from a weekend at Glacier National Park and about all they talked about was trying to 

catch up. How would this impact your efforts to use the money for 

maintenance and pick up the backlogs? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator, let me first thank you for your strong efforts in the maintenance backlog arena, both focusing on the management needs we have there and also supporting the President’s 

efforts to address that backlog. 

I think there are two responses. One, as I said in my testimony, 

we are concerned that we maintain the discretion and flexibility to 

address priorities as they emerge over time. For this administration, addressing that maintenance backlog has become a significant 

priority. 

We are on target to spend the $4.9 billion to address that backlog, and with those dollars expended, to date we have either accomplished or have underway some 4,000 maintenance backlog projects 

across our 388 park units. We are continuing that effort and look 

forward to working with Congress to get the Transportation Efficiency Act reauthorized to get the road portion which will allow us 

to address road maintenance. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Thomas, would you yield for a moment 

on land acquisition/land disposal? 

Senator THOMAS. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am getting the statute to ask her a question. 

But you might recall when we acquired in New Mexico that beautiful piece of property that we call the Baca location. We spent a 

lot of money for it. The second title to it required the Federal Government dispose of all the inholdings, which there was no use for 

20

and were determined already to be useless. That would have been 

very many thousands of acres. I do not believe they have done anything with it, but we will ask her as soon as we get the statute. 

Senator THOMAS. That is great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have no further questions. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator? 

Senator LANDRIEU. Yes, thank you. I appreciate your testimony 

and understand that there are some programs within the Department that you all are proud of in terms of the grant program. But 

I was just wondering if I could just focus with you for a minute just 

on the coastal programs. 

I note, Madam Secretary, this is the Interior budget brief, which 

you are familiar with, and on page 48 here I just want to be sure 

under the Land and Water Conservation Fund that I am reading 

this correctly. It says coastal programs, 13060, which would be $13 

million for coastal programs. that would be for the whole country. 

As you might recall, we had put up that map. Only four coastal 

States are producing, which is approximately $6 billion. 

So I just want the committee to be aware that while there are, in fact, coastal programs underway, it is $13 million for the whole 

country, and from what I understand, the Federal Government 

puts up $1 and the private sector has to put up the other $4 of this 

program. Considering that just for Louisiana, the cost of our restoration estimated just for Louisiana’s restoration is $14 billion 

over the next 20 years. Clearly, I just wanted to show this is not 

adequate. 

So I wanted to ask you, given the great need of Louisiana, which 

is America’s wetlands, and our coast, is the administration arguing 

that this money is a sufficient investment in coastal conservation 

programs in the Nation? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes, thank you, Senator, for raising that issue. 

Actually our coastal program is one small program of many that 

actually benefit coasts. For example, we spend some $90 million 

each year on our wildlife refuges on coasts. We spend about $50 

million in our U.S. Geological Survey in specific activities relating 

to coastal mapping, coastal protection, coastal science. The Department of Commerce has $64 million for additional coastal programs. 

And then as many are aware, because so many of our wetlands are 

along the coasts, our North American Wetlands Conservation Act 

fund also invests significantly in coasts. So when you put those 

funds together, it amounts to in the hundreds of millions rather 

than the $13 million. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, I realize that is just one program, but 

even when you add them up and it is $100 million and it is for the 

coast of the entire United States, it still does not seem to me to 

take into account particularly the coastal States that are serving 

as a platform for the oil and gas and how limited the investments 

seem to be in that particular area. I would argue when you spread 

that couple of hundred million around the whole United States, it 

really falls short considering two-thirds of our population in this 

country live within 50 miles of the coast. 

So in addition, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Secretary 

if she is aware of the volatility in funding, which is what we are 

attempting to solve with this piece of legislation. In 1965, the State 

21

side of Land and Water, which there does not seem to be much disagreement on this committee—there is disagreement about the 

Federal side and how much it should be, how it should be allocated. But on the State side, did you know that one of our intentions is to try to level the funding to give States some planning opportunities? In 1965, this Government only allocated $10 million to the State side of Land and Water. In 1978, it went up to $305 million. In 

1982, it went down to 0. Then in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 0, 0, 0, 

and then back up to 1997. This chart, which I did not have blown 

up, but I would like to show the committee, is what happens to the 

State side of Land and Water. 

So my question is, do you think it is possible for the 50 States 

to plan a very good conservation program with their own money 

with this kind of volatility in funding of the State side of Land and 

Water? And if not, what is the administration’s position about trying to give some reliability to this stream of funding? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator, we have tried to significantly invest in 

the State-side Land and Water Conservation program, and over the 

last 3 years, the administration has consistently proposed over $90 

million for that program. In addition, we have actually significantly 

funded the State and tribal wildlife grant program, something that 

we heard from States about a strong need for. Together those programs bring over $150 million to States. 

On the one hand, I understand the challenges of changes in the 

spending flow. On the other hand, it is precisely the flexibility that 

allows us to address emerging priorities or trends on an ongoing 

basis as they surface. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, I would just end with this, Mr. Chairman, that while flexibility is always desirable, it is equally desirable to have reliability and to be a partner to be there year in and 

year out, not be a partner in the sunshine and then not a partner 

in the rain, to be a solid partner with the State governments to 

provide much needed land and recreation efforts for the 50 States. 

With volatility in funding that they cannot count on, it makes it 

very difficult. So I just wanted to point that out and thank you for 

the questions, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Burns. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Whenever we get into mandatory type spending or entitlement 

type spending, here is the problem we run into. We run into a situation where it is almost a perfect storm. I have requests on my 

desk right now for 347 acres that they want to sell to the Federal 

Government. The Federal Government wants to own it at a cost of 

$5.5 million. Right across the river is 147 acres that they want $1.5 

million for. Whenever you get entitlement spending—and here is 

the problem we run into. We always say, well, there is a clause in 

there that says, Senator, it is willing seller/willing buyer. In this 

case we got both. And that costs lots of money. It just throws reason and logic out the door. 

So I do not have a question of Ms. Scarlett, but I am saying that 

we have to watch our policy here when we write it into law. I have 

seen some awfully high priced land that you would never make a 

22

living on it like that even from—they say, well, you ought to see 

the view. Well, if that is all they are buying now, we are going to 

start selling view in the grocery store. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Senator Burns, would you yield just a moment? 

Senator BURNS. Yes. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Since you were not directing the question, I 

would like to take a shot at answer that because part of Senator 

Alexander’s and my bill is exactly that, to give the taxpayer a good 

bargain for the money that they spend. And what happens when 

we do not have a steady stream of revenue, when money becomes 

available, the managers and people that are looking at what land 

should the Federal Government buy or what lands should they not 

are so desperate that they will overpay for property. Why? Because 

they do not know they will have the money next year. 

That is exactly the point of our bill, to give a steady stream of 

money so we do not have to overpay for property, so we can wait 

out sellers if their property is too high and say, no, we are not paying you $100 an acre. We are going to wait till the price comes 

down or to you offer it to the taxpayers. The taxpayers get a good 

deal. That is part of this bill. 

So I just wanted to share that with you because I do think we 

overpay for property and we do because nobody ever knows from 

year to year how much money we are going to have to buy it. So 

if we allocate it, we can plan better and save the taxpayers some 

money. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Burns. 

Senator BURNS. I will pass on this. I think just the opposite will 

happen. I think just the opposite will happen, Senator. I am just 

going from past experience of buying and selling. 

So I thank the chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Murkowski. Senator Alexander, questions? 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Scarlett, thank you very much for your testimony today. I 

thought it was helpful and constructive. I understand your point 

about mandatory spending. 

And I want to say that I have carefully looked at the information 

you gave me about the administration’s work on cooperative conservation and I think it is impressive. Senator Bingaman was asking questions about this. Generally speaking, you spent a lot more 

money on these cooperative projects while not as much money has 

been spent on the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

I want to go back, though, as much for the record as anything 

else. President Bush said in 2001 that in outlining his budget proposal for that year, ‘‘I propose fully funding the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. $900 million will fully fund the fund. It is the 

highest request in the fund’s history and half the money will go to 

the States, just like the authors of the law intended.’’ So am I not 

correct that in President’s first budget, he did ask full funding of 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund? 

23

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator, we believe the President has asked for 

full funding in each year. The 2002 budget of the President actually did distribute the funds, $450 million for Federal and $450 

million for State-side. Working with Congress, we ended up with 

a different mix, and subsequently have moved forward with the alternatives that I have described here this morning. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Maybe it is easier for me to say than for 

you, but some Members of Congress were not willing to appropriate 

$900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. So you 

took a different tack. Is that close to right? 

Ms. SCARLETT. As I noted, in 2002, we provided a very traditional approach, and Congress gave us other directions. Subsequently we have worked with that direction to provide a different 

mix and focus on our cooperative conservation efforts. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Diplomatically stated. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ALEXANDER. But President Bush did say in his campaign 

and, as you said, he through his definition believes he has continued to, but in his first budget he put 450 and 450 in the traditional 

way of funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

While we will hear more from Henry Diamond in the next panel, 

I want to emphasize that my own experience with the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund came when President Reagan asked me 

to be chairman of the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors in 1985 and 1986. While we recommended a broad number 

of proposals that were mainly outside Washington, the one proposal we agreed on was to spend at least $1 billion a year from offshore drilling on the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

I only have one question about that. You say that the administration opposes mandatory funding, and so did several other Senators. But would you not agree that the program that has been in 

place since the 1920’s, which gives 50 percent of royalties from 

drilling for oil and gas onshore, not mandatory funding? That 

money goes directly the States. The appropriations committees of 

Congress never get a penny of it. Would that not be considered to 

be mandatory funding? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator, as was noted in several of the comments 

by other Senators, there certainly are a number of areas where we 

have mandatory spending, and the 50 percent share that is automatic might fall into that kind of category. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Does the administration propose taking the 

$500 million that goes to Wyoming each year and the other onshore 

oil and gas drilling money that automatically goes to States and 

putting it in the Federal Treasury for appropriation each year in 

order to deal with the budget deficit? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator, I think we are certainly not proposing 

changing any of the current allocations. We look at each proposal 

as it comes forward, and in this particular instance, of course, Congress has a long history of opining on the appropriate allocation of 

those moneys offshore, dating back I think to the 1940’s when the 

Submerged Land Act actually determined that rather than having 

those first 3 miles be Federal, they would be State and 100 percent 

of those moneys would go to States, again automatically. Subsequently the change to the law allowed the next 3 miles to have a 

24

27-plus percent distribution to the coastal States. So we look forward to continuing to work with Congress on what the appropriate 

ongoing distribution is. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Is it not true that there is something called 

Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson, which are Federal laws 

passed several years ago, through which hunters and fishermen 

pay license fees that automatically go for wildlife conservation? 

And would that not also be considered mandatory spending that 

does not go through the appropriations process? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator, as noted before, there certainly are many 

programs that are mandatory. I think our concern is that of adding 

to those programs, particularly at a time with a lot of other Federal 

priorities. We are increasingly seeing, as we put our budget together, the important ability to flexibly meet needs such as law enforcement, such as maintenance backlog as they surface. So our 

concern would be adding to the mandatory programs that already 

exist. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I accept that. 

Mr. Chairman, as a concluding comment, I think it is a matter 

of priorities really, and since it was President Reagan’s commission 

that recommended this and President George H.W. Bush endorsed 

that commission, and since this President Bush has said he wants 

to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and since we 

already create a State royalty for onshore oil and gas drilling, it 

seems to me a little different and appropriate, even in light of 

budgetary considerations, to say let us take 25 or 30 percent of offshore oil drilling and devote that to a State royalty for conservation 

purposes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just a very quick question on the coastal impact assistance pro- gram. Alaska received in 2001 a little over $12 million in coastal 

impact assistance. I am trying to understand under the proposal 

that we have before us by Senator Alexander and Landrieu, what 

would the coastal impact assistance be to Alaska on an annual 

basis? 

Ms. SCARLETT. I am afraid I will have to get back to you with 

that specific amount because there is a formula and it is somewhat 

complicated, but we would be happy to go through the numbers 

and figure out what that might be. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, it is complicated and you want to 

know whether you are going to be better under the new proposal 

than you are under the status quo. Quite honestly, I cannot determine that. So I would like an answer on that if we could get that 

from you. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Will you get that answer as soon as you can? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes, we will. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Craig. 

Senator CRAIG. Lynn, maintenance backlogs on all of our public 

lands, BLM, Forest Service, Parks, continues to grow, and is estimated now to be over $23 billion. And some of those backlogs are 

considered to be life-threatening or hazardous to humans who 

25

might traffic those areas. Although we do not know how much Federal land this bill would add to the Federal estate, the sponsors 

have indicated that they plan on a Federal land acquisition provision to be added. If like in past proposals we add $450 million to 

$500 million of direct Federal land acquisition spending over the 

next 6 years in the bill or 20 years in the House version, we are 

talking about $2.7 billion to $10 billion over the potential life of 

this legislation. 

At the same time, in 3 of the last 4 years, we have expended more than $1 billion on fire fighting and this year with what is 

going on in the West and in Alaska, we have the chance of a record 

burn year and a record cost year. The good news is I guess that 

in Nevada the fire is under control. A variety of homes and small 

businesses, but no lives lost. 

Lynn, do you really believe that we can continue to acquire Federal land when we do not have the funding to maintain the land 

we have got? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator, thank you for raising the matter of the 

maintenance backlog. Secretary Norton’s No. 1 priority is to invest 

in maintaining the lands that we have, and President Bush, of 

course, committed to addressing the $4.9 billion estimated backlog 

on the national park lands and that is what we are focused on 

doing. 

It is for this reason that we have focused our conservation efforts 

on partnerships, that is, rather than land acquisition, working in 

partnership with private landowners to achieve conservation goals, 

rather than putting additional land into the Federal dominion. 

Senator CRAIG. The conservation partnership approach is such a 

positive one because in that relationship a great deal is learned 

and a cooperative environment is created. Out West, if it is Fed 

land, oftentimes the sign goes up, the gate goes closed, and do not 

tread, all in the name of the environment. That can be tremendously frustrating at times in a State like mine that is 63 percent 

owned by the Federal Government, and you are one of our larger 

landlords, and sometimes we do not like you very much in the style 

of your stewardship. 

Do you think it is responsible for the Government to suggest that 

any additional Federal land acquisition be reasonable and prudent 

in the context with its ability to maintain it? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator, first, I hope that our stewardship has 

created improved relations. 

Senator CRAIG. It is improving. 

Ms. SCARLETT. We have certainly focused on trying to do that. 

Again, our priority is to focus on caring for the lands that we 

have. We do have an opportunity, at the request of the House Appropriations Committee, to create a land transaction strategy or 

plan that we are to submit in December. We expect that that plan 

will help to set priorities and give some greater focus to how we 

undertake our land transactions and where we focus dollars, and 

I look forward to sharing that with you. 

Senator CRAIG. In the development of that strategy, let me ask 

then one other thing. I would like you to provide to this committee 

a list of the Federal land acquisitions that have been made over the 

last 10 years. I think as we talk about acquiring more land, it is 

26

important we know what we are doing now. I have not seen the 

grand total of 10 years’ worth of Federal acquisition, but I think 

it would be quite surprising in the total volume and number of 

acres acquired. So I think it would be important to do that. 

And in doing so, how much of its cost is in acquisition? How 

about new maintenance costs? And of course, we know the fire suppression costs. Right now we are stealing from all kinds of accounts 

within the system to fight fires, and then we do not replenish the 

money back into the accounts. So the stewardship programs, the 

conservation programs, fire suppression programs, or pre-fire programs are not being funded. What we are doing out there right 

now, my guess is if it were fully exposed to the public, there would 

be a phenomenal argument about mismanagement in the first 

order. And that is not just on your watch. That has been happening 

for some time because you have to do what you do at the time fires 

are underway, and then we here in Congress do not have the 

money to replenish the funds. So then you cannot contract out to 

do the kind of work that Congress by law and you by definition of 

good stewardship are allowed to do, and the cycle goes on. And 

here we want to acquire more land? That to me is a phenomenal 

frustration. 

As the chairman and others know, I am a bit obsessed at times 

with invasive weeds. Small item. You are losing 10,000 to 15,000 

acres a year, wipe-out, to invasive weeds, just BLM alone, not 

counting the Forest Service, and you do not have the money to 

fight them. You will not fight them. You cannot fight them. We are 

trying to change things so that you will fight them. These are 

weeds that are so obnoxious that even wildlife no longer inhabit 

the area. Erosion sets in because they become the dominant species 

on the land. Under any reasonable conservation-minded person’s 

attitude, it would suggest that that is phenomenal mismanagement, and yet it goes on today and it continues to go on, and under 

greater acquisition, it will go on on that land also. That is one example. 

Last idea here. Somewhere in my memory, I recall that the original Land and Water Conservation law indicated that only 15 percent of Land and Water Conservation funds would be expended in 

Western States. Has that been the case over the last 20 years? Do 

we know that we have held at that 15 percent level? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator, I do not know. We would have to go back 

and evaluate that. 

Senator CRAIG. Hit the total button, if you would, and give us a 

number. That would be valuable. And would you provide the committee a State-by-State and a year-by-year accounting of the funds 

expended under the Land and Water Conservation Fund? That 

ought to be a reasonably easy task to do. 

I think as we ask—and I know what the Senator from Louisiana 

is about, and I would suggest to her that when money comes off 

from offshore drilling, that States that are willing to allow that to 

happen ought to be the recipients of some of those benefits. I am 

quite amused by States who come and ask me to join in on Land 

and Water Conservation funding to acquire lands in their State, 

but they have a prohibition to offshore drilling. They want to take 

somebody else’s money to benefit their State but they will not allow 

27

the money to be generated offshore of their States. And that example is replete up and down the east coast and the west coast. Take 

somebody else’s money so that we can stay pristine. Well, thank 

you, Louisiana, for supplying a huge supply of oil so all you folks 

could get here today in your automobiles. 

Those are some of my frustrations about how we handle these resources. I am not quite sure I can get to the idea of an entitlement 

or dedicated funds, especially when we are not funding properly 

good stewardship and management today at the level that almost 

any reasonable person would suggest ought to be. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Madam Secretary, let me first say to you I was 

pleasantly surprised with your grasp of the issues and I commend 

you for it. I did not know you very well and I had no dealings with 

you, but I think on this complicated issue, you have done a very 

good job. 

I have some questions of you that have to do with the partnership activities, but I am going to submit them so you can answer 

them. 

But I do have something I would like to lay before you and put 

in the record. 

Public Law 106-248 was adopted 3 years ago and it provided for 

two things. First, it acknowledged that in the United States there 

were millions of dollars of inholding lands, lands which were completely surrounded by the Federal Government of no use to anyone 

but the Government. The Government had indicated an interest in 

condemning them and there were millions that were condemned, 

neither of which had been paid for. So we said in this legislation 

we have surplus Federal land. Now, this is not land that anybody 

should get excited about in the conservation community, and I do 

not think they did because this land is not good for anything. It 

is on the maps already as surplus. We suggested that that ought 

to be sold in an orderly manner and the proceeds be used to pay 

these Americans who had not been paid. 

I would like to know from your Department whether that law 

has been used, either of the two, and if so, how, and if not, why 

not. Would you do that for us? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes, Senator. I believe you are referring to what 

we sometimes call the Baca legislation? 

The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. 

Ms. SCARLETT. We have utilized the Baca legislation but we have 

not utilized it to the extent originally anticipated. If my memory 

serves me correctly—and we will have to get back to you on the 

right number—I think we may have only done something like $4 

million worth of transactions in recent years through the Baca legislation. 

We are actually very interested and Secretary Norton has made 

it a priority to explore working with Congress on some changes to 

that which would give a stronger incentive and ability of our agencies to utilize that legislation so that we can achieve the goals set 

forth. 

One of the elements of it was a restriction on addressing lands 

that were in existing resource management plans up to a certain 

date, and because we have now revised those plans, it puts some 

28

of those areas off limits and we would like to explore working with 

you on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, ma’am, let me tell you one thing I really 

have learned in my years around here is to make sure that the executive branch does what it is told. We are all arguing about new 

things, but there are many things that the executive branch does 

not do that are already on the books. This was an important part 

of acquiring that huge property called the Baca location. I do not 

think the Republicans would have bought that had we not had this 

provision in the law, and so I ask you to give us the information. 

But I want to tell you that I expect—and I will be here a while—

to see you do this. This is not so difficult. It is just you do not want 

to devote the time and energy to do it, and the field people do not 

want to either. 

Now, having said that, I want to say to my friend, the Senator 

from Louisiana, when I went to your State and you showed me how 

the coast lands were eroding and you suggested this new source of 

funding, I guess I should have known, but I did not, that the State 

of Louisiana is getting a lot of money from the offshore drilling. I 

thought you were really getting nothing, as you explained what the 

inland States got from either royalties there or distribution of some 

of your resources. But I have found that your State got 

$969,276,130 from the years 1986 to 2003, which I think is 17 

years. 

Now, what is that money used for? I do not have to ask you. I 

can ask Mr. Angelle, but I do want that on the record because we 

are talking here as if you get nothing, while as a matter of fact you 

get a lot. Do you use it for any of these conservation issues that 

we are talking about? 

Senator LANDRIEU. Can I answer that, Mr. Chairman? 

The CHAIRMAN. You sure can. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I think you are referring to the amount of 

money that we get between 3 and 6 miles, which is referred to as 

the 8(g) track. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. 

Senator LANDRIEU. It was an agreement that was reached in 

prior Congresses. It sounds like a lot of money. $900 million is not 

small change, but relative to what we have produced in that time, 

it works out to be just a few percentage points because from those 

years, if you go back to 1986, in terms of offshore oil and gas production—and I can give you these numbers. The staff can figure 

them up now. Mr. Chairman, it sounds like a lot of money, but relatively it is minor. It would be less than just a few percentage 

points. So the case remains the same, that Louisiana produces billions of dollars every year for the Federal Treasury and, even with 

the 8(g) settlement, still only gets a very few percentage points. 

That money, though, is used for an education trust fund which 

was basically established under the direction of Senator Johnston, 

with the help of Senator Breaux, before I got here, which has been 

used very wisely by our State, Mr. Chairman, to help support our 

universities, to promote early childhood education, and unlike 

Western States that have great flexibility in how that money is 

used, that money in our State is dedicated to education, as is a lot 

29

of the Texas offshore oil and gas money or onshore oil and gas 

money. They put it in a trust fund for education as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. But that was your choice. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Yes, it was. Let me tell you we are happy for 

the 8(g) money because if it was not for 8(g), we would not get anything. But still, even counting that, it is a fairly small percentage, 

extremely small percentage of what we produce. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Any other questions of the Secretary? 

[No response.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. We are sorry it took so 

long. You are excused. 

Oh, Senator Cantwell, did you have any questions? 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not have 

any. I will ask the next panel. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry I missed you. 

Senator CANTWELL. That is all right, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. You got here a little late and I missed you. 

Senator CANTWELL. I just arrived, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are excused. 

The next panel is: Scott Angelle, secretary of the Louisiana’s Department of Natural Resources; John Baughman, executive vice 

president of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies; and Nancie Marzulla. We are going to do all six of you, 

if you would get there, please. Charles Jordan, chairman of the 

Conservation Fund, Portland, Oregon; Henry Diamond, chairman 

of Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation; and Daniel Clifton, 

Federal affairs manager for Americans for Tax Reform. 

I think we have your cards there. Daniel Clifton. You start on 

this side please. Nancie, you are next. Can we call you in the order 

that I announced you, if you do not mind? So the first witness will 

be Scott Angelle. There you are on the right side. Go ahead. 

Now, would you all put your statements in the record? I am just 

ordering that they be made a part of the record, as if you read 

them, and if you can make them shorter than reading them, we 

would greatly appreciate it. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT ANGELLE, SECRETARY, LOUISIANA 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, BATON ROUGE, LA 

Mr. ANGELLE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the 

committee. I bring greetings to you from the great State of Louisiana and Governor Kathleen Blanco. My name is Scott Angelle. 

I am the secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. And while you may wonder where some of the people who 

will speak today are from, my accent will give you no doubt as to 

where I come from. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ANGELLE. I thank you for the opportunity to speak in enthusiastic support of the Americans Outdoors Act. I appreciate so 

much the comments of the Senators today recognizing Louisiana’s 

vital role in providing the energy that this Nation needs. I want 

to especially thank Senator Landrieu for her assistance and her 

untiring efforts in trying to pass this type of legislation that is so 

crucial to Louisiana. 

30

We believe this act is a sound concept, to take non-renewable, 

one-time resources in the form of OCS revenues and to invest them 

in our renewable resources. 

The coastal States that host our Nation’s offshore oil and gas 

production play a critical role in this country’s economic and energy 

security. Louisiana, like other producing States, is proud to contribute to the fueling of this great Nation. That is precisely why we 

are here today, to put us in a position to allow us to continue the 

oil and gas production that this Nation needs. 

But there are costs that come with the national benefits that we 

provide, costs to our environment and costs to maintain onshore infrastructure that supports offshore energy activities. Sharing OCS 

revenues with the producing States will provide the steady stream 

of revenue needed to plan and mitigate the effects of this production. 

Offshore oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico has pro- vided close to $140 billion to the Federal Government, as Senator 

Landrieu has said. Up to 90 percent of that figure has come from 

Louisiana. This is the second largest source of revenue to the Federal Government, the first being taxes. In 2002, more than $7.5 billion in offshore revenues went into 

the Federal Treasury. More than $5 billion, or two-thirds of that 

amount, came from offshore Louisiana. Yet, due to the fact that 

this production was outside the 3 mile jurisdiction, we received less 

than 1 percent of that. The same year, other States together received more money, or 50 percent of the revenues generated, from 

mineral production on Federal lands within those States. We believe because the Nation benefits from drilling on Federal lands 

and because non-coastal States like Wyoming and New Mexico 

incur impacts from that production, we fully support the share of 

revenues they receive. However, Louisiana and other producing 

States are feeling the full impact of offshore oil and gas activity 

and are not sharing in the revenues. I respectfully point out the inequity because it is profound. 

Distinguished committee members, Louisiana is losing its coast 

at a staggering rate of 25 square miles a year, a football field every 

30 minutes. We have lost more than 1,900 square miles in the last 

70 years, an area the size of the State of Delaware. And the U.S. 

Geological Survey predicts we will lose another 1,000 if action is 

not taken now. Natural processes like subsidence and storms, combined with the unintended consequences of Federal actions like the 

leveeing of the Mississippi River and impacts from offshore oil and 

gas exploration and development, have led to an ecosystem on the 

verge of collapse. 

Louisiana truly is America’s wetland. It is not a beach but a vast 

landscape of wetlands, the seventh largest delta on earth where the 

Mississippi River drains much of the United States. It is one of the 

most productive ecosystems in America, producing more seafood 

than any other State in the lower 48. It is the nursery ground for 

the Gulf of Mexico and habitat for one of the greatest flyways in 

the world for waterfowl and migratory song birds. These wetlands 

protect the largest port system in the world by tonnage. They protect 2 million people and a unique culture from storm surge. They 

protect America’s strategic oil reserve. They protect oil and gas inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:01 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\97188.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
31

frastructure that was designed and built with the expectation of 

this protection. While difficult to imagine, almost 30 percent of the 

oil and gas that is consumed in this country comes through the 

wetlands of Louisiana to be distributed to the rest of the Nation. 

These are truly working wetlands. 

Through the Breaux Act of 1990, we have initiated or completed 

more than 100 coastal restoration projects and gained great technical and scientific knowledge. We have also seen many long-term 

partnerships with our five Federal agency partners. 

Last year the citizens of Louisiana passed three constitutional 

amendments to address the State cost-share capabilities and to 

limit liability to the State due to coastal restoration activities. We 

have worked hard with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, producing a comprehensive, long-term plan. We will continue to struggle to restore America’s wetlands, but the cost of restoring is in the 

billions and neither Louisiana, nor any other State in this Union, 

can do it alone. The revenues generated by offshore oil and gas production should be shared to help mitigate the impacts, and they 

should benefit from this production and the Nation will surely lose 

if it is not restored. 

On behalf of my State of Louisiana and other coastal producing 

States, I urge Congress to enact the Americans Outdoors Act. It 

would show foresight, vision and would be a gift to our Nation for 

generations to come and put Louisiana in the position to continue 

to aggressively provide the oil and gas this country so desperately 

needs. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Angelle follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT ANGELLE, SECRETARY,

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Scott Angelle, Secretary of 

the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak in enthusiastic support of the Americans Outdoors Act. I’d like 

to offer a special thanks to Senator Landrieu for her untiring efforts to pass this 

type of legislation, so crucial to Louisiana, a state that is experiencing perhaps the 

greatest environmental crisis in our nation today. 

The Americans Outdoors Act is a sound concept—to take non-renewable, one-time 

resources in the form of OCS revenues and to invest them in our renewable resources—through the preservation of our coasts, our wildlife, our parks, and our history. This legislation is vitally important to all coastal producing states and it is absolutely critical to my state of Louisiana. 

The coastal states that provide our nation with its offshore oil and gas supply play 

a critical role in this country’s economic and energy security. Louisiana, like other 

producing coastal states, is proud to contribute to the fueling of this great nation. 

But there are costs that come with the national benefits we provide—costs to our 

environment and costs to maintain onshore infrastructure that supports offshore energy activities. 

Sharing OCS oil and gas revenues with the producing states is the obvious and 

appropriate way to provide the steady stream of revenue needed to mitigate the effects of this production. As the distinguished Members of this committee know, 

there is precedence for this. 

Offshore oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico has provided close to $140 

billion to the Federal government. Up to 90 percent of that figure has come from 

offshore Louisiana. This is the second largest source of revenues to the Federal government. The first is taxes. 

In 2002, more than $7.5 billion in offshore revenues went into the Federal treasury. More than $5 billion, or two-thirds of that amount, came from offshore Louisiana. The same year, Wyoming and New Mexico together received about $800 million, or 50% of the revenues generated from mineral production on Federal lands 

32

within those states. However, because the activity off Louisiana’s coast was outside 

the state’s three-mile jurisdiction, we received only $30 million in 2002, less than 

one percent of what was generated off our coast. 

Because of the benefits the nation receives from drilling on Federal lands on shore 

and the impacts those states incur from that production, we fully support their 

share of revenues. However, Louisiana and other producing coastal states are feeling the full impact of supporting offshore oil and gas activity, but are not sharing 

in the revenues. I only point out the inequity because it is profound. 

Every coastal state that serves our country through hosting offshore oil and gas 

production must deal with the impacts of that activity and both impacts and needs 

are as unique as their individual coastlines. I can only share with you why Louisiana could serve as a model for the case to reinvest OCS revenues in our natural 

resources through the Americans Outdoors Act. 

LOUISIANA’S STORY

Louisiana is losing its coastal land at the staggering rate of 25 square miles a 

year. That’s square miles, not acres. That’s a football field every 30 minutes. We’ve 

lost more than 1,900 square miles in the past 70 years and the U.S. Geological Survey predicts we will lose another 1,000 if decisive action is not taken now to save 

it. The effects of natural processes like subsidence and storms combined with the 

unintended consequences of Federal actions like the leveeing of the Mississippi 

River and impacts from offshore oil and gas exploration and development, have led 

to an ecosystem on the verge of collapse. 

Louisiana’s coast is truly America’s WETLAND. It is not a beach, but a vast landscape of wetlands. It is the seventh largest delta on earth, where the Mississippi 

River drains two-thirds of the United States. It is one of the most productive ecosystems in America, producing more seafood than any other state in the lower 48. 

It’s the nursery ground for the Gulf of Mexico and habitat for the one of the greatest 

flyways in the world for waterfowl and migratory song birds. 

These wetlands provide protection for the largest port system in the world by tonnage and protection from storm surge for two million people and a unique culture. 

They also provide protection for America’s strategic oil reserves and for 80% of the 

nation’s offshore oil and gas supply, with almost 30% of all the oil and gas consumed 

in this country coming through these wetlands to be distributed to the rest of the 

nation. 

This country’s richest oil and gas resources are located off our shore and the majority of support infrastructure runs through Louisiana’s coast. In 1995, the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act was passed. With its passage and the advancement of new 

technology, the deepwater in the Gulf of Mexico became the new frontier for oil and 

gas exploration. By 2002, deepwater production had surpassed production on the 

OCS and there is an estimated 71 billion barrels of reserve in the deepwater Gulf—

more than Alaska. 

In addition to domestic production, Louisiana’s coast is the land base for LOOP, 

America’s only offshore oil port that handles about 15% of this country’s foreign oil 

and is connected to more than 30% of the total refining capacity in the U.S. Much 

of the support infrastructure is located in the most rapidly deteriorating coastal 

areas. 

Port Fourchon is the geographic and economic center of offshore drilling efforts 

along the Louisiana Gulf Coast. Port Fourchon supports 75% of the deepwater production in the Gulf. This port and much of the nation’s energy supply is connected 

to the mainland by a 17-mile stretch of two-lane highway—LA 1—that is inundated 

by flooding in relatively mild storms and is vulnerable to being washed out completely. In 2002, Tropical Storm Isidore and Hurricane Lili shut down much of the 

Gulf production off the Louisiana coast. In only 8 days, more than one billion dollars 

of raw product was unavailable to the U.S. market. Would the American public 

stand for paying an additional $2 to $3 a gallon for gasoline should LA 1 and its 

surrounding wetlands and infrastructure continue to degrade? 

THE IMPACTS

The United States depends on the oil and gas shipped through and produced in 

Louisiana’s coastal zone. Wetlands and barrier islands protect the billions of dollars 

worth of infrastructure that supports the industry from wave and storm damage 

and is an integral part of the nation’s energy system. The industrial uses associated 

with offshore exploration and production, pipelines, and canal developments have directly and indirectly contributed to marsh destruction, putting the industry itself at 

risk. 

33

Navigation channels and canals dredged for oil and gas extraction have dramatically altered the hydrology of the coastal area, allowing salt water into fresh 

marshes, killing vegetation and habitat. Canals have also increased tidal processes 

that impact the marsh by increasing erosion. Channel deepening has caused saltwater intrusion, endangering the potable water supply of much of the coastal region. 

There are more than 20,000 miles of pipelines in federal offshore lands and thousands more inland. They all make landfall on Louisiana’s barrier islands and wetland shorelines. The barriers are the first line of defense against combined wind and 

water forces of a hurricane, and they serve as anchor points for pipelines originating 

offshore. These islands protect the wetland habitants from an offshore oil spill and 

are critical in protecting the state’s wetland-oriented oil and gas facilities and thousands of jobs directly and indirectly tied to the industry. 

If the barrier islands erode entirely, as expected in the next 50 years, platforms, 

pipelines and wells will be damaged in increasing numbers. More than 58 percent 

of the region’s wells are located in coastal parishes. Most of them are more than 

50 years old and were not designed to withstand the conditions of open water they 

could face in the next 50 years. More than 30,000 wells are at risk within the 20-

parish coastal area. Wells that were on land only a few years ago are now surrounded by water, a situation hazardous to boat traffic and an environmental liability to habitat and fisheries. 

Workers, equipment, supplies and transportation facilities that accompany the 

rapid growth of the offshore oil and gas industry depend on land-based facilities. 

Roads, housing, water, acreage for new business locations and expansions of existing 

businesses, waste disposal facilities and other infrastructure facilities will be needed 

in localized areas along the Louisiana coast. Existing land-based infrastructure is 

already heavily overburdened and needs expansion and improvement, requiring extensive financial infusions from state and local governments. 

Louisiana ranks first in the nation in total shipping tonnage, handling more than 

450 million tons of cargo a year through its deep-draft ports of New Orleans, Baton 

Rouge, Lake Charles, South Louisiana, Plaquemines Parish and St. Bernard. The 

ports between Baton Rouge and New Orleans are the largest by tonnage carried in 

the world and serve the entire eastern part of the country. 

The state’s wetlands and barrier islands protect this internationally important 

port system, as well as navigation channels, waterways and anchorages from winds 

and waves. At present land loss rates, more than 155 miles of waterways will be 

exposed to open water in 50 years, leaving this key port system at risk and businesses throughout the nation losing preferred links to European and Pacific Rim 

markets. 

Because of our coastal marshes and barrier islands, Louisiana’s commercial and 

recreational fisheries are among the most abundant in America, providing 25 to 35 

percent of the nation’s total catch. Louisiana is first in the annual harvest of oysters, crabs and menhaden, and is a top producer of shrimp. Some of the best recreational saltwater fishing in North America exists off Louisiana’s coast. The reason 

for this abundance is that our coastal marshes provide the nursery for young fish 

and shellfish. 

The long-term impacts of wetland loss relate to many species of fish and shellfish 

that depend on these habitats, translating into economic losses that affect the entire 

region and the nation. Nearly all Louisiana commercial species use the marsh at 

some stage of their life cycle, and fisheries loss will be proportional to marsh loss. 

By the year 2050, the annual loss of commercial fisheries will be nearly $550 million. For recreational fisheries, the total loss will be close to $200 million a year. 

Louisiana’s coastal wetlands provide a diverse habitat for many wildlife communities. The wetlands provide life cycle needs for resident species and wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl and other birds. Land loss and habitat change by the 

year 2050 will affect the nation’s wildlife population. Sea birds, wading birds and 

shore birds are expected to decrease, along with raptors and woodland birds. Alligators and furbearers will decrease in certain areas of the coast, as will the abundance of ducks and geese. 

Louisiana’s cities and coastal communities are at great risk as the wetlands and 

barrier islands disappear, leaving people with no buffer from storm surges and the 

force of high winds. Miles of hurricane protection levees will be exposed to open 

water conditions, forcing widespread relocation and abandonment of coastal communities. 

Wetlands create friction and reduce high winds when hurricanes hit. They also 

absorb hurricane storm surges. Scientists estimate that every 2.7 miles of wetlands 

absorbs one foot of storm surge. The 3.5 million acres of wetlands that line Louisiana’s coast today have storm protection values of $728 million to $3.1 billion. 

34

A direct hit of a hurricane on New Orleans would be devastating. Because the 

city is literally below sea level and sits ‘‘in a bowl’’, the potential loss of life and 

property is incomprehensible, and the threat of disaster was not lost on the city’s 

residents. 

With the loss of barrier islands and wetlands over the next 50 years, New Orleans 

will be a Gulf Coast city and will lose its wetland buffer that now protects it from 

many effects of flooding. Hurricanes will pose the greatest threat, since New Orleans sits on a sloping continental shelf that makes it extremely vulnerable to storm 

surges. 

More than two million people in inland south Louisiana will be subject to more 

severe and frequent flooding than ever before. Coastal communities will become 

shorefront towns, and the economic and cultural costs of relocation are estimated 

in the billions of dollars. 

South Louisiana’s unique culture is a national treasure, and the very fabric of its 

distinct way of life is being eroded with the coast at great intangible cost to the nation and the world. 

THE SOLUTIONS

Louisiana began work in earnest to restore its coast in 1989 when the legislature 

created the state’s coastal restoration program. In 1990, Congress enacted the 

Breaux Act, or CWPPRA (The Coastal Wetlands Planning Protection and Restoration Act). Since then, more than 100 restoration projects have been initiated or completed. We have gained the technical know-how, and, by working with our federal 

partners, we are cementing long-term partnerships as we build projects together. 

Several years ago, the Coast 2050 Plan was developed in partnership with the 

public. It has served as a blueprint to rehabilitate the Louisiana coastline, to sustain our coastal resources and to provide an integrated multiple-use approach to 

ecosystem management. The main strategies of the plan are watershed structural 

repair, such as restoration of ridges and barrier islands, and watershed management, such as river diversions and improved drainage. In making recommendations, 

the process did not view the number of coastal wetland acres saved as the only priority, but considered other resources as well, such as roads, levees, fish and wildlife 

resources, and public safety and navigation, in making recommendations. 

During the past two years, the state has created the Louisiana Coastal Area plan 

in a 50-50 partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The LCA plan addresses the critical near-term needs during the next five to ten years and creates 

a Science and Technology Program to ensure the best science and engineering continues to lead the way. We are now in the process of putting together a comprehensive plan to address the long-term efforts needed to save this coastal landscape. 

Last year, the citizens of Louisiana passed three constitutional amendments to 

address the state’s cost share capabilities and to limit liability to the state due to 

coastal restoration efforts. 

Louisiana will continue its struggle to restore America’s Wetland, a landscape so 

rich in natural resources and of such benefit to the entire nation. To continue to 

let it disappear is a national tragedy. The cost of will be in the billions and Louisiana, like other coastal producing states, cannot do it alone. The revenues generated by the offshore oil and gas production off their shores should be shared with 

these states to mitigate the impacts. The nation is the beneficiary of this production 

and the nation will surely be the loser if the investment is not made now to invest 

in the preservation of our renewable natural resources. 

On behalf of my state of Louisiana and the other coastal producing states, I urge 

Congress to enact the Americans Outdoors Act. It would show extraordinary foresight and vision and would be a gift to our nation for generations to come.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Before we go to the next witness, let me say to you and to those 

residents of your State and the public officials that this Senator is 

fully aware of what you do for our Nation. I tell you, if some of our 

other States who are coastal States just knew what is happening 

to America’s future because we will not maximize our oil production, if they just knew it and could see it, it probably would be impossible for them to maintain their current posture. 

But let me tell you how difficult it is. We had an item in a bill, 

you might remember, Larry, that merely said let us inventory the 

value, the resources that are on our coastal States that are not 

35

being explored. Let us just find out how much might be there. That 

was stripped from the bill by a vote because there are States who 

are even frightened that we would know how much is there. 

But your State is bearing the burden and producing huge quantities, and frankly I would like to do everything I can to help you. 

I am not sure that this year is the right time or this bill is the 

right one. But you know that you have a Senator that truly believes that we owe you a lot, and I will get back in a minute to 

asking you a question about what you do with the moneys that you 

get now. 

Let us proceed to John Baughman. Would you please give us 

your statement and abbreviate it please. Oh, I am supposed to take 

Charles Jordan. Excuse me. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES JORDAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE 

BOARD, THE CONSERVATION FUND, PORTLAND, OR 

Mr. JORDAN. If I was standing, you would not have missed me. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. My brain told me what I should do. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ANGELLE. Thank you very much and also to Senator 

Landrieu and Senator Alexander for this opportunity. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for my opening remarks. I really appreciate you not requiring me to read this document because you 

have more copies than I do. 

You talked about the threat to America, America’s future. That 

is what I want to talk about. Today I am not representing the Conservation Fund. I am speaking for State-side Land and Water and 

that includes local areas. When you talk about America’s future, 

you have got to look at State and local parks. 

Lamar, in 1985-87, as we, along with 14 others, traveled all 

around this country for 18 months talking to Americans about the 

great outdoors, thousands of them came and they shared with us 

their dreams and their hopes for the future. And we were so excited because we thought we were going to make a difference. We 

completed this report, and this is chapter 2. It says our greatest 

recreation needs are in urban areas close to home. How quickly we 

forget. 

And I will tell you I have come 3,000 miles to share these moments. I am not going to be able to finish, so cut me off when you 

please. 

But talking about a threat, our young kids, 80 to 85 percent of 

all Americans live in and around cities. Now, who is serving those 

people? We are. They are not going to national parks. They are the 

ones who are going to inherit these national parks. All of these national treasures you are now talking about setting aside and we are 

arguing about today, who is going to assume responsibility for 

those? The people that I am serving today in urban parks, and they 

do not know anything about this responsibility you are going to 

drop on them. They are not factoring those costs into their future. 

They want to buy a home. They want a car. They want to travel. 

But when they realize the responsibility they have, they are not 

36

prepared. So you cannot forget urban parks and State parks. That 

is where the people are. 

I sat there and as I listened to you talk about the national 

parks—and I used to hear the President talk about national treasures, and I would just wait for him to say something like, well, all 

of our national treasures are not at the national level. We have 

urban treasures. We have State treasures. No one ever talks about 

our State and our local treasures. We have parks there that carry 

quite a story that we like to share with our young people. 

I just became a grandfather, and I will tell you it changed my 

life because now at the age of 66, I wanted to rest. I wanted to retire and give up, but I cannot. When Mia came into this world, I 

looked at that little girl and I said, boy, in order to give her a fighting chance, I have got to get back in the race. I have got to try to 

do all I can to make this a better place. 

I take her to the park often, local parks. She is too young to go 

to national parks, but I am counting on that because the national 

treasures are just as important to me as the urban treasures. It is 

not going to be enough for me to take her where she can have fun 

and games and play. It is coming a time when I need to take Mia 

to some of our national treasures, to the underground railroad. I 

need to tell her what went on in this place. I need her to feel proud 

of Harriet Tubman, but also I need Mia to know that she and her 

white friends are going to do a lot better than you and I have done. 

And I want her to bring her white friend along when I take her 

to these places so as we tell the stories—Harriet Tubman could not 

have succeeded without white friends. You and I both know that. 

So we do have a history of succeeding by working together, but 

all we talk about are the negatives, the slavery and discrimination. 

When are we going to talk about the positives? We have a history 

of doing things together. I want Mia to know about those. Yes, I 

want her to know about slavery and everything else, but I need to 

take her to those special places. We need the place. The books are 

not enough. I want to take her to the grounds and I want to show 

her what happened here and why it is important that you never 

forget this, Mia. 

I want her to know about the responsibility that we have and 

that we want to make sure that our national parks and our State 

parks and our urban parks work together, which they do not now. 

We talk it. We got a lot of verbiage, but we really do not collaborate. That is why we all need lots of money. 

Senator Landrieu is right. In the last 3 to 4 years, we have not 

had any UPARR money, and therefore the city would not invest in 

those capital projects because they know they cannot complete 

them. I heard a lot of talk about partnership. That is what we 

want. We are not asking you to pay for everything. But these are 

challenging times for us in urban areas. And I will not get so excited. I will slow up and try to calm down now. 

But we need partnerships and I know it appears as if you are 

supporting the State-side Land and Water. But let me tell you, it 

is needed, but I also want to protect those 17 sites in the National 

Park System that are of significance to African Americans. I do not 

need to tell you. Look around this room. Look around this room. 

There are 73 million blacks and browns in America. Now, can we 

37

win this one without them? Can we win the conservation war without them? No. 73 million people are not involved in the great outdoors movement. Look at it. 

We are facing some challenges, and where are these people now? 

In and around cities. And who is serving them? We are in our 

urban parks, and we are having to close down parks. Now, that is 

not a good testimony. 

That is where Mia goes. That is where she meets people of different colors and different backgrounds, and they learn to play together. They learn to win together. And if they learn to play and 

win together, they are going to continue that through their adult 

lives. 

Every kid cannot dunk a basketball or hit a home run or kick 

a football, but every kid has a need to at least one time in his or 

her life to run home that day and say, Mom, today I was No. 1. 

That is what we do in urban parks. We help kids win. We give 

them a taste of victory. We help them to learn to work together. 

You cannot do that in national parks. 

We need an effective national system of parks. We have a National Park System, but we do not have a system of parks. There 

are certain things that are not appropriate for national treasures, 

but maybe we can say for this reason, we prefer that you not use 

that machine in this park simply because it destroys this. However, 

our State parks or our urban parks allow you to do that. If we 

work together, we could collaborate a lot more. We do not have 

that. 

So today when you read my report, you already know everything 

that is in there. You have heard it many times before. But, Mr. 

Chairman, I just would hope that you would give some very strong 

consideration to the challenge that we face at the State and local 

level. I hate competing with police, fire, homeless, houses. I cannot 

compete. Parks and recreation are considered to be fun and games. 

We are not considered a basic service. And yet, there is no greater 

partner in an urban area than parks and recreation. 

And I will close with this. Tonight at this very moment, there are 

thousands of kids running up and down community gyms, soccer 

fields, baseball fields, thousands, different colors, different backgrounds. They are not harming themselves nor are they harming 

other people. Where are they going to go? When we close, are they 

going to go the library and sit down and study? We know better. 

So today I am asking that you would give us some assistance and 

maybe with a little help, we can keep our promise not to Mia and 

her generation, but to the Roosevelts and the Pinchots and all of 

the others because we made a commitment and we hope that 

maybe just with a little help we can ensure that our legacy would 

be no less than our inheritance. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jordan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES JORDAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD,

THE CONSERVATION FUND, PORTLAND, OR 

Chairman Domenici, Ranking Member Bingaman and Members of the Committee, 

I wish to express my appreciation to you for holding today’s hearing on the Americans Outdoors Act (S. 2590) and for the opportunity to testify on the provisions in 

38

the bill relating to the ‘‘stateside’’ component of the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund (LWCF) and the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR). 

My testimony is based on my thirty-year career as a park official in Portland, Oregon and Austin, Texas, where I worked to provide recreational opportunities directly to the public. My testimony also draws upon my work with state and local 

park directors, the National Park Service and other federal land managing agencies. 

Currently, I serve as the Chairman of the Board of The Conservation Fund, a national non-profit organization with a mission to protect wildlife habitat, historic 

sites, working landscapes and community open space. I am testifying in my personal 

capacity. 

Before discussing the Americans Outdoors Act, I wish to express my appreciation 

to the Senate and the Congress for including funds for the stateside LWCF program 

in the Interior appropriations bills for the last several years. At the state and local 

level, these funds strengthen and promote partnerships between state, county and 

local governments and between public agencies, the non-profit sector, businesses 

and other stakeholders. Most importantly, these funds give local governments the 

financial tools they need to provide access to affordable leisure opportunities in a 

clean and safe environment. 

President Bush’s commitment to fund the stateside program in his budget requests, coupled with Congress’s support for the President’s requests, has revived the 

stateside program. This recent funding has also laid the foundation to fulfill the 

promise of the Land and Water Conservation Fund through dedicated funding, as 

embodied in the Americans Outdoors Act. 

Senator Alexander and Senator Landrieu have performed a great service to our 

country by introducing the Americans Outdoors Act. This bipartisan legislation requires annual allocations of $450 million for stateside LWCF and $125 million for 

UPARR, along with funding for state wildlife grants and impact assistance to coastal communities. 

Almost twenty years ago, I had the opportunity to serve as a commissioner with 

Senator Alexander, who chaired President Reagan’s Commission on Americans Outdoors. To carry out the vision outlined by President Reagan, the Commission recommended expanding federal investments in state and local parks and open space 

conservation. Today, Senator Alexander’s bill implements one of the Commission’s 

top recommendations—to make the Land and Water Conservation Fund a dedicated 

trust to pay for land acquisition and for state and local facility development and rehabilitation. 

In the fourteen years since the Commission’s report, the need for federal support 

for our states, counties, cities and towns has only grown. 

STATESIDE LWCF

Following my work on the Commission, I served as the director of the Department 

of Parks for the City of Portland, Oregon. During that time, I worked with my staff 

and partner organizations to ensure affordable and accessible recreational opportunities for all the city’s residents. 

To meet these goals across the country, park and recreation agencies at the state, 

regional, county and local levels are working to conserve open space, provide recreational facilities and promote outdoor recreation. 

State and local parks provide the public with opportunities to go for a walk, run 

along a trail, bike along a stream or river, play team sports on a ball field, go for 

a swim in a municipal pool, enjoy a family picnic and engage in other activities. 

State parks also provide opportunities for camping, boating and hiking within a 

short drive of our cities and suburbs. 

Thanks to the vision and leadership of Congress and this Committee, our country 

has the world’s greatest system of National Parks, National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges and other public lands. These national treasures are complemented by 

our country’s great system of state and local parks, to form a network of parks and 

open space from the inner cities to the highest mountain peaks. 

For most Americans, their only park and recreational experience is close to home, 

in their local neighborhood at a basketball court, tennis court, playground or local 

beach or within a days drive from home. 

Mr. Chairman, at a time of international uncertainty and threats to our security 

at home, Americans need places in their neighborhood to escape from the stress of 

daily life more than ever. 

Through parks and recreational programs, we build communities. Building communities means connecting people to their neighborhoods, one another and to the 

land. 

39

Mr. Chairman, for over thirty years as I’ve traveled the country and visited my 

colleagues at the state and local level. I’ve seen the challenges facing many state 

and local parks agencies and community organizations along with the benefits that 

stateside and UPARR funding can provide to cities, towns, small communities and 

to urban neighborhoods. 

Unfortunately, conserving land and developing recreational infrastructure is expensive. These capital expenses must compete with increasing budget pressures to 

ensure public safety, educate our children and provide for other local infrastructure 

needs. Cities, counties and states are struggling to pay salaries for public safety personnel, teachers, park and recreation employees and other municipal employees. Despite these budgetary challenges, state and local governments are working to ensure 

that local recreational facilities and state parks are open, clean and safe. 

In addition to providing recreational opportunities, many states are working to 

manage urban sprawl, changes in land tenure and decisions by large forestland 

owners to consolidate land holdings. In many states in the east, changes in land 

ownership patterns have created one-time opportunities to conserve large tracts of 

land for recreation, water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. 

To meet these challenges, local leaders and the public have voted to support parks 

and open space conservation. Out of a total of 134 ballot measures in November 

2003, voters approved 100 ballot initiatives to raise $1.8 billion in non-federal funding for land conservation. In many communities, the public understands that parks 

and recreational opportunities are not just amenities; they are necessary to promote 

local economic development to attract and retain businesses and jobs. 

The Bush Administration and the Congress have also supported the stateside program in recent years. These dollars benefit people directly, by supporting a variety 

of projects on the ground, in all fifty states. 

As a former parks director, I can testify that these annual appropriations are very 

much appreciated. Since 1971, Portland, Oregon has received $5.5 million to acquire 

land at six parks. While in the grand scheme of the federal budget this figure may 

seem small, at the local level this funding has had a big impact. 

State and local governments are not asking the federal government to pay for operations and maintenance at state and local parks. State and local governments are 

asking the federal government to support this legislation to help pay for the onetime cost of land acquisition and facilities development through the 50/50 match 

program and to provide greater predictability for budgeting and long-range planning. 

Supporters of full funding of the stateside program include the National Governor’s Association, National Association of Counties, U.S. Conference of Mayors, 

National Recreation and Park Association, National Association of State Parks Directors, National Association of State Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers and other 

organizations representing municipal governments and officials. In addition to local 

agencies, these funds will benefit many of our partners—the local Boys and Girls 

Clubs, YMCAs, YWCAs and other groups. 

By passing this bill, Congress can fulfill the original promise of a program that 

has a forty-year track record of success and which has funded over 40,000 projects 

in every corner of our country. 

The funds that Congress provided for stateside LWCF have helped underserved 

neighborhoods and state open space programs throughout America and have yielded 

tremendous dividends for children, young people, young adults, families and senior 

citizens. These dividends are enjoyed by every income and ethnic group. 

The stateside program works. It works in big and small cities, suburban areas, 

and rural counties. Examples include:

• Bozeman, Montana. A $50,000 LWCF grant was part of a successful project to 

complete the development of Sundance Springs Park to enable the acquisition 

of 10.25 acres and to promote access to Bozeman’s urban ‘‘Main Street to the 

Mountains’’ trail. 

• Willcox, Arizona. The City of Willcox received LWCF funds to install a new 

sprinkler system and lights for the Rodeo and lights for the Quail Drive Sports 

Park. 

• Transylvania County, North Carolina. The State of North Carolina received 

stateside funding to support a partnership to acquire 10,000 acres of lands in 

and around the Jocasse Gorges to establish Gorges State Park. 

• Juneau, Alaska. The City of Juneau Parks and Recreation Department received 

stateside LWCF funds to help open a new ice skating rink at the Treadwell 

Arena in 2003.

State and local governments seek federal assistance to defray some of the costs 

for these types of projects. They ask Congress to provide greater certainty and preVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:01 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\97188.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
40

dictability for planning and funding long-term capital projects and other initiatives, 

which would be provided by this bill. Land acquisition and facilities development 

are capital expenditures and state and local officials need greater certainty to budget and plan for these improvements. 

As provided for in the bill, the Land and Water Conservation Fund deserves permanent funding, because the LWCF is tied to a dedicated funding source—offshore 

oil and gas royalties. Fully funding LWCF is consistent with other federal wildlife 

and conservation programs that enjoy dedicated funding, such as the Dingell-Johnson and Wallop-Breaux programs. In addition, the federal transportation reauthorization bill is funded via its own funding source—the federal gasoline tax. Last year, 

Congress approved spending for airport improvements which are paid for by airport 

user fees and other revenue sources. Four years ago, Congress approved mandatory 

spending for payments to rural counties which rely on timber receipts from federal 

timber harvests. 

S. 2590 does not seek special treatment for park, wildlife and coastal programs. 

By providing dedicated LWCF funding to states, Indian tribes and Alaska Native 

Corporations from 2005-2010, the bill puts stateside LWCF, urban park, wildlife 

and coastal funding on par with other federal programs which have dedicated funding sources. 

With the 50/50 match requirement for stateside LWCF, the Alexander-Landrieu 

bill will also leverage significant non-federal funding—approximately $2.25 billion 

over the life of the bill. 

URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY PROGRAM

I commend Senators Alexander and Landrieu for including funding for UPARR in 

the bill. When it established the UPARR program in 1978, Congress authorized the 

National Park Service (NPS) to provide federal matching grants and technical assistance to help ensure that young people in economically-distressed cities and 

neighborhoods have access to high quality recreation facilities. 

In the last twenty-five years, UPARR has provided 1,461 grants to 380 local jurisdictions in 43 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. These grants have 

rehabilitated existing facilities, promoted innovative programs, and funded planning 

activities. 

Most of the UPARR grants have been used to rehabilitate playgrounds, recreation 

centers, ball fields, neighborhood parks, swimming pools, picnic areas and basketball and tennis courts. These grants are matched by the local jurisdiction on a 70/

30 basis. 

With the Congressional appropriations between FY 2000 and FY 2002, the National Park Service has worked in close partnership with our cities—both large and 

small in many regions of our country to fund on the ground improvements. 

I know first hand the benefits that UPARR provides. In Portland, UPARR funding 

allowed us to convert an abandoned fire station into the Interstate Fire House and 

Cultural Center and to rehabilitate the University Park Community Center. 

Other recent examples include:

• Covington, Kentucky. The NPS provided a $120,000 grant to rehabilitate a 6.3 

acre park by installing a new play surface, new playground equipment and replace a picnic shelter. 

• Kansas City, Missouri. The NPS provided a $500,000 grant to rehabilitate the 

pool facility at Swope Park, in an economically-depressed neighborhood. 

• Las Vegas, Nevada. The NPS provided $425,000 to rehabilitate basketball 

courts, a skateboard rink, playground equipment and restrooms. 

• Phoenix, Arizona. The NPS provided a $500,000 grant to replace the current 

recreation building, water play area, playground equipment and softball field 

lighting.

To build on the past success of the program, our cities need the $125 million provided in the bill. 

FEDERAL LWCF

In my capacity as Chairman of The Conservation Fund, a nationwide non-profit 

organization, I’ve learned that our nation’s landscape is as diverse and varied as our 

nation’s population. Our landscape encompasses the coasts, the cities, piedmont and 

foothills, mountain valleys and the backcountry. Our nation’s built environment is 

also diverse and varied, from the downtowns of our large and small cities, to the 

suburbs, to rural county land, working landscapes and remote communities. 

Over the last forty years, this Committee and the Congress have recognized the 

diverse needs of our lands and our people. Starting forty years ago with the Land 

41

and Water Conservation Fund Act, Congress passed a series of bills authorizing a 

suite of federal grant programs to address our most pressing conservation and recreation needs. To build on these legislative accomplishments, we need adequate resources to carry out the programs that Congress has authorized. 

We also need the flexibility provided by the federal LWCF program. On the 

ground, local governments, conservation organizations and their partners are using 

all available tools to preserve our lands and waters. Full funding of the federal 

LWCF program is an important tool for land conservation, especially as acquisitions 

grow more creative and complex. 

Successful conservation initiatives often require a mix of federal, state, local, or 

private funding. Federal LWCF is an essential ingredient for projects that are locally supported and respectful of the needs of landowners. 

By fully funding the stateside and federal LWCF, we can ensure that our people 

can enjoy a nationwide network of local, state and national lands dedicated to recreation and land and water conservation. By approving this bill, Congress can protect, 

enjoy and pass on America’s great natural resources to future generations. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of the bill. I would be pleased 

to respond to question.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Amen. 

The CHAIRMAN. If we were not in a Senate hearing, we would applaud you. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank you for hearing me. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have 11 Mias. So I have a bigger job than you. 

Mr. JORDAN. That means you are wealthier than I am right now. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We are going to John Baughman. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN BAUGHMAN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

trying to put me on before Mr. Jordan. It would have been a lot 

easier. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. My name is John Baughman. I am the executive 

vice president of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies. Our association was founded in 1902 and we are the organization of all the public agencies charged with the protection 

and management of North America’s fish and wildlife resources. 

Our governmental members include the fish and wildlife agencies 

of all 50 States, plus the provinces and territories and Federal Governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico. 

The association sincerely appreciates the opportunity to appear 

before you today to share with you the collective and continued 

strong support of the 50 State fish and wildlife agencies for the assured wildlife conservation and outdoor recreation funding reflected 

in S. 2590, the Americans Outdoors Act. I would like to start by 

thanking you, Senator Domenici and Senators Alexander and 

Landrieu, for again elevating and reengaging this discussion on 

what we think is a very important merits of the conservation outdoor recreation funding in this country. 

At your request, Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I will summarize 

my written testimony, and I think I can do that in three points. 

First, natural resource conservation and outdoor recreation are 

important issues to America, typically ranking right up there with 

42

national security, the economy, and social programs. I wish I could 

say that as well as my colleague here did. As our population approaches 300 million in this country, wildlife conservation just does 

not happen. Like clean air and clean water, it takes a reliable and 

ongoing commitment of human and financial resources. 

Second, unless Congress makes a multi-year commitment, history shows that we will continue to postpone conservation efforts 

which then cost more and result in substantial impacts on public 

and private lands and on our local communities. We need only to 

look at the 1,200 species right now on the threatened and endangered species list to witness the financial, administrative, and regulatory burdens that accompany underfunded conservation. 

Finally, history also clearly demonstrates the tremendous success 

of fish and wildlife conservation in this country when dedicated 

and assured funding is available. At the turn of the century, we 

could look at white-tailed deer, wild turkeys, elk, pronghorn antelope, most of the water fowl in this country, many species of migratory fish. They were all depleted, some of them near extinction. 

With the assured and dedicated funding from the State hunting 

and fishing licenses plus Federal excise taxes on sporting arms and 

ammunition that came along in 1937 with the Pittman-Robertson 

Act, the excise taxes on fishing equipment that came along in 1950 

with the Dingell-Johnson Act, supplemented by motorboat fuel and 

small engine Federal-side tax in 1984 with the Wallop-Breaux 

amendments, the States have been able to join with our Federal, 

nonprofit, and corporate partners, along with the private landowners of this country, to restore all these species I mentioned and 

their habitats. And likewise, the 20 or so species that we have already removed or should be removed, could be removed from the 

threatened and endangered species list are those species where 

adequate funding has been devoted. You can look at the examples 

of peregrin falcons, bald eagles, grizzly bears, species where we put 

the money and we have made the progress. 

Now it is time to provide conservation for all of America’s wildlife, not only those species of fish and wildlife considered game or 

those already listed as threatened and endangered but also the 

two-thirds of the Nation’s wildlife which presently receive too little 

attention and many of which could be tomorrow’s next threatened 

and endangered crises. 

America’s wildlife agencies have the expertise, they have the 

will, and with assured funding, they would have the resources to 

work with our Federal and private partners, including the Nation’s 

landowners, to continue our successes which made America’s system of fish and wildlife conservation the model which other countries seek to emulate. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, the International Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies stands ready to assist you and the committee 

in whatever way we can to help make the programs under the 

Americans Outdoors Act a reality for all our citizens. I thank you 

and we would be happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baughman follows:]

43

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN BAUGHMAN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, 

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Baughman of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. The International Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies was founded in 1902 as 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 all 50 states, plus the provinces and territories and federal 

governments of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. 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. 

The Association sincerely appreciates the opportunity to appear before your Committee today to share with you the collective and continued strong support of the 

50 State Fish and Wildlife Agencies for assured funding for wildlife conservation 

and outdoor recreation as reflected in S. 2590, The Americans Outdoors Act, a bill 

that will ensure a conservation legacy for all Americans. This bill is unquestionably 

one of the most significant legislative initiatives for fish and wildlife (and other natural resources) conservation in the last several decades. Whether an American 

hunts, fishes, bird watches, hikes, plays soccer or just enjoys the peace and tranquility of being outdoors appreciating the vast natural bounty of our Nation, this 

bill will ensure that our children and future generations will enjoy this bountiful 

natural wealth. 

Let me also thank you, Chairman Domenici and Senator Alexander and Senator 

Landrieu for re-engaging serious deliberations over the merits of and need for assured funding for conservation and outdoor recreation. You have created the momentum that brings us back here today to consider a bill that is desperately needed 

and strongly supported by the majority of the American public and members of Congress, as reflected in the progenitor to S. 2590, CARA. Mr. Chairman, we stand committed to working with you and this Congress as we have in the past. 

Natural resource conservation is an extremely high priority for the American people as recent polls again affirm. Support for S. 2590 sends an unmistakable message 

that funding certainty for conservation has finally achieved the standing in the national budget that it truly deserves. As you know and appreciate, Mr. Chairman, 

natural resource conservation and recreation programs contribute significantly to 

our quality of life, our socio-economic stability, and our Nation’s health and wellbeing. Just as Social Security is a financial safety net, conservation of our natural 

resources is the safety net for American’s quality of life and their environment. Unless Congress makes a multi-year commitment, history indicates that we will continue to postpone conservation efforts which then cost more and result in substantial impact on private and public land because many species ultimately become 

threatened and endangered. 

Stewardship of our fish and wildlife, land, and coastal resources is important to 

every one of our citizens. It is particularly important to future generations who will 

either benefit from our prudent care for these resources or be burdened by our failure to do so. Good stewardship cannot be imposed from Washington, DC, or defined 

by regulation; it needs to be nurtured and supported at the state and community 

level where we live. It is clear that our nation’s long-term resource conservation 

challenges cannot be solved by one-time fixes, cookie-cutter answers, or simply passing more regulations. The history of fluctuations and constantly shifting priorities 

as reflected by year-to-year appropriations underscores the fact that annual funding 

simply is not adequate to meet current needs or address future problems. There 

needs to be a comprehensive and sustained federal, state and local stewardship commitment. For these reasons, assured funding and state-based decision making are 

the most important fundamental provisions of the Americans Outdoors Act. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, restoring declining species to a sustainable level is 

a complex, multi-year endeavor that requires the certainty of available funding for 

success. As an example, restoring the nation’s symbol—the bald eagle—to its current status has taken four decades and it took a lot more than just banning the use 

of certain pesticides to achieve this goal. In this case, funds were available under 

the Endangered Species Act, but no secure funding is currently available for the 

many imperiled non-game species from whose ranks will come the next listed species. With assured and dedicated funding, we can implement proactive conservation 

to address the early warning signs of decline. It is far less expensive to restore species before they become threatened or endangered, and our opportunities to use voluntary incentive-based, non-regulatory programs are much greater. 

44

Our experience with game and sportfish clearly demonstrates the tremendous success of fish and wildlife conservation efforts when dedicated and assured funding is 

available. As you know, Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of the last century, America’s fish and wildlife populations were in dire circumstances from several factors. 

Through the efforts of America’s sportsmen and women, working with the hunting 

and fishing equipment industry and state and federal fish and wildlife agencies, 

Congress statutorily established the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson) in 1937 and Federal Aid in Sportfish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux) in 1950 to provide dedicated and assured funding to the State 

fish and wildlife agencies for game and sportfish species. Those funds, along with 

license fees paid by hunters and anglers, have provided the foundation for America’s 

successful fish and wildlife conservation programs over many years and brought 

back species like the white-tailed deer, pronghorn antelope, wood duck, wild turkey 

and striped bass. Now is the time to build on that success to help all the nation’s 

wildlife with funding provided under the Americans Outdoors Act. We have the expertise, we have the will, and with assured funding we will have the resources to 

continue our successes which make America’s system of fish and wildlife conservation the model which other countries seek to emulate. 

Also, as you are aware, private land habitats are instrumental in maintenance an 

restoration of much of our nation’s wildlife. Assured, long-term funding is necessary 

to create voluntary incentives for private land stewardship, to provide technical assistance, and to develop cooperative conservation agreements. These efforts would 

be designed to reduce the need to list endangered species by funding preventative 

conservation programs that restore declining species before they reach a point 

where listing is necessary. This helps landowners to become part of the solution 

through non-regulatory, incentive-based programs that help integrate their land 

management intentions with fish and wildlife conservation efforts. 

The Association has testified several times before this Committee (and others) in 

the previous Congresses on CARA and other proposals that would have dedicated 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues to State-based enhancement programs for 

fish and wildlife conservation, conservation education, and wildlife-associated recreation; land and water conservation; general outdoor recreation; and coastal conservation and impact assistance. The Association strongly supports the Americans 

Outdoors Act because it is a bipartisan, consensus-built, common sense approach to 

conservation. It makes good economic sense, good common sense, and good political 

sense. The coalition of organizations that has come together (again) in support of the 

Americans Outdoors Act truly represents a broad and diverse grass-root alliance of 

the business community, conservation organizations, elected officials at all levels of 

governments, industry, the recreation community and other interests. Citizens from 

‘‘soccer moms’’ to hunters and wildlife photographers strongly support S. 2590. The 

Americans Outdoors Act places decisions on identifying needs and spending priorities at the State and local level which we believe can best reflect the interest of 

our citizens. This coalition truly represents America’s interest in our natural and 

cultural heritage, and our need to conserve that heritage for future generations. 

Also, as you know, Mr. Chairman, outdoor recreation is one of the fastest growing 

industries in this country, and the Americans Outdoors Act will position the State 

fish and wildlife agencies to help local communities identify and develop wildliferelated tourism opportunities. Programs to capture these opportunities can significantly enhance the economy of these rural communities. 

Let me briefly share with you today two perfecting amendments the Association 

would urge be made to the Wildlife Title (Title IV) of the Americans Outdoors Act. 

The Association staff will continue to work closely with your Committee staff on the 

details. 

First, we ask for your serious consideration of eliminating the existing (in statute) 

10% spending cap restriction on wildlife-related recreation expenses. In 1996, over 

62 million Americans participated in wildlife viewing with an economic impact of 

nearly $30 billion. Wildlife-related recreation fosters understanding, appreciation, 

and support, and it significantly contributes to building the public’s commitment to 

wildlife conservation which is essential to achieving the on-the-ground conservation 

goals. 

Second, we strongly encourage you to allow, at the discretion of the State fish and 

wildlife agency, the expenditure of up to 10% of the Title IV funds for conservation 

law enforcement activities. As you know, state fish and wildlife conservation officers 

have many opportunities to work with landowners and the public to implement voluntary, proactive fish and wildlife protection and public education and outreach programs. They also prevent poaching, or over-utilization of fish and wildlife resources, 

thereby reducing the likelihood that a species may become threatened or endanVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:01 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\97188.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
45

gered in the future. Further, they provide for public safety, security, search and rescue functions, and resolution of outdoor user conflicts. In short, conservation law enforcement is an integral component of a comprehensive state program for conservation of all wildlife and should, at the discretion of the State, be eligible for up to

10% funding under the Wildlife title of the Americans Outdoors Act. 

Mr. Chairman, in closing, the Association stands ready to assist you in whatever 

way we can to make programs which would be funded under Americans Outdoors 

Act a reality for all of our citizens. Let’s work together to advance this legislation 

as expeditiously as possible and provide a future for our citizens that we can all 

be proud of passing on. 

We would be pleased to answer any questions the Committee may have. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share the Association’s perspectives with you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I am very sorry on your name. 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. I should spell it differently. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is right. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Henry Diamond. 

STATEMENT OF HENRY L. DIAMOND, CHAIR,

AMERICANS FOR OUR HERITAGE AND RECREATION 

Mr. DIAMOND. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having us. I represent the Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation, which is a 

very broad coalition of folks, ranging from urban people to wilderness advocates. We, of course, thank the committee for having us 

and we thank, of course, Lamar Alexander and Senator Landrieu. 

Our basic thrust is we applaud the introduction of this bill but 

urge that Federal funding be added to it to fund our national parks 

and forest and wildlife areas. 

The Land and Water Fund really has a wonderful, long history. 

In 1958, Congress created the Outdoor Recreation Resources Commission. It made recommendations to the President and the Congress, and the centerpiece was the Land and Water Fund. The 

chairman of the Outdoor Recreation Commission was one of America’s great conservationists, Laurance S. Rockefeller. We lost 

Laurance last week. He always cited the creation of the fund as 

one of his proudest achievements, and indeed, it is a monument to 

his leadership. 

By the way, your colleague, Senator Kyl’s father was a member 

of that commission. So there is a long-term connection. 

In response to the recommendations of the commission and to the 

growing need, Congress created the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund. As has been noted but cannot be stressed too much, a basic 

principle of the fund is that when one public natural resource is 

sold, at least some of the proceeds should be used to buy another 

public resource. Thus, Congress dedicated a portion of the receipts 

of OCS to buy more public land. 

The fund has been a success. It has brought about conservation 

and protection of more than 5 million acres of land and water 

across the country. It has created and consolidated or improved 

more than 700 different Federal land areas. The State side of the 

program has funded more than 40,000 projects in 98 percent of the 

counties in America. My testimony focuses on the Federal side, but 

AHR strongly endorses the State side as well. 

The Land and Water Fund has provided a lot for the American 

people, but its future is uncertain. The need for a permanent, adequate fund is urgent. Many decisions will be made over the next 

46

6 years that cannot be put on hold for lack of money. Already we 

see the losses and already we pay the consequences in threatened 

water quality, loss of wildlife habitat, lack of neighborhood parks, 

and indeed quality of life. 

The fund must have a guaranteed revenue stream so that cities, 

States, and Federal managers can keep up and plan ahead. A dependable funding source also provides for a timely process in dealing with private landowners, many of whom are waiting for this. 

The inconsistent record in providing the promised $900 million of 

the fund during the past decade dramatically demonstrates why 

this legislation is now essential. 

We realize that there are very real questions about the budget 

impacts and the increased Federal landholding this bill might entail. We look forward to discussing this issue and because of the 

importance, working with you to resolve them. 

The Federal part of the Land and Water Fund is a key force in 

conserving our precious places and providing recreation opportunities for the American people. Thus, we urge the committee to 

amend S. 2590 to include $450 million for the Federal side of the 

fund and report the bill favorably. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Diamond follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HENRY L. DIAMOND, CHAIR,

AMERICANS FOR OUR HERITAGE AND RECREATION

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, my name is Henry Diamond, and 

I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of Americans for our Heritage 

and Recreation (AHR). AHR is an unusually broad and diverse organization ranging 

from urban communities to wilderness advocates. 

I appear here today as Chairman of AHR, but my primary occupation is as a partner in the law firm of Beveridge & Diamond. I have been involved with the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund for a long time. As Commissioner of the New York 

State Department of Environmental Conservation, I administered the Fund for New 

York and saw its great impact. As editor of the reports of the Outdoor Recreation 

Resources Review Commission, I helped formulate the Commission’s recommendations which led to the creation of the Fund. 

The Chairman of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission was 

Laurance S. Rockefeller, whom we lost last week. He always cited the creation of 

the Fund as one of his outstanding achievements, and indeed it is a monument to 

his leadership. Now more than ever, we must re-affirm and rededicate ourselves to 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the full Committee for holding this 

hearing on S. 2590, and for providing AHR with the opportunity to testify on the 

importance of permanent and adequate conservation and recreation funding. We salute the sponsors of S. 2590, Senators Alexander and Landrieu, for introducing this 

legislation and reaffirming Congress’ commitment to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND—

RESPONDING TO A NEED FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

In 1958, Congress created the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission 

to inventory and identify natural resources, and make policy recommendations to 

meet the growing public demand for outdoor recreation. The report was presented 

in 1962 and called on a partnership among all levels of government—the centerpiece 

being the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

Three years later in response to the Commission’s report, Congress passed the 

‘‘Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965,’’ and with it, the promise to protect our natural and recreational resources for future generations. For more than 

40 years, LWCF has faithfully fulfilled its mission to conserve, develop, and utilize 

outdoor recreation resources for the benefit and enjoyment of the American people. 

47

Initially, three sources of revenue to the fund were designated: proceeds from 

sales of surplus federal real property, motorboat fuel taxes, and fees for recreation 

use of federal lands. The level of funding from FY 1966 through FY 1968 reached 

about $100 million per year, which was far short of Congress’ expectations. To remedy this shortfall, Congress amended the Act to include Outer Continental shelf 

(OCS) mineral leasing receipts as part of the funding stream. LWCF’s increase in 

authorized funding to its current level came in June 1977, when Congress augmented it to $900 million. 

In 1985, President Ronald Reagan called on Senator Lamar Alexander, then governor of Tennessee, to chair a new Commission on Americans Outdoors. The Commission report issued in 1987 found many threats to the opportunity to enjoy the 

outdoors, including loss of space through urban growth, pollutants, and disappearance of wetlands. Most importantly, it found that budget cuts to conservation programs were undermining efforts to provide access to recreation and that ‘‘the quality 

of the outdoor estate remains precarious.’’ The report went on to recommend that 

Congress should dedicate at least $1 billion a year from offshore oil and gas drilling 

revenues to provide a steady and reliable flow of funds to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

The success of the Land and Water Conservation Fund has resulted in the conservation and protection of more than five million acres of land and water areas 

across the country. Since its inception in 1964, LWCF has created, consolidated, and 

improved more than 700 different federal land areas. Notable projects to which 

LWCF funds have gone include:

• Denali National Park & Preserve, AK (country’s highest mountain; more than 

300,000 visitors per year) 

• Grand Canyon National Park, AZ (4 million visitors per year) 

• Golden Gate National Park, CA (one of the largest urban national parks in the 

world; 16 million visitors per year; 33 federally protected or endangered species) 

• Everglades National Park, FL (1 million visitors per year) 

• Great Smoky Mountains National Park, NC/TN (9 million visitors per year) 

• Appalachian National Scenic Trail, 14 states (LWCF funding key to multi-state 

project; much loved by the public; more than 99 percent protected through federal or state land ownership or by rights-of-way) 

• Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site, GA (birthplace and home of 

Martin Luther King in Atlanta, 600,000 visitors per year) 

• Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, HI (world’s most active volcano; 1 million visitors per year) 

• Santa Fe National Forest, NM (1,000 miles of trails for hiking, horseback 

riding, 4-wheeling, skiing, snowmobiling; more than 629 miles of streams and 

lakes) 

• Women’s Rights National Historical Park, NY (home of suffragist Elizabeth 

Cady Stanton) 

• Kirtlands Warbler National Wildlife Refuge, MI (preserves the endangered 

neotropical Kirtlands Warbler, a migratory song bird)

Coupled with the stateside LWCF program, more than 40,000 projects have been 

developed in 98 percent of the counties in America. While my testimony today will 

concentrate on the federal side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, I want 

to point out that AHR is committed to full funding of the entire program at its $900 

million authorized level, with an equitable allocation of funds between its federal 

and state grant programs. In addition, AHR supports a revived and substantially 

funded Urban Park and Recreation Recovery program (UPARR). We view all three 

programs as integral tools in providing Americans places to get outdoors. 

AHR also supports the addition of the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) to the 

final bill. The HPF provides matching grants to encourage private and non-federal 

investment in historic preservation efforts nationwide. The HPF is legislatively authorized to receive OCS revenues and complements the work of state recreation and 

wildlife grants through conservation of historic and cultural treasures. 

A new conservation program, called Forest Legacy, was developed in the 1990’s 

to preserve working forestlands and protect critical forest resources. The program 

has a proven record of assisting private landowners, leveraging non-federal funds, 

and ensuring conservation benefits like many of the other programs included in S. 

2590. AHR believes this program provides creative and innovative land protections 

for the twenty-first century. In fact, the demand for this program has exceeded $250 

million for the past several years. As the Committee considers additions to S. 2590, 

we would encourage including Forest Legacy in the reported bill. 

48

40 YEARS OF BIPARTISAN PRESIDENTIAL SUPPORT FOR LWCF

LWCF continues to be the premier tool available to the American people to permanently protect our most valuable and vulnerable lands. The LWCF federal land 

acquisition program has been integral in establishing and maintaining our country’s 

priceless network of national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges that is the envy of 

the world. 

Every President of the United States since Lyndon B. Johnson has submitted annual budgets calling for Congress to expend a portion of the authorized Land and 

Water Conservation Fund to acquire conservation lands. Just this year, President 

Bush submitted in his FY 05 budget request to Congress that $220 million be spent 

for federal land acquisitions. President Bush has said, ‘‘Our legacy should be an unwavering commitment to preserve and conserve our treasured lands—a commitment 

I intend to keep.’’

Congress has worked hand in hand with the White House during these 40 years 

to honor the principle of the Land and Water Conservation Fund—using the sale 

of proceeds of one capital asset to buy another—into an ongoing program for park 

and open space protection. In fact, federal funding of LWCF is less than four-tenths 

of one percent of the total U.S. Budget. To date, there is still approximately a $10 billion backlog in land acquisition 

projects that have been identified by the federal land agencies. Most of these 

projects come about due to the interest of a willing private landowner and the cooperation of the state’s congressional delegation. In fact, in FY 02 and 03 combined, 

84 percent of LWCF appropriations went to the purchase/acquisition of inholdings 

as opposed to expansion or dedication of new areas. 

FEDERAL LWCF—FLEXIBLE INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

The ability to preserve land across a continuum of jurisdictions—federal, state, 

and local—is critical to the increasing struggle to preserve what remains of our nation’s dwindling open space. Indeed, the need is now more urgent than it was in 

1965 at the inception of the Fund. Population has boomed beyond projections; land 

has been gobbled up faster than we thought, and we have come to understand better 

the vital role protected lands play in the health of our ecosystem and our own well 

being. 

On March 25, 2004, a representative from the Department of the Interior testified 

before Congress that ‘‘certain acquisitions of land or interests in lands are necessary, not only to achieve Departmental goals, but also to meet collaborative agreements with private property owners, States, local governments, and third party 

groups, improve or provide legal access to existing land, provide rights-of-way, and 

protect historical recreational and natural resources.’’ [Statement of Robert Lamb, 

Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary of Policy, Management and Budget] 

One reason that federal LWCF has worked so well during the past 40 years is 

because of its flexibility. It is not simply a land-buying program, it does much more. 

The federal LWCF Act provides the authority to acquire land, provide agencies with 

the authority to make minor boundary changes, receive donated land, purchase land 

with donated funds, purchase easements on private lands, or transfer or exchange 

lands from other federal agencies. 

For example, the Administration’s FY 05 budget request includes a $2,000,000 request for Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Upper Snake / South Fork Snake 

River project in Idaho. Since 1991, Congress has appropriated $13 million to purchase more than 1,100 acres of fee and conservation easements on more than 3,000 

acres. Other investments in this project area have been made by the Bonneville 

Power Administration, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and private conservation organizations. 

Similarly, federal LWCF can be used for purchase of small, but strategic, parcels 

of land that mitigate future maintenance costs and provide safer public access to 

parks. 

For example, at Mt. Rainier National Park, 800 acres, a mixture of public and 

private land would allow a new road to be built on higher ground, reducing the 

maintenance cost of rebuilding the current road that is annually washed out by 

heavy rains. Even this small land purchase will receive a specific congressional authorization before LWCF funds will be appropriated. 

And, the Columbia River Gorge in Oregon and Washington has been funded by 

LWCF for 15 years to help the U.S. Forest Service implement the congressionallyauthorized national scenic area, which follows the Lewis and Clark expeditionary 

route along the Columbia River. 

In 2002, Congress passed the Flight 93 Memorial Act to create a new unit of the 

National Park System to commemorate the bravery of the passengers and crew of 

49

Flight 93 on September 11, 2001 who gave their lives in defense of the Nation’s 

Capital. Local partners are working with the National Park Service to protect more 

than 1,000 acres of the crash site and associated viewshed, through a partnership 

involving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the local county, landowners, and 

non-profit organizations. To begin the federal land acquisition, the President’s Fiscal 

Year 2005 budget request to Congress included $2.2 million from the federal Land 

and Water Conservation Fund. If the federal LWCF funds are approved by Congress, they will leverage significant non-federal contributions, including an in-kind 

donation of land. 

New or renovated parks and trails in communities around the country are proven 

catalysts for local economic development. LWCF investments in parks, forests, and 

wildlife areas generate tourism dollars and increase real estate values in adjacent 

gateway communities. 

Finally, we would encourage the federal land managers to think creatively and 

use the federal LWCF for consolidation and land transfers among federal, state, and 

local agencies. Federal land agencies need to be given adequate resources to make 

this a priority during the life of S. 2590. These multi-agencies, multi-state transfers 

are tedious and difficult, but in the long-run, federal LWCF dollars used wisely 

could create new recreation opportunities for the public that are more cost effective. 

CONCLUSION

The Americans Outdoors Act, S. 2590, will provide a conservation legacy for the 

next generation and provide the reliable stream of funding that has beleaguered the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund during the past 40 years. By integrating wildlife, coastal, state and urban parks, and federal land programs under a dedicated 

fund guided by Congress, future generations will inherit American landscapes resplendent with parks, trails, hunting and fishing areas, wetlands, and a more pristine environment. 

In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has indicated that 

regular physical activity is a crucial part of good health. Economists now predict 

that significant health care savings to state and federal governments could be 

achieved through increased physical activity and exercise. By providing access to 

places for physical activity, such as our parks, forests, and trails, LWCF has become 

an important tool in providing Americans access to outdoor recreation. 

Given the conservation, recreation, and public health benefits inherent in the federal LWCF program, we urge the committee to amend S. 2590, the Americans Outdoors Act, to include $450 million for the federal Land and Water Conservation 

Fund. The Fund has proven to:

• conserve, develop, and utilize outdoor recreation resources for the benefit and 

enjoyment of the American people; 

• provide federal land managers with key tools to integrate lands for more efficient management and better public access; 

• assist private property owners with options to be reasonably compensated for 

decades of stewardship of their lands and their personal rights to dispense with 

their land as they wish; 

• protect and preserve our nation’s heritage for future generations and to encourage livable communities for a healthier population;

The need for a permanent, adequate LWCF is urgent. America’s bounty is shrinking fast. Since 1960, the number of Americans has increased from 179 million to 

255 million. Farmland and open space is being consumed at twice the rate that our 

population is growing, losing 2.3 million acres of open space a year to single family 

housing. Recent polling shows that voters are so concerned about protecting clean 

air and water and conserving the lands that help preserve water quality that they 

would support additional taxes to pay for protecting parks and wildlife areas. 

Public investment to preserve the rapidly dwindling resource must have a guaranteed revenue stream so that our city, state, and federal managers can keep up and 

plan ahead for our children’s future. Also, it provides for a timely process of acquisitions and easements to meet the requests of private land owners. The inconsistent 

record in providing the promised $900 million of LWCF during the past decade dramatically demonstrates why this legislation is essential. 

Many of the decisions that will be made in the next six years cannot be put on 

hold; already we see the losses; already we pay the consequences in threatened 

water quality, loss of wildlife habitat, lack of neighborhood parks, and quality of life. 

We look forward to achieving these goals by passage of the Americans Outdoors 

Act, S. 2590, that includes full funding of both the federal and stateside of the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund.

50

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Diamond. Senator Domenici 

has stepped out for a moment. He will be back. 

Ms. Marzulla. 

STATEMENT OF NANCIE G. MARZULLA, PRESIDENT, 

DEFENDERS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS 

Ms. MARZULLA. Thank you and thank you for the opportunity to 

testify here today. I am testifying on behalf of Defenders of Property Rights, as well as the Keep Private Lands in Private Hands 

Coalition, a coalition comprised of over 600 State and local organizations dedicated to the principle of private property ownership. 

Let me say at the outset that we fully support the many important objectives and goals that we have heard discussed this morning, outdoor recreation, conservation, wildlife protection, and the 

like. However, I am here to testify in opposition to S. 2590 to the 

extent that it provides funding for State acquisition of private property. Likewise, to the extent that the bill may be amended to provide funding for Federal land acquisition, we also oppose any such 

amendment. 

I have only one point to make and that is that we do not need 

more government land ownership in this country. Whenever government acquires more land, it acquires more power. Now, this 

power is not an abstract concept. The architect of communism, Karl 

Marx, wrote about the relationship between land ownership and 

power in his Communist Manifesto, stating that you reproach us 

with planning to do away with your property. Precisely. That is 

just what we propose. The theory of the communists may be 

summed up in a single sentence: abolition of private property. 

Today most of the world has abandoned communism as a failed 

idea by reaching out toward protecting private property rights. 

Countries such as Russia, China, and Cuba are moving toward capitalism and embracing property rights protection. Yet, ironically 

this bill and the proposed amendment moves this country back in 

the direction of communism to the extent that it authorizes abolition of private property. 

I would further add that my rough calculation referencing the 

map that we looked at today showing government ownership of 

land in this country, government in the form of the Federal Government, State government, and local government already owns almost 40 percent of the land in this country. Now, that is fee simple 

ownership. I do not have any figures on how much land government also owns in lesser than fee simple ownership, if you look at 

leases and easements and the like. 

The important thing to note about government ownership of land 

is that the Government not only exercises power over the land it 

owns title to, but it also exercises power over adjacent land. The 

Federal Government relies on Article IV of the Constitution, or the 

Property Clause, for its authority to regulate adjacent property. 

States and local government rely on their police power and other 

provisions in their State constitutions. Thus, whenever the government is your neighbor, it can reach beyond its borders and control 

your property in a way that no private neighbor could. 

Kathy Stupack-Thrall and her fellow riparian landowners found 

this out in Michigan. There, they had private rights in a lake and 

51

1This Coalition is comprised of over 600 state and local property rights and agricultural, and 

resource—user organizations, and organizations representing federal land inholders. Together 

these organizations represent millions of people, in all 50 states. 

the Forest Service purchased land adjacent to the lake as well, and 

Forest Service came in and extinguished State-established, Statecreated riparian rights in the lake to the point where these landowners were told they could engage in no use of motorized equipment on the waters of the lake, including such things as radios. So 

marina owners were put out of business and outdoor recreational 

activities were seriously curtailed. 

Last but not least, the Federal Government, using its commerce 

power and the State again using its police power, today regulates 

every conceivable aspect of private property ownership through environmental laws and State and local land use laws. In King County, Washington, for example, one proposal would allow landowners 

to build on only 10 percent of their land. Landowners would be required to set aside 65 percent of their land and maintain it in its 

pristine, natural vegetative condition, unable to make any changes 

to their land whatsoever, thus leaving the property owner with 

only a small fraction of his ‘‘privately owned land’’ with which to 

put to beneficial and productive use. 

Thus, we flatly oppose the creation of a massive slush fund for 

acquisition of additional government-owned land. We obviously recognize that there are instances where the public good will necessitate the acquisition of specific parcels of private property, but we 

think those instances should be targeted and the power narrowly 

tailored and exercised. 

In closing, I would like to say that I heard the concept discussed 

today by Senator Burns and others, the notion of no net loss of private property. We heartily endorse that notion and think that 

would be a very good way of striking a balance and preserving the 

balance, in fact, that our Founding Fathers adopted in our Constitution. 

I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Marzulla follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NANCIE G. MARZULLA, PRESIDENT,

DEFENDERS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today regarding this Committee’s examination of S. 2590, the Americans Outdoors Act. 

My name is Nancie Marzulla. I am President of Defenders of Property Rights, the 

nation’s only nonprofit legal foundation dedicated exclusively to the protection of individual rights in the ownership and use of private property. Founded in 1991, Defenders works in the courts, the legislature, and in the marketplace of public opinion to preserve private property rights, a cornerstone of individual liberty. Defenders of Property Rights is a member of the Keep Private Lands in Private Hands Coalition,1 chaired by Chuck Cushman, Executive Director of the American Lands 

Right Association. Defenders submits this testimony on its own and the Coalition’s 

behalf. 

As we understand it, S. 2590 guarantees that each year $1.425 billion (collected 

from offshore oil and gas royalties) that would otherwise go directly into the Federal 

Treasury will instead go to fund three existing federal programs as well as the State 

Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF). This money would provide ‘‘a reliable 

stream of funding by collecting a conservation royalty on revenues from drilling for 

52

2Lamar Alexander, Floor Remarks Before the Senate, June 24, 2004. 

3 Id.

4 Alexei Overchuk, Deputy Head of Federal Land Cadastre Agency, Press Conference, March 

20, 2003. 5 Chinese Const., art. XIII. 

6 Eduardo Moises Penalver, Redistributing Property: Natural Law, International Norms, and 

the Property Reforms of the Cuban Revolution, 52 U. FLA. L. REV. 107, 130 (2000). 7 James Madison, The Federalist No. 10 (1787). 

8 Clint Bolick, The Monster in Our Backyard, in Hoover Digest No. 3, 191-198, at 197 (2004). 9 Id. at 193.

oil and gas on offshore federal land.’’ 2 A large portion of these funds will be used 

by the states to acquire private land. 

We further understand that this bill may be amended and sent to the Senate floor 

with $450 million in funding for federal land acquisition. As one sponsor of the bill 

stated ‘‘there is at least one piece of unfinished business. At some point in the process, Senator Landrieu and I will offer an amendment to our own legislation that 

will fully fund (at $450 million a year) the ‘federal side’ of the Land and Water conservation Fund.’’ 3

To the extent that S. 2590 provides federal dollars for more government land acquisition, we oppose it. In our view, there is no legitimate justification for any government—state or federal—to acquire any more private property in this country. 

For that reason, we oppose S. 2590 to the extent that it makes any funds available 

to the states for land acquisition, and further oppose any amendment that would 

allocate supplementary federal funds for additional federal land acquisition. 

By providing billions of dollars for more government land acquisition, and by depleting the base of American private property ownership, this bill moves our country 

toward socialism and collectivism at the very time in history when all the fallen, 

and some still falling, communist regimes in the world are moving in the opposite 

direction. Discovering what the Founding Fathers knew more than 200 years ago, 

most of the world now rejects government ownership of private land as a failed experiment. 

In the former Soviet Union, for example, 50 million Russians have acquired vast 

amounts of private land holding rights—the equivalent of the size of continental Europe.4 The world’s most populous nation, China, has also recently been moving toward primitive markets and private property ownership; in fact, last March, China 

passed its first-ever constitutional amendment protecting private property rights. 

Article XIII of the Chinese Constitution states that ‘‘[l]egal private property is not 

to be encroached upon.’’ 5 Even in Cuba, where Fidel Castro confiscated almost all 

private property in 1959, agricultural land reforms have dramatically increased the 

number of private holders of property since 1989.6

I. WE OPPOSE S. 2590 BECAUSE THIS COUNTRY NEEDS MORE, NOT LESS, PRIVATE

PROPERTY

That S. 2590, as drafted, provides money to states (and not the federal government) to purchase more land is irrelevant to our overarching alarm at the loss of 

private land ownership. Private property itself, not simply just compensation for its 

appropriation, is critical in any civil society. This principle applies to state governments no less than the federal government. Indeed, one argument in favor of enhancing the federal government’s power was that many founders believed the states 

to be the greater threat to individual liberty. As James Madison warned in the Federalist No. 10: ‘‘The smaller the society, the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and... the more easily they will concert and execute their 

plans of oppression.’’ 7 Private property ownership restrains the growth and power 

of states just as it restrains the federal government. 

Although S. 2590 contemplates that states will purchase, rather than confiscate 

privately owned land, this does not cure the fundamental problem resulting from 

more government, and less private, ownership of land. Indeed, local governments 

are notorious for their abuses of the eminent domain process. One study alone reports documenting over 10,000 eminent domain abuses.8 According to the Hoover 

Digest, protections against eminent domain abuses in some communities are nonexistent: 

‘‘All a condemning authority has to do is publish a small advertisement in the 

legal notices section of the local newspaper. It does not have to state the consequences of the owner’s failure to act. Yet if the owners happen not to see the 

notice or fail to act promptly, they will lose their right to challenge the taking 

on public-use grounds 30 days following the publication.’’ 9

53

10 Id. at 192. 11 Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825, 833 n.2 (1987). 12 City of Tigard, Comprehensive Plan, Section 8.4. 13 Id. 14 J. Heissenbuttel & W. Murray, A Troubled Law in Need of Revision, 90 J. FORESTRY 13 

(1992). 15 Id. 16 Interview with Chuck Cushman, MAGIC CITY MORNING STAR, Sept. 20, 2003. 

Nor does S. 2590’s contemplation that privately owned land will be purchased 

only from ‘‘willing sellers’’ adequately protect private landowners, for the state always holds in reserve the paramount power of eminent domain that allows it to take 

any home, farm, business or factory it pleases. The individual property owner is virtually powerless in negotiating with government. Unfortunately, ‘‘[l]ocal governments are abusing their power with increasing frequency, yet the typical citizen 

lacks the resources, knowledge, and skills to take on the local leviathan that our 

local governments have become.’’ 10

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly stepped in to unmask local government’s 

extortionate schemes, which falsely claim to be ‘‘voluntary’’ arrangements to acquire 

private land:

[T]he right to build on one’s own property—even though its exercise can be subjected to legitimate permitting requirements—cannot remotely be described as 

a ‘‘governmental benefit.’’ And thus the announcement that the application for 

(or granting of) the permit will entail the yielding of a property interest cannot 

be regarded as establishing the voluntary ‘‘exchange . . . .’’ 11

In another example of state and local abuse, the city of Tigard, Oregon decided 

that it would be in the public interest to have a municipally owned pedestrian/bicycle pathway linking streamside greenways. The city’s planners drafted designs that 

were formally adopted into a comprehensive development scheme. The city then enacted an ordinance that on its face extorted from landowners the land necessary for 

accomplishing the public objective:

The City shall review each development request adjacent to areas proposed for 

pedestrian/bike pathways to... require the necessary easement or dedications for the pedestrian/bicycle pathways.12

The city stated that the privately owned land to be acquired was the ‘‘backbone 

of the open space system . . . .’’ 13 When Florence Dolan applied for a building permit to expand the plumbing availability on her land, Tigard tried to condition Ms. 

Dolan’s building permit on her willingness to ‘‘voluntarily’’ give the city (in fee simple) ten percent of her private land to complete the public pathway. The city was 

strongly rebuked in Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). But if S. 2590 

money been available to the city of Tigard, it could have attempted to accomplish 

the same extortionate result by simply conditioning Ms. Dolan’s permit on her ‘‘voluntarily’’ agreeing to sell her land to the city. 

A. Private Property Ownership Promotes Stable, Local Communities 

Private ownership of land promotes the beneficial and productive use of land, and 

serves as economic basis supporting local governments and communities. Local governments touch the lives of every American every day. They operate schools, playgrounds, libraries, and provide or control the essential services such as water, electricity, policing, and firefighting. 

In contrast, the loss of private property ownership destroys the economic bases 

of both families and communities. For example, in the Pacific Northwest, the federal 

designation of 6.9 million acres of privately owned land as federal habitat for the 

northern spotted owl led to what were commonly known as ‘‘green ghettos.’’ The 

University of Oregon reported that local taxes were increased by tenfold in five Oregon counties to replace the income generated from timber sales.14 The resulting 

loss of jobs led to marked increases in affected communities in unemployment, alcoholism, suicide, battered spouses, and troubled children.15 As Chuck Cushman 

noted: 

Over time, 10-15 years, they strangle—systematically cut off—the community. 

There is a hardly group of folks willing to deal with the hardships, the drive 

for 50-100 miles to the grocery store, the fact that there aren’t services that 

companies supply. Over a very short period of time the town turns into a ghost 

town.16

54

17Terry L. Anderson, How and Why to Privatize Federal Lands, Cato Institute Policy Analysis 

no. 363, Nov. 9, 1999, p. 5-6. 18 Randall O’Toole, Should Congress Transfer Federal Lands to the States?, Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 276, July 3, 1997, p. 1. 19 Anderson, supra note 16, at p. 5-6. 20TERRY ANDERSON & DONALD LEAL, ENVIRO-CAPITALISTS: DOING GOOD WHILE DOING WELL

(Lanham, Md.; Rowman & Littlefield, 1995). 21Milton Friedman, A Statistical Note on the Gastil-Wright Survey of Freedom, in FREEDOM, 

DEMOCRACY AND ECONOMIC WELFARE (M.A. Walker, ed.) 1988. Fraser Institute, Vancouver, B.C. 22G.W. Scully, The Institutional Framework and Economic Development, 96 J. POL. ECON. 

652, 661 (1988). 

B. Private Property Ownership Promotes Sounds Conservation and Multiple Land 

Use 

Public ownership of land does not reap the economic or environmental benefits 

that interest groups and government agencies expect to accrue once land is taken 

out of private hands. To the contrary, governments make poor ecological stewards. 

Degradation in national parks runs rampant, ecological imbalances often cause unexpected declines or disappearances of entire populations of plants and animals, and 

tourism pressures frequently offer perverse incentives to government managers of 

public land.17 In short, government is a poor substitute for mother nature. 

The federal government seems particularly ineffective at managing land. But 

states perform just as badly as the federal government in attempting to do the same 

task. According to analyst Randal O’Toole:

State governments are no better managers than are federal bureaucrats. They 

are just as economically inefficient, ecologically short-sighted, and politically 

driven as their federal counterparts . . . In fact, state governments have been 

rapidly expanding... their land estates... 18

State management of public lands poses many of the same problems surrounding 

federal control of land. Moreover, any governmental management of land whatsoever tends to cause unexpected consequences. Apart from simple land mismanagement, even activities that are pursued in good faith by state officials can have profound effects on ecological systems. Forest management can disturb delicate habitats, increases in population of any given species can devastate others, and inefficient resource allocation can increase the likelihood of disasters like forest fires.19

Private property, however, despite common misconceptions, has a good record of 

balancing ecological and economic interests. Property rights provide the foundation 

for markets, and establishing property rights over environmental resources enables 

individuals and organizations to pursue environmental goals in the marketplace. Individuals who care most about ecological matters are surely the most efficient protectors of those resources. Private groups should take the place of politically unstable government agencies.20 These groups are capable of surviving without the benefit of government aid, are better able to protect wilderness land, and are more successful in implementing conservationist policies than would be state or federal governments. 

Regardless of one’s opinion of private landowners’ ability to balance economic and 

environmental goals, there must be agreement that the federal and state land management programs are certainly not achieving the goals they set for themselves. Private ownership, in addition to preserving the civil rights of American citizens, also 

offers the chance to better effectuate environmental goals than does government 

land management. 

C. Private Property Rights Are the Engine of Economic Prosperity and the Foundation of the Free Market 

Economic studies over the last 20 years show that private property rights are the 

cornerstone of a prosperous society. 

One study, completed in 1984 by Freedom House, correlated rankings on a scale 

of political and civil freedom, including private property rights, with economic welfare. The study found that a one unit improvement on the seven-point liberty scale 

correlated with a 34% decrease in infant mortality and a 49% increase in GNP per 

capita.21

Another study, reported in the Journal of Political Economy, built upon the Freedom House measurements, and contributed valuable empirical analysis to the earlier data. The study concluded that societies committed to the protection of private 

property ‘‘grow at three times (2.73 to 0.91% annually) the rate and are two and 

one-half times as efficient as societies in which these freedoms are circumscribed or 

proscribed.’’ 22

55

23G.W. Scully, CONSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENTS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 196-97. Princeton, 

N.J., Princeton University Press, 1992. 24Lynch v. Household Finance Corporation, 405 U.S. 538, 552 (1972). 25 U.S. Const. amend. IV. 26 U.S. Const. amend. V. 27 U.S. Const. amend. XIV. 28 U.S. Const. art I, sec. 10, cl. 3. 29Discourses on Davila, in 6 THE WORKS OF JOHN ADAMS 280 (Charles Francis Adams ed., 

Little Brown 1865). 30 ARTHUR LEE, AN APPEAL TO THE JUSTICE AND INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE OF GREAT BRITAIN, 

IN THE PRESENT DISPUTE WITH AMERICA 14 (1775). 

Interestingly, studies have also determined that property rights encourage equitable income distribution. The author of the Journal of Political Economy study 

noted in 1992 that societies protecting property rights ‘‘have much larger shares of 

income going to the middle 60 percent of the [population] distribution than is observed in societies where men are not free to choose . . .’’ Moreover, he added, 

‘‘[t]he income share of the highest income group is much larger in nations that repress individual rights than in those where rights are protected.’’ 23

Indisputably, the citizens of less restrictive regimes enjoy a higher standard of 

economic efficiency, growth, and equity. 

D. Without Private Property Ownership, Civil Rights and Liberty become a privilege, 

Not a Right, of Americans 

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that property rights and civil 

liberty are interdependent:

[A] fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty 

and the personal right in property. Neither could have meaning without the 

other. That rights in property are basic civil rights has long been recognized.24

For that reason, the protection of rights in property lies at the heart of our constitutional system of government. The Founding Fathers, in drafting the Constitution, drew upon classical notions of legal rights and individual liberty dating back 

to the Justinian Code, Magna Carta, and the Two Treatises of John Locke, all of 

which recognize the importance of property ownership in a governmental system in 

which individual liberty is paramount. Concurrently, the constitutional framers 

drew upon their own experience as colonists of an oppressive monarch, whose unlimited powers vested him with the ability to deprive his subjects of their God-given 

rights of ‘‘life, liberty, and property.’’

The United States Constitution imposes a duty on government to protect private 

property rights. Thus, within the Bill of Rights, numerous provisions directly or indirectly protect private property rights. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that 

people are to be ‘‘secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects . . . .’’ 25 The 

Fifth Amendment states that no person shall ‘‘be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, 

without just compensation . . . .’’ 26 The Fourteenth Amendment echoes the Due 

Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, stating that no ‘‘State shall deprive any 

person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law . . . .’’ 27 Additionally, 

the Contracts Clause of the Constitution indirectly protects property by forbidding 

states from passing any ‘‘law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.28

The protection of private property receives such strong emphasis in the United 

States Constitution because the right to own and use property was historically understood to be critical to the maintenance of a free society. To understand this concept, one must understand that property is more than just land. Property is buildings, machines, retirement funds, savings accounts, and even ideas. In short, property is the fruit of one’s labor and the ability to use, enjoy, and exclusively possess 

the fruits of one’s labor is the basis for a society in which individuals are free from 

oppression. Thus, there can be no true freedom for anyone if people are dependent 

upon the State for food, shelter, and other basic needs. Under such a system, nothing is safe from being taken by a majority or a tyrant because the citizens, as government dependents, are powerless to oppose any infringement of their rights. 

John Adams once stated, ‘‘[p]roperty must be secured or liberty cannot exist.’’ 29

Others have stated that ‘‘the right of property is the guardian of every other right, 

and to deprive a people of this, is in fact to deprive them of their liberty.30

President Reagan, in announcing his intention to sign a Presidential Executive 

Order to protect private property rights, told Congress:

It was an axiom of our Founding Fathers and free Englishmen before them that 

the right to own and control property was the foundation of all other individual 

liberties. To protect these rights, the Administration has urged the courts to reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:01 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\97188.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
56

31President’s Legislative and Administrative Message to Congress, 24 WEEKLY COMP. PRES. DOC. 91 (Jan. 25, 1988). 32General Accounting Office, Report to Congressional Requesters, Land ownership—information on the Acreage, Management, and Use of Federal and Other Lands. March 13, 1996. Available at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.21&filename= 

rc96040.txt&direct ory=/diskb/wais/data/gao (last visited, July 19, 2004). 33 Id. 34Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415 (1922). 35Stupack-Thrall v. Glickman, 70 F.3d 881, 885 (6th Cir. 1995). 36GAO Report, supra note 31. 

store the constitutional right of a citizen to receive just compensation when government at any level takes private property through regulation or other means. 

Last spring, the Supreme Court adopted this view in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission. In a second case, the Court held that the Fifth Amendment requires government to compensate citizens for temporary losses that occur while 

they are challenging such a government regulatory ‘‘taking’’ in court. In the 

wake of these decisions, this Administration is now implementing new procedures to ensure that federal regulations do not violate the Fifth Amendment 

prohibition on taking private property; or if they do take a citizen’s property for 

public use, to ensure that he receives constitutionally required just compensation.31

II. DESPITE ITS IMPORTANCE TO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND THE FREE MARKET ECONOMY, PRIVATE PROPERTY IS DISAPPEARING IN THIS COUNTRY. 

Approximately 630 million acres, or nearly one-third of the United States, is already owned by the federal government.32 Much of that land is out West, with 

States such as Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Utah virtually belonging to the federal 

government. Nevada holds the record; it is almost entirely owned (79%) by the federal government.33

The risk for the outright elimination of private property rights was described by 

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1922:

The protection of private property in the Fifth Amendment presupposes that it 

is wanted for public use, but provides that it shall not be taken for such use 

without compensation . . . . When this seemingly absolute protection is found 

to be qualified by the police power, the natural tendency of human nature is 

to extend that qualification more and more until at last private property disappears.34

This dire scenario is rapidly becoming reality in modern America. In recent decades, during the birth and growth of the administrative regulatory state, federal 

government agencies have begun implementing policies that deprive owners of the 

use and benefit of their property. Many of these confiscatory measures are based 

neither upon constitutionally granted powers, nor statutes adopted by Congress. 

Rather, the mere ownership of land itself confers power on federal agencies to regulate not only what they own, but what private citizens own for miles around. 

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals summarized the state of the law in upholding 

a Forest Service regulation which put several marina owners out of business after 

the federal government acquired most of the shoreline of Crooked Lake, Michigan:

Contrary to plaintiffs’ apparent assertions, Congress’s inherent authority under 

[the Property Clause] is not limited to regulation of purely federal property. In 

fact, since 1897, the Supreme Court has recognized that ‘‘needful’’ regulations 

‘‘respecting’’ government property will sometimes include the exercise of power 

over purely private property, in order to ensure adequate protection of the federal interest.35

As of September 1994, the federal government had rights-of-use through leases, 

agreements, permits, and easements to over 3 million acres of nonfederal land, usually to support the management of adjacent federal lands. In 1995, the federal government held about 52.3 million acres in 33 states in trust for Native Americans.36

Private property, however, is not only burdened by federal regulations. Indeed, 

the notion that states need to take more private land from their citizens to carry 

out their conservation and recreation objectives is belied by the myriad regulatory 

programs at their disposal, all of which affect and control private land use. Every 

state, for example, has adopted various environmental protection and conservation 

schemes that mirror, and often exceed, federal requirements. State and local governments also have land use regulations for historic preservation, battlefield protection, 

scenic designations, setbacks along waterways and streams, farmland protection, establishment of ‘‘greenways,’’ buffer zones, wetlands, resource protection areas, 

57

37GAO Report, supra note 31. 

parks, preserves, and restrictions on natural resource development. Such regulations reach from the depths of bodies of water to the heights of the stratosphere—

but apparently not far enough. Seemingly, states want it all, leaving nothing for private ownership. 

In addition to the extraordinary amount of land owned by the federal government, 

the state and local governments also own and control surprisingly large amounts of 

property. One study noted that state governments own 196,924,100 acres of land, 

comprising 8.7% of all land holdings. As of September 1994, the 13 western states 

owned about 141.9 million acres. Sadly, federal, state, and local governments own 

fully 39.8% of all the land in this country.37

I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Clifton. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL M. CLIFTON, FEDERAL AFFAIRS 

MANAGER, AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM 

Mr. CLIFTON. Chairman Domenici, members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Daniel Clifton. 

I am the Federal affairs manager and chief economist at the Americans for Tax Reform. We are a nonprofit, nonpartisan coalition 

that works for lower taxes, fewer regulations, and free markets. 

Americans for Tax Reform strongly opposes S. 2590. As we heard 

in the prior testimony, this is an assault on private property rights. 

We would also argue that this is an assault on the taxpayer, and 

I will give you five major reasons. 

The first, as Chairman Nickles accentuated, we are moving from 

a discretionary program to an entitlement spending. In his example, he used from 1990 to 2004, but if we go back, mandatory was 

one-quarter of the budget. Now it is over 50 percent, and in the future it will be as high as 75 percent. We have a real growing need 

with the mandatory programs to be reforming these programs, not 

adding onto these programs. 

A second issue is moving funds that would come out of the Treasury into a dedicated fund. I know that the sponsors of the bill have 

worked hard to avoid this, but money is still fungible and the shift 

to a dedicated fund would ultimately require higher taxes or more 

bonding to pay for it. 

A third is that this would continue the spending spree that Con- gress has started, which has exacerbated the budget deficit to $400 

billion. I know a lot of people like to make the point that this is 

because of the tax cuts, but the fact is that Federal spending is increasing on average almost $100 billion a year. No matter how 

much tax revenue you are going to have, you are going to have a 

deficit. Tax revenues do not grow by that much. The fact here is 

this continues that culture of spending in the future. 

At the same time, many people often tell me that this is so small 

relative to the budget, the amount of money spending. I would say 

hardly. We hear this on every program and when these programs 

are compounded on top of each other, that is what is leading to 

these spending increases. 

In addition, as we heard today, there is a push now to add the 

Federal component onto this legislation. Once we get that in, they 

will come back for even more spending and more. We have a very 

big concern with this, watching this process go on since 1999. 

58

Another major sticking point is that this would lose flexibility. I 

know that that was discussed. If there is an emergency, revenues 

would not be able to be offset and moved into the general fund 

quickly. The accountability gets lost because this money is now in 

the bureaucratic shuffle. 

On top of that, the Federal, State, and local governments own too 

much land as it is. And these proposals would hurt rural communities and the local property tax base. I know some people say that 

this is needed to lower local property taxes, but the fact is by taking more land and stifling economic development, it has a harsh 

impact on local communities and their tax bases which are paying 

for cops and general services. 

Again, I would like to say that the Federal Government revenue 

situation is improving. Revenues are up. Economic growth is at its 

fastest rate in 20 years. Now Congress needs to hold the line on 

spending. This would violate that, exacerbate the budget deficit, 

and I would urge members to oppose this legislation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Clifton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL M. CLIFTON, FEDERAL AFFAIRS MANAGER, 

AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM

Chairman Domenici and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today concerning S. 2590, the Americans Outdoors Act. 

My name is Daniel Clifton and I currently serve as Federal Affairs Manager and 

Chief Economist for the Americans for Tax Reform. ATR is a non-partisan, not-profit coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups throughout the country dedicated to 

lower taxes, fewer regulations, and free markets. 

Americans for Tax Reform strongly opposes enactment of S. 2590. As we heard 

in the prior testimony, S. 2590 is an assault on private property rights. But in addition to the property rights violations, ATR opposes this legislation from a fiscal perspective for four major reasons. 

As a starting point, this legislation will exacerbate the current bipartisan spending spree that has resulted in a budget deficit of more than $400 billion. Second, 

this legislation removes funding from the general fund and transfers revenue to a 

dedicated fund. The resulting shortfall in the general fund will have to be made up 

with higher taxes or more bonding. Third, the matching component for state and 

local governments will require higher taxes in each state. Fourth, the government’s 

continual effort to purchase land is removing more properties from the local tax rolls 

and thus driving up property and other local taxes. 

As members of this Committee may recall, similar legislation moved forward in 

1999. At that time, the federal budget was moving from a deficit to a small surplus. 

The idea of moving revenues from the general fund to a dedicated fund was a bad 

idea while the nation was in surplus; it’s an even worst idea now that the country 

is facing deficits. 

The change in the nation’s fiscal outlook during the 1990’s was the result of three 

factors. First, strong economic growth resulted in higher tax revenues. Second, the 

rapid acceleration of Americans invested in the stock market resulted in a four fold 

increase of temporary capital gains tax revenue. And most importantly, spending restraint was the absolute essential key element. 

From 1992-2000, inflation adjusted federal spending increased at an average annual rate of $12.4 billion per year. Federal spending (as a percentage of income) declined for eight straight years, which reduced government spending from one out of 

every four dollars of national income to one out of every five dollars. By 2000, average Americans worked 14.3 days less of the year to pay off their federal spending 

burden than in 1992. This enabled the country to move from deficit to surplus. 

Yet, as the budget scenario continually improved, a new culture of spending took 

hold. No longer could members tell the Washington spending interests ‘‘no’’ to new 

spending requests. Over time the new ideas for spending programs continued to increase and when the economy started to slow, the promises of new spending continued despite the change in the budget outlook. 

59

In fact, spending has accelerated in the wake of slower economic growth. The av- erage annual spending increase from 2000-2004 has been $95.4 billion, more than 

7 times the average annual rate in the preceding eight year period and more than 

twice the growth of household income. 

I would note some of this spending is related to the two wars, homeland security, 

and fighting the War on Terrorism. Moreover, mandatory programs such as Medicare and Medicaid are increasing at double digit rates. But even with that, non defense, non homeland security spending continues to substantially increase. 

And it is exactly because of programs being proposed in S. 2590. In speaking with 

members in both the Senate and the House, I often hear ‘‘but this is program is 

so small’’ compared to total spending or the budget deficit. Yet, this argument 

misses the main point. Every member has their own projects and when they are 

combined together the compounded effect is quite large. 

Moreover, these programs continue to grow over time. As I mentioned, many programs continued to come into existence starting in 1999. The original cost and scope 

of these programs have grown over time. S. 2590 will be very similar. The legislation we are speaking about only has a local component and will be in existence for 

six years. The total cost is roughly $1.425 billion a year. Yet, the true intent of the 

proponents of this legislation is just to get the legislation in place then extend it 

to a new federal component. All this adds new costs which over time compounds and 

combined with hundreds of other programs also having the same effect at the same 

time results in a deep pressure on taxpayers to pay higher taxes. 

Another major sticking point with the proposed legislation is the bypassing of the 

appropriations process. This is terrible fiscal policy for several reasons. First, in case 

of an emergency, revenues cannot easily be moved back into the general fund. Second, accountability of spending gets lost in the bureaucratic shuffle and fuels waste 

and mismanagement. Third, a dedicated fund will tie the hands of Congress in the 

future when spending priorities may shift drastically. Budgeting should be done so 

that all proposals must compete for limited funds. 

The federal and state and local governments already own too much land as it is. 

Roughly 40 percent of all land in America is owned by the government. This is too 

much. According to the federal land agencies themselves, they have a backlog of billions of dollars 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 instead of taking care of the land that the government already 

owns. The new purchases of land will stifle economic growth in rural communities and 

further reduce 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 existing backlog in maintenance and operations of land 

the federal government already controls. 

I would also add that many members of this Committee are on record complaining 

about the federal budget deficit and yet voting for this legislation will only further 

exacerbate the situation. This legislation is moving revenues out of the general fund 

and into a dedicated fund. The lost revenues to the general fund will need to be 

made up with higher taxes and/or more bonding. 

The federal revenue situation is improving. Despite this Congress passing the 

third largest tax cut in American history federal revenues are actually increasing. 

Revenues in the first nine months of the year have increased 3.5 percent compared 

to same nine month period a year ago. Tax collections have increased by more than 

10 percent in three of the past four months and the Congressional Budget Office 

(CBO) revenue targets for the fiscal year have already been met, despite the fact 

that three months remain in the fiscal year. As a result, ATR is forecasting a reduction of deficit of roughly $60 billion when the CBO summer update is released next 

month. 

Yet, as the evidence shows from the previous decade, stronger economic growth 

only gets you so far in reducing the deficit. For every new dollar the federal government is taking in two dollars of federal spending is being spent. It does not take 

a Nobel Laureate economist to figure out this formula will never bring the budget 

back into balance. 

Fiscal responsibility starts right here with S. 2590. This program is an assault 

on every American taxpayer from a number of different angles. I urge the committee 

to reject this ill advised policy and start the process toward true fiscal accountability. 

Thank you for your time and I will be happy to answer any questions from members of the committee.

60

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Cantwell, we are going to let you ask first since you 

have not had an opportunity. Are you ready? 

Senator CANTWELL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that. I appreciate the opportunity to join my colleagues on this important 

hearing. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I think this is a very important issue to people in the West 

and I would say to people throughout America. 

Certainly my colleague has a unique circumstance in Louisiana 

that makes this issue imperative to her, but I can guarantee her 

that there are other issues throughout the West, where rapid-growing communities are faced with the challenge of preserving and 

protecting recreational areas in urban areas. I think that our challenge has been that we have been basically outpaced by the demand. Consequently, this fluctuation in funding through the committee process, where funds are actually supposed to be dedicated 

to these resources and then not actually authorized and appropriated, has been very frustrating, I think, to lots of local governments throughout America. 

My question. Mr. Diamond, you seem to have quite a bit of history here with this issue. One of my predecessors from the State 

of Washington, Henry Jackson, Senator Jackson, was a very big 

supporter of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

Mr. DIAMOND. A member of the original commission. 

Senator CANTWELL. And a member of the original commission. At 

that time, President Kennedy and Senator Jackson and many others saw the basic growth patterns of the United States, and saw 

that the West was becoming, with the interstate highway system 

and suburban development, a very rapidly growing part of the 

country. And that is where the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

came from. 

So now here we are today, and I applaud my colleagues for coming up with this proposal. Without a process in place, it seems to 

me that what happens is that State and local governments are now 

without the resources that had previously been provided by the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund throughout the 1960’s and the 

1970’s. And now demand is completely outpacing available resources. 

So if you could comment on this instability of the fund that we 

are currently seeing, and on the fact that, as it seems to me, we 

actually are stealing these resources from Land and Water acquisition and using them for other purposes in the budget. Am I correct 

on that? 

Mr. DIAMOND. We would say that Congress’ wisdom is reallocating. But yes, it has been taken away. 

You raise a very important point. There was a very precise process put into place by the Land and Water Fund where governments 

had to plan the so-called State-wide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan and look forward over years to doing a well-planned, 

well-thought-out development of recreation resources and parks. 

We saw a chart on the Federal fluctuations earlier. The same has 

been true in the States. The States have not been able to plan, and 

this not only hurts park, it hurts property owners who stand in line 

often and say, when are you going to buy my property. So a 

61

smoothing out—that is one of the basic precepts I think that Senator Landrieu and Senator Alexander have brought about, a 

smoothing out and having a permanent funding, which will give 

certainty and save money. 

Senator CANTWELL. And allow us to do better planning. 

I wonder if I could ask Mrs. Marzulla if she supports—I was listening to the principles that you were talking about for your organization. Do you support the current Land and Water Conservation 

Fund activities? 

Ms. MARZULLA. I will not profess to be an expert on everything 

that the Conservation Fund does, but I certainly support the principles of conservation and outdoor recreation and wildlife protection. My point is really a very targeted point, which is enough is 

enough in terms of government land acquisition. The objectives 

that we have talked about here today we fully support, but more 

government land is not needed in our opinion. At least not a wholesale acquisition of land is not needed to accomplish these objectives. 

The Constitution has always been and interpretations of the Constitution, the way it was formed, has been very clear that property 

rights are fundamental and essential and regardless of what objectives we want to accomplish, we should not do so by breaking the 

back of private property ownership. 

Senator CANTWELL. I understand that point, but the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund does now partner with State and local 

governments, and land is acquired by partnership between them 

and the Federal Government. So I would think under what you 

were just describing, you would not support this. But maybe you 

could look at that and get back to the committee, because my sense 

is that you probably do not support the current program either. 

Ms. MARZULLA. Well, that may be true. I would like to have a 

chance to respond to that. 

But the point that I also made toward the end of my testimony 

is one that I would really urge the committee to look closely at. I 

know a number of Senators have bounced the idea back and forth, 

and that is the notion that there be no net loss of private property. 

I think we have all acknowledged that there are many States out 

West, Nevada, 80 percent government-owned. To the extent that 

the fund is used to acquire land elsewhere, then it seems to me a 

good principle would be to have land that is currently in private 

ownership restored to private ownership. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. I see my time is up. Mr. Chairman, I wanted the witnesses to have their opportunity to respond. 

But if I could submit a longer statement for the record and just say 

that I think that what our colleagues are putting before us is something that is very important. Mr. Diamond’s point about how to 

plan over a period of time, for many of our western regions that 

have such rapid growth, is a very difficult thing. And then to have 

local governments go through a process, which is actually a very 

good process of prioritization, so that taxpayer money is being 

spent in the right ways. Looking at the demand across the country, 

prioritizing the need, coming up with the criteria—this would be a 

much better process. 

62

What is very frustrating to local governments in my State, and 

I would assume in other States, is to have none of their priorities 

funded, and then to have one of their Members of Congress stick 

in their favorite park or their favorite appropriation bill, and that 

is the only thing that gets funded. This is a very challenging and 

frustrating thing. So I think there is a lot to be gained for the taxpayers in the kind of program that prioritizes projects and tax dollars. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator and you might submit your 

statement or questions at your leisure. Whoever they are directed 

at, would you please answer to them to each member of the committee? 

Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 

each of the six witnesses for traveling some long distances, as 

Charles Jordan did, but all of you have made a special effort to be 

here. You have been succinct. I have read your testimonies. It has 

been a great help to us as we really try to work our way through 

this. 

We are not trying to be a debating society here. We are actually 

trying to see if we can come up with something that will create a 

consensus. So we are doing something Senators are not always accused of doing, which is listening and seeing if we can find a way 

through this. 

I have two or three questions. I will try to be brief in my questions so I can get to more of the witnesses. 

Mr. Clifton, I respect and understand the point about mandatory 

spending. Given your concern about mandatory spending, would 

you recommend that we repeal the 50 percent State royalty for onshore oil and gas drilling that this year gave $500 million to Wyoming, $318 million to New Mexico, $62 million to Colorado, and 

$54 million to Utah without ever going through the Federal budget? 

Mr. CLIFTON. Senator, Americans for Tax Reform would like to 

see as much go through the Federal budget as possible. We just 

passed a Medicare prescription drug bill. The Congress decided 

that it was important. At the same time, the system is going broke 

in 2018. Social Security is going to go broke in 2042. Give a year 

or two——

Senator ALEXANDER. No. I——

Mr. CLIFTON. I am sorry to interrupt. At this point we do not 

think that anything should be added to the mandatory side——

Senator ALEXANDER. But the question is, would you be in favor 

of repealing the mandatory spending? Since you oppose a royalty 

for offshore oil drilling, to be evenhanded, would you be in favor 

of repealing the existing royalty for onshore oil and gas drilling? 

Mr. CLIFTON. I have not looked at it fully, to be honest with you. 

I think it is a great question. I will promise I will look at it and 

get it to the committee. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I would appreciate that. 

Mr. CLIFTON. My major concern is adding any new types of entitlements in the wake of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

63

Ms. Marzulla, I appreciate your suggestion, and let me see if I 

can hone in on a few things to understand your position. At one 

point in your testimony, you say in our view there is no legitimate 

justification for any government, State or Federal, to acquire any 

more private property in this country. Is that what you mean? 

Ms. MARZULLA. I think conceptually yes, but I acknowledge and 

tried to do so articulately in my testimony, and perhaps I failed to 

do so—we acknowledged that there are instances where government must acquire more private property, but we urge this committee to adopt an approach that is narrowly tailored with a heavy 

presumption, a rebuttable presumption, but nevertheless a heavy 

burden on government justifying a need for more acquisition of private property. Personally I think we have enough, and that is why 

we support the notion of a no net loss of private property. I think 

it is an idea with a lot of appeal. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, that is actually a very constructive 

suggestion. Obviously, if we needed new schools, we need new land, 

or if we need a new park, we new land or a new port. But the overall sense I got from you is I think I understand your point, and I 

am not sure I disagree with most of it, particularly in the western 

United States where we own so much of the land. Senator Thomas 

had suggested no net gain as one way, to use a word of yours, to 

try to achieve some balance in what we do. 

Another thing Senator Landrieu and tried to do in fashioning 

this bill was to say that in spending in this money, there would 

have to be a willing seller/willing buyer, in other words, no land 

condemnation. Is that also something that would help achieve balance in your view? 

Ms. MARZULLA. I listened very carefully to that exchange, frankly 

with some surprise to the notion of the willing seller. Perhaps in 

Louisiana they do things differently, but our experience has been 

that the notion of a willing seller is more of a fiction than a reality. 

Typically what we see is the Government comes in with the heavy 

hand of regulation and threats of condemnation and then says, gee, 

we will buy your property. Guess how far below the fair market 

value we are going to give you, and that is it, take it or leave it. 

So to the extent that this committee could struggle with the notion of ensuring that there be adequate protections in place, guaranteeing a true fair market exchange looking at some of the principles appraisers use, that would be something that we would endorse. 

Senator ALEXANDER. That is very helpful, and as you reflect on 

this, if you have other suggestions that you see that as the legislation is making its way through, that would help achieve a better 

balance that protects property rights, recognizing that most of what 

we do here is a conflict of objectives and principles, I would welcome seeing them. 

If I may ask one last question of Mr. Diamond. With your long 

experience with the Land and Water Conservation Fund—maybe 

this is something you have already said, but looking back all the 

way to 1958 and 1962, what can you say to those who would say 

that it is inappropriate to take a steady stream of funding and 

make it mandatory for spending rather than an appropriated yearVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:01 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\97188.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
64

by-year approach? How would you sum that up in the strongest 

possible way? 

Mr. DIAMOND. We thought about this, Senator. How can we come 

up here and say with all of the public needs, this one should be 

a dedicated fund? I think there are several reasons. 

One we alluded to earlier, the planning process makes being able 

to know in your bill that for 6 years this is what happens. 

But more fundamentally in our view there was a trust made with 

the American people in the original Land and Water Conservation 

Fund whereby some portion of the resources that are being extracted and the public owns them, that some of those resources 

would go back to other resources which the public wanted, and we 

think this is the basic justification for a dedicated fund. It is rather 

different. It is not a tax source, but it is a revenue source coming 

from a like kind, and we believe that is the sound basis for it. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Landrieu, I am going to ask my friend 

Senator Alexander, can you stay for a couple minutes? 

Senator ALEXANDER. I can. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you can preside while Senator Landrieu——

Senator ALEXANDER. I will be happy to. 

The CHAIRMAN. Because I have to be somewhere, but I would 

like to ask two questions and then excuse me. 

First, I join Senator Alexander in thanking all of you. Whatever 

difficulty it has been for you to come here, I think it is worthwhile. 

The cause is worthwhile, so your presence is worthwhile. 

Mr. Diamond, were you the author of the report that we are talking about? 

Mr. DIAMOND. I was the editor, yes, sir. It was a commission 

made up of eight Members of Congress and seven private citizens, 

but I was a staff editor of the report. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, when was that done? 

Mr. DIAMOND. It was reported to President Kennedy in 1962. 

The CHAIRMAN. Have we made any strides since that report? 

Mr. DIAMOND. Oh, yes, sir. I think we tend to forget that the 

Federal Government did not buy land for park purposes really. 

Cape Cod maybe in 1962 is the first time. It came out, as this committee well knows, of the public domain. I think the Land and 

Water Fund has helped the Federal Government fill in much needed inholdings, buy new areas which were needed and help the 

States to create this system that my friend Charles Jordan referred 

to. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me say to Ms. Marzulla, I believe you have 

contributed to our discussion. I have noticed that Senator Alexander and Senator Landrieu are very willing to accept ideas that 

will make this legislation more palatable to a broader section of 

Senators, and some ideas that you put forth will clearly be looked 

at. 

Let me ask you Mr.—tell me how you say your last name again? 

Mr. ANGELLE. You can call me what you want if we can get the 

right money, but it is Angelle. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I did not tell you that that was any quid pro quo. 

[Laughter.] 

65

The CHAIRMAN. I will call you Scott if that will relieve me from 

the responsibility of assuring you of money. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to ask you—if you know, okay; if you do 

not, will you find out—first, can you cite the leveeing of the Mississippi and impacts from OCS oil and gas exploration and production as two reasons Louisiana is losing 25 square miles of wetlands 

each and every year? 

Mr. ANGELLE. Yes, sir. I appreciate the opportunity that you had 

to visit with us in the State. Certainly the leveeing of the Mississippi River——

The CHAIRMAN. Were you there when I visited? 

Mr. ANGELLE. No, sir. Actually I was doing something else in 

local government at that time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think they told me that. 

Mr. ANGELLE. The leveeing of the Mississippi River certainly had 

great intentions and some of the unintended consequences of interrupting the deltaic system—the Mississippi River can no longer 

overflow its banks and replenish the coastal marshlands and wetlands of Louisiana. Certainly a majority of scientists have come to 

that conclusion. 

When we talk about the oil and gas situation, we talk about the 

gulf intercoastal waterway and the navigation channels that have 

been built and saltwater intrusion. While we are very proud of our 

relationship with the oil and gas industry and look forward to continuing our role to serve America’s energy needs, there is no question that there has been some impact. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, under section 8(g) of the OCS Lands Act, 

Louisiana has received $969 million since 1986. How much of that 

revenue that Louisiana receives from the Federal oil and gas activities is spent on wetlands mitigation? 

Mr. ANGELLE. I am not qualified to answer that at this time. I 

can get that for you and enter it into the record, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would you be surprised if it was none? 

Mr. ANGELLE. I would say that it is my understanding that the 

majority of those funds have been used for education. Obviously, in 

Louisiana we put that at the very top, and we are making considerable strides in our education. In fact, here recently, one of the accountability acts that was passed in Louisiana is now being used 

as a model in America. So we are proud of that, and it has helped 

us in a lot of areas. But certainly coastal restoration is a very important issue for us. 

The CHAIRMAN. But you understand the purpose of my question. 

Mr. ANGELLE. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Could you also tell the committee—if you do not 

know, if you would get it—how much does the State of Louisiana 

realize in property, payroll, and corporate income from the OCS oil 

and gas exploration and production? 

Mr. ANGELLE. I will get that answer for you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. How much does the State of Louisiana realize in 

income from oil and gas exploration and production on State lands 

and how much of that income is devoted to wetlands reclamation 

and mitigation? Now, I mean submerged State land. 

66

Mr. ANGELLE. I can answer that question. I think here in the current year about $450 million direct to the State budget. One of 

the positive things that we have done in Louisiana is we have 

adopted a constitutional amendment that provides and dedicates a 

portion of those funds to coastal wetlands activities. We are using 

those funds to match some of the requirements of our Federal partners. 

The CHAIRMAN. Before I leave, I want to also congratulate the 

two lead sponsors of this bill. Senator Alexander, I commend you. 

You have done a lot of work. You told me about this when you first 

came here, and it is extraordinary that you have moved this rapidly and understand this so well. But I would not be surprised because you have great experience in working on these kinds of 

things. 

Senator Landrieu, I have gotten to know you very well. I was 

very privileged to be in your State. Now all I have to do is find a 

reason for getting you to come to my State. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, and I thank the witnesses. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The chairman has 

been so gracious with his time and has to step out, but I am going 

to be proud to submit what Louisiana has contributed to this effort 

over the last 20 years with virtually little help from the Federal 

Government, to remind the staff and others, that we have to put 

up 25 to 40 percent of all the Corps of Engineers projects that go 

on in our State. A lot of those projects are not just for flood protection, but for commerce and dredging. So the taxpayers of Louisiana 

pick up a substantial amount of money to manage and maintain 

this coastal area, not for the benefit of just the people that live in 

Louisiana. We drain two-thirds of the continental United States, 

and we are trying to preserve 80 percent of the coastal wetlands 

left in the United States of America. Those coastal wetlands do not 

just benefit the 4.5 million people that live in our State, but they 

benefit the 300 million that live in the United States. 

So I will submit more details to the record, but I did not want 

this committee to close, Senator Alexander, with there being any 

thought that the taxpayers of Louisiana have not contributed 

mightily to this effort, basically standing alone against the tide, on 

top of which we are contributing, as I said, anywhere from $2 billion to $6 billion, depending on the leasing activity, virtually alone 

in the Nation. And it is a tragedy and a crime that we have not 

been compensated in a fair and more just manner than we have 

to date. 

In addition, for the taxpayers of Louisiana to be willing to share 

this revenue with the rest of the country, even to those States who 

refuse to produce the oil and gas themselves, is also a testament 

to the generosity and the big-heartedness of people in Louisiana 

who understand. 

I just have two questions, and then I will be ready to wrap up. 

I want to understand, Mr. Clifton, if the people that you represent, given their choices to send the $6 billion either to the Federal Treasury for general expansion of operating revenues or would 

they rather see a portion of this revenue dedicated to preserving, 

67

to be good stewards of the land we already have, and purchasing 

property so that all taxpayers, whether you are wealthy or middle 

income or poor, could benefit? Are you testifying before this committee that the people you represent would rather see the Federal 

budget expanded as opposed to an investment in conservation? 

Mr. CLIFTON. Senator, I think that is a great question. Let me 

first say we represent about 100,000 taxpayers who are members 

of Americans for Tax Reform. They have joined our membership because they oppose enlargement of the Federal budget and Federal 

spending. 

But with that said, the Federal Government is still providing a 

lot of money right now for conservation. Let me give you an example. The National Park Service right now is spending an enormous 

amount of money, despite the backlog. 

But with that said, what we see as the trend happening nationally is local governments instituting taxes on top of their property 

tax rate dedicated for open space and conservation purposes. We 

also see State governments now branching into that. The common 

identity of those programs is that voters are voting themselves—

some of them get rejected, some of them get approved, but voters 

are having a say whether they would want higher taxes for those 

purposes. Do I have an exact breakdown of how that has panned 

out right now? No. But the fact is that taxpayers have a choice. 

Here it is very much more diffused from the taxpayer and our 

members are opposed to new spending on Federal programs. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, you may want to just take back one of 

the goals that Senator Alexander and my bill which is to keep 

taxes lower and to use the taxes that we already have in ways that 

the taxpayers tell us that they want those moneys spent. I would 

like to submit to your organization the most recent study conducted 

by Mr. Luntz. 

Mr. CLIFTON. Frank Luntz. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Frank Luntz, thank you. It indicates exactly 

that point, that the taxpayers of the United States would like to 

see a portion of the tax dollars already being paid, not new dollars, 

directed to these programs. 

Ms. Marzulla, just one question. Under the philosophy of I guess 

people who have money can own property and those that do not do 

not get the benefits of it, how does your organization argue the idea 

that people with less resources would obviously, under your philosophy, have access to open space or lakes or streams because unless 

you can own it, you cannot use it? How do you all square your philosophy? Because I hear you say that you think that all property 

should basically be privately owned. In that case, only the people 

that own it could use it. So what about the millions and millions 

and hundreds of millions of people that do not own a lake? Where 

do they go to swim? 

Ms. MARZULLA. Well, I could spend the rest of the afternoon answering that question because it is——

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, try to answer it, if you could, and I am 

serious. Where do the people that do not own a lake go to swim? 

I would like to give you a minute and a half to answer that. 

68

Ms. MARZULLA. Okay. First of all, I would like to just clarify that 

property, of course, is more than just land, but the topic of course 

is land. 

I think the short answer is that I do not think that the only way 

that we can have outdoor recreation in this country is by government ownership of land or water. There have been countless studies done. I would be happy to submit reports and analyses that talk 

about private ownership and ways of accomplishing many of the 

objectives, if not all of the objectives, that we have talked about 

here today. 

But I would also like to underscore the fact that my testimony 

is not that we should have no government ownership of any land 

for any reason ever. My testimony today is to urge the committee 

not to create a slush fund to acquire more. The balance has been 

struck. There is a balance between government ownership of land 

and private ownership of land. And it is a constitutional balance 

that is being struck. So let us not go off in the direction of extremities. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I would agree with that. So when you refer 

to communism, that might be something that we would want to 

keep in mind. 

But I would like answer to my question in writing, if you would. 

Where do the people that do not own a lake swim? And you can 

submit that to me anytime in the next couple of weeks. Thank you. 

Ms. MARZULLA. I would be delighted to. 

Senator ALEXANDER [presiding]. Senator Landrieu, thank you. 

I do not know how the Senator from Louisiana feels about it, but 

we go to lots of hearings. This has been one of the better hearings, 

I think, that I have had a chance to attend because we have had 

a very clear purpose. We have had good attendance from a lot of 

Senators. They provide lots of different points of view, and we have 

had excellent witnesses. The administration’s testimony was on 

point and direct and very helpful. And then the six of you I think 

gave us exactly the range of thoughts and opinions that we hoped 

to elicit. We did not want to just get one side or we did not want 

to hear the cheerleaders of the opponents. We wanted to hear, in 

this big, complicated country of ours, what should we take into account as we try to move ahead with this. 

And we have heard about Louisiana’s interests and what is happening on the coast. 

Charles Jordan, as he has for years, eloquently talked about city 

parks. I well remember President Reagan’s Commission on the 

Americans Outdoors. One of its most important points was that so 

many people live close to home, let us create some parks close to 

where the people live. 

Mr. Baughman reminds us of the great gains we have made with 

our, I still call them, game and fish commissions across this country. These are the organizations that our hunters and fishermen 

love because they create sporting and outdoors activities that all of 

us enjoy. 

Henry Diamond has brought us a perspective that spans the 

whole history of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, for which 

we are very grateful. 

69

Ms. Marzulla, I appreciate your specific suggestions that we can 

consider about how to achieve a better balance, as we consider land 

acquisition. 

Mr. Clifton, thank you for your directness about the importance 

of keeping in mind our budget. 

Senator Landrieu and I now intend to work with our colleagues. 

We are going to fashion an amendment to the existing legislation 

that will include the Federal side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but we have learned some things here today and from 

our colleagues that we need to take into account there. Then we 

will decide where to go from here. 

She has been working on this for a number of years. I want to 

salute her for that. During her whole first term, this was a major 

priority, and we would never have gotten to this point if it had not 

been. 

I had the privilege of working outside of Congress as a Governor 

with our State commissions and as chairman of President Reagan’s 

Commission on Americans Outdoors. I think it is worth saying that 

this idea has had strong bipartisan support. It has had Presidential 

support. Let us see if as legislators we can find a way to create a 

consensus within the Senate that recognizes what I believe is the 

huge conservation majority in the United States that supports the 

Americans Outdoors Act. 

My final statement will be I would like to submit to our committee hearing a list of the two dozen Americans Outdoors bill supporters. These are organizations. Actually it is more like three or 

four dozen, ranging from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Wildlife Federation, to the Boone and Crockett Club and a 

variety of outdoor recreation organizations. They have letters in 

support of this activity. 

Senator Landrieu, if you have nothing else, I thank the witnesses 

and the hearing is concluded. 

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(71)

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

NOTE: Responses to the following questions were not received at 

the time this hearing went to press.

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC, July 22, 2004. 

Hon. GALE NORTON, 

Secretary, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SECRETARY NORTON: I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for 

sending your delegate, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, the 

Honorable Lynn Scarlett, to appear before the Senate Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources on Tuesday, July 20, 2004, to testify on S. 2590, a bill to provide 

a conservation royalty from Outer Continental Shelf revenues to establish the 

Coastal Impact Assistance Program, to provide assistance to States under the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, to ensure adequate funding for conserving and restoring wildlife, to assist local governments in improving local park 

and recreation systems, and for other purposes. 

Enclosed herewith please find a list of questions which have been submitted for 

the record. If possible, I would like to have your responses to these questions by 

Tuesday, August 5, 2004. 

Thank you in advance for your prompt consideration. 

Sincerely, 

PETE V. DOMENICI, 

Chairman. 

[Enclosures.] 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR DOMENICI

Question 1. You testified that the Department of the Interior’s cooperative conservation approach offers an alternative to land acquisition as the central way to 

achieve conservation of land. Please explain. 

a. Has DOI been able to leverage its federal dollars with this cooperative conservation approach? How so? 

b. How were these programs developed? 

c. Can you give me some examples of projects? 

Question 2. Your testimony highlights the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 

in which DOI has worked, from 2001 to 2003, with almost 9,000 landowners and 

communities to restore over 150,000 acres of wetlands and over 700,000 acres of 

prairies and grasslands. How does this program add value to your efforts? 

Question 3. Do you see any impact on these types of collaborative programs if S. 

2590 is enacted? 

Question 4. S. 2590 provides a dedicated source of funding for a number of conservation projects. Has this Administration advanced conservation efforts in any 

other major way that goes beyond dollars? 

Question 5. You testified that the Administration’s Budget proposes to allocate 

funds to priority coastal conservation needs through existing discretionary programs. Please explain. 

72

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CRAIG

The maintenance backlog continues to grow and is estimated to be over $23 billion. Although we don’t know how much federal land this bill will add to the Federal 

estate, the sponsors have indicated that they plan on a Federal Land LWCF Acquisition provision to be added. If like in past proposal we add $450 to $500 million of direct federal land acquisition spending for the 6 years in this bill, or the 20 years in its House of Representative companion bill, we are talking about $2.7 to $10 billion over the expected or 

potential life of the bill. 

At the same time, in three of the last four years we have expended more than 

a billion on fire fighting and this year has the potential to set both acres burned 

records, as well as a record for costs. 

Question 1. Ms. Scarlett, do you really believe that we can continue to acquire federal lands, when we do not have the funding needed to maintain these lands? Do 

you think it is responsible government to suggest that any additional federal land 

acquisition is reasonable or prudent. 

Question 2. I would like you to provide for this Committee a list of the federal 

land acquisitions that have been made over the last ten years, how much it cost 

to acquire the lands, how much new maintenance back log resulted, how much additional fire pre-suppression, and suppression costs were added to your work load, and 

how many new employees had to be added to ensure these lands are managed as 

they should be. I would like that list to be provided on State by State basis. 

Question 3. Somewhere in my memory, I recall that the original LWCF law indicated that only 15% of the LWCF funds would be expended in the Western States. 

Has that been the case over the last 20 years? Would you provide for the Committee 

a State by State and year by year accounting of funds expended under the LWCF 

program? 

QUESTION FROM SENATOR THOMAS

Question 1. The AOA would provide a significant amount of funding toward land 

acquisition at a time when our country has a tremendous maintenance backlog in 

all public land management agencies. Adding more land to the Federal domain 

should not be a priority at this time. Can you explain the maintenance backlog in 

all bureaus at the Department of the Interior, how the National Park Service has 

been addressing the maintenance backlog in the last 3 years, and whether the Park 

Service methods for assessing and prioritizing maintenance requirements would 

work for other bureaus? 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BUNNING

Question 1. Kentucky received $1.3 million dollars in State allocation from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund last year. How can we in the Commonwealth 

and in other States expect both State and Federal funding levels to change with this 

new legislation? 

Question 2. This legislation calls for $1.425 billion in mandatory spending to fund 

these conservation programs. What are your concerns with this funding’s exemption 

from the annual appropriations process? 

AMERICANS FOR OUR HERITAGE AND RECREATION, 

Washington, DC, August 4, 2004. 

Hon. PETE DOMENICI, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, 

DC. 

DEAR SENATOR DOMENICI AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the committee on July 20, 2004 to speak about the importance of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

Attached is my response to the series of questions submitted for the record from 

the hearing. I am happy to provide any further information to you and the committee. 

We hope that in the near future a markup of S. 2590 will be scheduled and that 

a final bill can be passed by the Senate. 

Sincerely, 

HENRY DIAMOND, 

Chairman. 

[Enclosures.] 

73

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR DOMENICI

Question 1. In your testimony, you note your organization’s support for full funding for the LWCF program and UPARR. You also recommend dedicated funding for 

additional programs—namely the Historic Preservation Fund and Forest Legacy. 

a. Why were some programs included and not others in S. 2590 as introduced? 

b. Should all the programs included in H.R. 701 as reported by the Senate ENR 

Committee be included in S. 2590? If not, why not? 

c. If the answer to (b) is ‘‘no’’, are there other programs your organization would 

like to see added to this legislation? 

Answer. The Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Historic Preservation 

Fund are two programs that have traditionally been recognized by Congress to receive portions of receipts from the Outer Continental Shelf revenues. We would hope 

that any new trust fund created would recognize and honor the original programs 

tied to the OCS receipts and include them in the 21st century conservation trust 

fund. 

We do not know why the Historic Preservation Fund, along with the other programs in H.R. 701, was not included in S. 2590. 

Americans for our Heritage and Recreation did support the Senate Energy and 

Natural Resources Committee reported, H.R. 701, and the programs contained within the bill. We believe the Forest Legacy Program to preserve working forestlands 

and protect critical forest habitat through easements and we believe it should also 

be included in a permanent trust. The fragmentation of open space. The loss of critical habitat in many our states is a serious conservation concern, and the success 

of this program is proving that collaborative efforts between states, private land 

owners, and the federal government can make a huge difference. 

AHR also supports the addition of the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) to the 

final bill. Like the state-side of LWCF, the HPF provides matching grants to encourage private and non-federal investment in historic preservation efforts nationwide. 

The HPF is legislatively authorized to receive OCS revenues and complements the 

work of state, recreation and wildlife grants through conversation of historic and 

cultural treasures. 

AHR is certainly happy to provide further testimony regarding other conservation 

programs that the Committee might consider adding to S. 2590. 

Question 2. Some have accused this administration and past administrations and 

Congress of failing to properly manage and maintain the current federal estate. 

Given the current budget deficit that is projected to be with us for at least a few 

more years, do you believe it wise to mandate such significant spending on a relatively narrow range of programs? 

Answer. The Land and Water Conservation Fund was created to preserve our outdoor recreation and natural heritage. It is as important to the quality of our American way of life; it reaches into all communities (98% of all counties in the U.S. have 

received LWCF funds); and it is an excellent financial investment, by returning a 

tangible asset for a depleting resource. 

In the 1987 Report of the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors, the report noted:

‘‘Accelerating development of our remaining open spaces, wetlands, shorelines, 

historic sites, and countrysides, and deferred maintenance and care of our existing resources, are robbing future generations of the heritage which is their 

birthright.’’

Due to the lack of carrying through on earlier commitments to LWCF we find in 

2004 the situation remains even more at risk. Furthermore, alarming medical reports are finding our population at health risk due to lack of physical activity. Preservation of our outdoor resources is a foundation for health; competes with economic 

vitality in our communities; stimulates tourism; enhances environmental quality especially in protecting our air and water; protects key habitat for our plants and 

wildlife; and enriches our life and culture. Few federal programs bring as much return as does the LWCF program. 

We not only believe it is wise to invest and mandate the spending, we believe it 

is imperative. Further, we believe that the federal government should be doing more 

to manage and maintain our federal parks, forests, and refuges. We believe that 

Congress should use more appropriated dollars to address the maintenance backlog. 

Question 3. You testified there is a $10 billion backlog in land acquisition projects 

that have been identified by the federal land agencies. Please explain what you 

mean by backlog. 

a. Are these potential projects that the federal government would like to do but 

that have not received Congressional appropriations? 

74

b. If Congress, as the result of this bill, were to provide the full $450 million per 

year for the Federal LWCF program, after 6 years the program will receive $2.7 billion—only a portion of this backlog. Is that where you would see this new funding 

going? To the backlog? 

Answer. In March, 2001, the Natural Resources Policy, Environment and Natural 

Resources Policy Division of the Congressional Research Service, released a report 

on the Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and Issues. The report 

by Jeffrey Zinn reports:

‘‘The Department of the Interior has estimated that the overall backlog for acquisitions that await funding exceeds $10 billion.’’

The backlog exists because Congress and the Administration has not provided 

enough money over the past 40 years of the annual appropriations to meet the need. 

Furthermore, the approximate $14 billion appropriated for the Fund has been unevenly allocated among the states and four federal land agencies with average appropriations during the past 20 years ranging between $200 million and $300 million. The states have seen even greater uncertainty in their funding, with a number 

of years zero funds being appropriated. 

Land values have also dramatically changed during the past 40 years. The purchasing power of federal dollars in 2004 is much less than it was in 1965, when 

the Fund was in its inception, creating even more demand on the agencies backload. 

Today’s dollar doesn’t buy what it once did. 

Congress has been the decision-maker during the past decade in deciding how 

much and where the federal dollars are spent. In FY 02 and FY 03 combined, 84% 

of LWCF appropriations went to the purchase/acquisition of inholdings as opposed 

to expansion and dedication of new areas. We have consistently encouraged the federal land agencies to use their current authority under the LWCF to seek land exchanges, transfers, cooperative agreements, and easements, and we would hope that 

the increased spending would allow the federal agencies to work to reduce the long 

waiting period of willing-sellers for the government to purchase their inholdings. 

As noted during the hearing, history and natural events are not static. Since January, 1993, for the National Park Service alone, Congress has authorized the federal 

acquisition of 2.5 million acres of land at a cost of $338.8 million. Most of President 

Bush’s FY 2005 budget request involves Congressionally supported authorizations. 

One such authorization and budget request involves protection of land to commemorate the Flight 93 Memorial site. The flexibility of the Fund to be used for purchasing inholdings, conservation easements, and new acquisitions is a key to its 

achievement. 

AHR believes that if the $450 million of federal LWCF was guaranteed through 

this legislation, the federal agencies could do a much better job in stretching the 

federal dollar by collaborating with other federal agencies in exchange, transfers, 

use of easements, better appraisals and purchases, and greatly reducing the waiting 

period for the willing seller. 

QUESTION FROM SENATOR CRAIG

Question 1. Mr. Diamond, In your testimony, you note your organization’s support 

for full funding for the LWCF program, UPARR, and even recommend dedicated 

funding for additional programs—namely the Historic Preservation Fund and Forest 

Legacy. 

I notice you don’t mention your support for the proposed Coastal Impact Assistant 

program in S. 2590. The bill proposed to fund this program at $500 million per year. 

Do you support funding for this effort or would you prefer the annual $500 million 

for coastal impact assistance be redirected elsewhere? 

Answer. Americans for our Heritage and Recreation had been asked to testify regarding the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, and our coalition organization has not taken a specific policy position on Title I of S. 2590 at this time. 

As you know, the United State’s Commission on Ocean Policy released its preliminary findings on April 20, 2004, AHR was especially pleased that the Commission 

sought to first use the offshore oil and gas royalties toward funding the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and the Historic Preservation Fund, while applying the remaining royalties for coastal conservation purposes. We have commended 

the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy for taking a leadership role in creating a longterm solution to help protect our nation’s valuable shorelines and coastal beaches, 

while reaffirming the national need for more close-to-home parks, trails, hunting 

and fishing areas, as well as thousands of athletic and playing fields. 

75

* The chart has been retained in committee files. 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BUNNING

Question 1. This legislation calls for $1.425 billion in mandatory spending to fund 

these conservation programs. Given our already tight spending constraints, why 

should these funds in particular be exempted from the annual appropriations process? 

Answer. Americans value the outdoors, and for forty years, since 1964 passage of 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund, localities, states and members of Congress 

have supported the simple principle that a portion of the receipts from the sale of 

nonrenewable resources owned by Americans—oil and gas from the Outer Continental Shelf—is reinvested in permanent assets for future generations. 

This legislation has been introduced to solve the fluctuation of the revenue stream 

getting from the Treasury to the states and federal land managers, as authorized. 

From 1982 through 1999 the disbursement of Federal and American Indian mineral lease revenues shows 62.2% of all the revenues returned to the General Treasury, with 15% of the revenues being used for the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund and 2.3% for the Historic Preservation Fund. (Report by the U.S. Dept. of Interior, Mineral Management Service). Currently more than 50% of OCS receipts are 

already made available to Congress and the Administration for its annual budget 

and appropriations process to be used for the government’s discretionary spending. 

We believe that the fundamental principle that all Americans get return on their 

diminishing natural resources is a sound one supported by the American public. It 

is not an either/or situation. 

Nearly all of the federal acquisition projects appropriated during the past decade 

have been specifically earmarked by the Interior Appropriations Committee, at the 

specific request of Members of Congress. We do not have an objection to establishing 

a process for designation of expenditure of the funds that includes the Appropriations Committee in consultation with federal land managers through the Administration’s annual budget request, but there must be a guarantee that the funds be 

spent for the purposes intended in LWCF and not be reprogrammed or returned to 

the U.S. Treasury unused. 

Question 2. This legislation will provide funding for many multi-purposed and 

multi-jurisdictional programs. How can we ensure that there will be collaboration 

and communication among private, local, State, and Federal interests? 

Answer. AHR appreciates your question because we believe that best practices 

and efforts in protecting our natural environment happens when all parties, public 

and private, finds ways to work together. Our public lands are national treasures 

of enormous value, and serve as economic assets for our towns, cities and states 

where the federal lands are located. 

Many of the current statutes governing public land management require public 

processes to ensure that collaboration occurs at all government levels. For example, 

the state-side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund requires each state to 

produce a state-wide needs assessment that includes public review and comment, 

and is then reviewed and approved at the national level by the National Park Service. Most, if not all, federal acquisition projects receive review by the Appropriations 

Committee, which includes public hearings, letters of support from local communities, governors, and the Members of Congress that represent the land under consideration. 

AHR to build on the strong support and to encourage strong partnerships with 

the private sector, profit and non-profit, and with other federal, state, and local 

agencies. 

Question 3. You have mentioned that these programs have had good experiences 

working with sports fishermen and hunters. Could you elaborate on how sportsmen 

in Kentucky, for example, would benefit from this legislation? 

Answer. The Land and Water Conservation fund was created to provide American 

families with increased opportunities for outdoor recreation at national, state and 

local sites. More than 600 hunting and nature areas have been funded by LWCF 

during its 40 year history. Another 10,000 swimming and boating facilities have 

been provided, along with 5,000 campgrounds and overnight recreation areas. 

Kentucky has received through the state-side of LWCF $49,200,286.81 (through 

FY 2000). Attached is a chart, * provided to AHR by the National Park Service, that 

shows all Projects that have been funded for fishing facilities, and two projects related to hunting for total $1,601,974.20. 

A recent Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report shows that 55% of American 

adults don’t move enough to meet the minimum recommendation of 30 minutes of 

moderate-intensity physical activity on most days of the week. Kentucky was ranked 

76

as the least active state, with only 29% of its residents met the minimum physical 

activity requirements. 

Funding S. 2590 will provide a more reliable stream of funding for state wildlife, 

local parks, and recreation centers to plan, implement and provide the citizens of 

Kentucky with better outdoor recreation opportunities whether to hunt and fish, 

hike or bike, or enjoy the vast richness of the state’s wildlife. Increased wildlife 

funding will enable state fish and game employees to protect important wildlife species habitat through cooperative agreements with private landowners. 

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Baton Rouge, LA, August 16, 2004. 

Hon. PETE V. DOMENICI, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, 

DC. 

DEAR SENATOR DOMENICI: Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Tuesday, July 20, 2004. I appreciate your inquiry and the ability to respond to the questions regarding Louisiana’s 

coastal wetland restoration program and its relation to Outer Continental Shelf revenues. Attached, you will find responses to the questions posed on July 22, 2004. 

I hope you find the responses informative and complete. However, if further clarification or information is needed, please do not hesitate to contact me at (225) 342-

2710. 

As stated in my testimony, the S. 2590 bill is instrumental in Louisiana’s effort 

to save our rapidly disappearing wetlands. Since 30 percent of all oil and gas consumed in the country is either produced in or travels through our coastal wetlands, 

the reinvestment of OCS revenues in our restoration efforts is both logical and justified. I appreciate any support you could lend toward the passage of this very important bill. 

Very truly yours, 

SCOTT A. ANGELLE, 

Secretary. 

[Enclosure.] 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR DOMENICI

Question 1. Your testimony cites the leveeing of the Mississippi and impacts from 

OCS oil and gas exploration and production as two reasons Louisiana is losing 25 

square miles of wetlands each year. 

Can you tell the Committee how much wetlands loss is attributable to each of 

those suggested impacts? 

Answer. Because these factors overlap in their areas of influence, it is impossible 

to distinguish between the relative impacts of each on Louisiana’s current land loss 

crisis. 

LEVEES

The most significant levees in South Louisiana are a system of dikes that were 

brought to modern grades as part of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project 

(MR&T), authorized in 1928. This project had two major goals, to enhance navigation and reduce river flooding. Levees severed the river from its flood plain and 

tightly constricted the lower river (below Vidalia), precluding all overbank flooding, 

on which deltaic wetlands depend. Levees also result in the annual loss to the Louisiana coast of 200 million tons of vital sediment, which flows past New Orleans and 

is lost in the Gulf of Mexico. 

In addition to levees, several natural distributaries, including the Atchafalaya 

River, Bayou Manchac and Bayou Lafourche, were dammed or controlled, further 

limiting the river’s influence and decreasing ecosystem sustainability. These 

distributaries once acted like arteries carrying vital river water, sediment, and nutrients to the large portions of the delta. The MR&T levee system also includes the 

Old River Control structure, which has been used to prevent the lower river from 

changing course thereby limiting the building of new land in the Atchafalaya delta. 

OCS OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION

Oil and gas production in coastal Louisiana began with a massive exploration and 

development program in the forties, extending through the seventies. Most of this 

activity took place in coastal wetlands, and was especially concentrated around salt 

domes that had been formed by the weight of the sediments that created the MisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:01 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\97188.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
77

sissippi River delta. Onshore development impacts included the direct ‘‘footprint’’ of 

a massive network of canals for oil and gas development and transportation and the 

indirect hydrologic impacts that result from them. Brine discharges from produced 

waters and marsh buggy tracks also caused enormous permanent damage to wetlands. Onshore production peaked in 1970 and steadily moved offshore, first into 

Louisiana waters and then into federal waters greater than three miles off our 

coast. 

In addition to disrupting the natural hydrology of the affected area, oil and gas 

canals also provide avenues for higher salinity water to move into previously freshwater marshes, thereby compounding the saltwater intrusion problems associated 

with levees. 

As OCS production increased and moved into deeper water, the energy service industry needed deeper channels to accommodate larger and deeper boats. These artificial channels, such as the Houma Navigation Canal, created conduits for storm 

surge flooding to move miles inland and caused major wetland impacts from saltwater intrusion and erosion from boat wakes. These damages and risks increase 

steadily. 

Servicing the OCS activity requires specialized port facilities that are accessible 

to larger, deeper-draft supply ships that can safely and economically cover the greater distances. These and other technological changes have spurred both public and 

private investments to upgrade the previously existing port infrastructure. Notably, 

Port Fourchon was constructed expressly to serve the deepwater industry. The thousands of people who work on offshore structures served by Port Fourchon as well 

as the stream of trucks bringing supplies to, and hauling waste from, this multimillion dollar facility must traverse 100 miles of an often flooded two-lane state 

highway, much of it through marsh. The continued maintenance of this elaborate 

pipeline network and the port infrastructure within and at the expense of Louisiana’s fragile wetlands will therefore be required to support the OCS industry. At 

the same time, it can be expected that state taxpayers will be incurring significant 

additional costs for projects to stop the catastrophic loss of wetlands exacerbated by 

oil and gas activities over many years, both onshore and offshore. The oil and gas 

comes across the Louisiana coast through a pipeline system that is increasingly 

prone to damage from subsidence and erosion of the wetlands that surround it. New 

pipelines that bring OCS oil and natural gas onshore will connect to an existing collection and distribution network that has developed within the marshes of the Mississippi River deltaic plain. 

Question 1a. Also, under Section 8(g) of the OCS Lands Act Louisiana has received $969 Million since 1986. How much of the revenue Louisiana receives from 

Federal oil and gas activities is spent on wetlands mitigation? 

Answer. Although coastal protection projects were constructed as early as 1981, 

the magnitude of Louisiana’s land loss problem and the cost of the solutions were 

not fully understood even as recently as 1986. However, the State was acutely 

aware of the need to increase funding to other socially important issues, such as 

education. Therefore, when section 8(g) was established, the State decided to dedicate this money to the impoverished education system in Louisiana by depositing 

these revenues into an Education Trust Fund. 

Question 2. How much does the State of Louisiana realize in property, payroll, 

and corporate income from OCS oil and gas exploration and production? 

Answer. The economic impact of OCS activities in Louisiana is hard to pinpoint. 

The few companies operating solely in Louisiana, who are active in the OCS, are 

also active in state offshore and onshore regions. The majority of the major companies who had corporate offices or drilling and exploration headquarters in Louisiana 

in the 1990’s are now relocated to Houston, Texas. (Chevron-Texaco, Exxon Mobile, 

Ocean-Meridian, Unocal and others). 

PROPERTY TAXES

Those corporations that do remain are a few large independent drilling and exploration companies. Most of their ‘‘property’’ is equipment and material that are not 

based on shore or are used in areas that are not taxable by state property or ad 

valorem taxes. The actual figures are unavailable, but, given the nature of the business in general, are in a sharp decline. 

PAYROLL

According to a recent MMS state paper on Louisiana, ‘‘MMS and Louisiana—Summer 2003,’’ ‘‘An estimated 40,000 jobs directly depend on the offshore program—

about 60% of them are in Louisiana. As of 2001, the average annual salary for these 

jobs was $58,000. These wages generate about $155 million per year in state and 

78

local tax revenues... Thus although OCS activities impose costs in Louisiana for 

roads, schools and other support activities for workers and families, the revenue 

from the OCS provides substantial benefits.’’

Although the MMS study does indicate a benefit, it unfortunately provides no 

quantifiable cost-benefit analysis. Our contention has always been that, yes, there 

are benefits to Louisiana, but many of these benefits are not solely to Louisiana but 

the United States in general. To a large extent the infrastructure burdens placed 

on Louisiana by the OCS are practically unrecoverable from a taxation perspective 

since a huge portion of the workers and most of the companies operating in the OCS 

are beyond the state’s taxing authority. 

Although they work in Federal OCS area, many OCS workers live and pay taxes 

in areas far remote from Louisiana’s taxing authority. Past efforts to find out where 

OCS workers live revealed that huge numbers (over 60% by some estimates) commute from Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, and 

other states, as well as foreign countries such as Venezuela and Mexico. The 7 day 

on, 7 day off, 14 day on, 14 day off and similar schedules for offshore workers facilitate long distance commuting. Workers mostly pay taxes where they live, buy homes 

and cars, shop, etc. For large numbers of OCS workers, that is not Louisiana. 

Additionally, the production, equipment, property, profits, etc. of OCS companies 

and operations are in federal waters, beyond the taxing jurisdiction of the state of 

Louisiana, other than the incomes of employees and companies headquartered in 

Louisiana. 

Question 3. How much does the State of Louisiana realize in income from oil and 

gas exploration and production activities on State lands? How much of that income 

is devoted to wetlands reclamation and mitigation? 

Answer. As shown in the table below, Louisiana realizes a total of $802.48 million 

per year from oil and gas production within the state boundary. Of this, $25 million 

is appropriated directly to a constitutionally protected trust fund for restoration activities.

FISCAL YEAR 2003/04 OIL AND GAS REVENUE 

Total State

($ million) 

State Lands

& Water

Bottoms 

Royalty ........................................................................... 409.39 409.39

Severance1 ..................................................................... 439.60 22.51

Bonuses ......................................................................... 23.79 23.79

Rentals ........................................................................... 11.67 11.67

Total Revenue ........................................................ 884.45 467.36

Severance Parish fund ................................................. 41.03 2.10

Royalty Parish .............................................................. 40.94 40.94

State Net Revenue ................................................. 802.48 424.32

Wetland Fund ........................................................ 25.00 13.22

1DNR estimated number based on 10 months of actual data. 

Question 4. In your testimony, you note that since the enactment of the Coastal 

Wetlands Planning Protection and Restoration Act in 1990, more than 100 restoration projects have been initiated or completed. 

How much has Louisiana received under this Act to date? 

Answer. Since 1992, Louisiana has received approximately $712 million from the 

Coastal Wetlands Planning Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA). The complexity of this restoration effort is unprecedented and project construction has been 

a learning process for scientists nationwide. Through CWPPRA, we have learned 

what types of restoration features are most ecologically beneficial and cost-effective. 

We have also learned that small, site-specific projects are effective but at a very localized scale. While this scale is useful, the causes of land loss are basin-scale or 

greater. Thus, the strategies outlined in the Coast 2050 plan (see response to Question #5) must be implemented in order to provide an ecosystem-level, process-based 

approach to restoration of coastal Louisiana. Full implementation of the Coast 2050 

plan has been estimated to cost $14 billion. 

Question 5. Your testimony also notes that the state’s ‘‘Coast 2050 Plan’’ has 

served as a blueprint to rehabilitate the Louisiana coastline. Please describe this 

79

program in more detail. How has this Program been funded? How much funding has 

the program received to date? 

Answer. The Coast 2050 plan, completed in 1998, is a technically sound, sciencebased conceptual plan, intended to achieve the overarching goal of 

‘‘. . . sustain(ing) a coastal ecosystem that supports and protects the environment, 

economy, and culture of southern Louisiana and that contributes greatly to the 

economy and well-being of the Nation.’’ Restoration strategies outlined in this plan 

were based upon elements of previous restoration efforts along with initiatives from 

private citizens, local governments, State and Federal agency personnel, and the scientific community. Additionally, new quantitative techniques for projecting future 

land loss patterns, a coastwide assessment of subsidence rates and patterns, and a 

comprehensive consideration of changes in fish and wildlife populations were incorporated. The three strategic objectives of Coast 2050 are: (1) to sustain a coastal 

ecosystem with the essential functions and values of the natural ecosystem, (2) to 

restore the ecosystem to the highest practicable acreage of productive and diverse 

wetlands, and (3) to accomplish this restoration through an integrated program that 

has multiple use benefits. 

Although Coast 2050 established a conceptual framework for restoring Louisiana’s 

coast, it contained no mechanism for plan implementation or funding acquisition. 

Coast 2050 focused on a process-based, ecosystem scale that would require construction of projects generally larger than had been previously implemented. Since completion, Coast 2050 has served as the guiding document for all restoration programs, 

including CWPPRA and the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) Study. If funded, the 

LCA plan will be the first big step towards implementing the Coast 2050 plan. 

Question 6. Your testimony further notes the Louisiana Coastal Area plan, a partnership the state recently created with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. According 

to your testimony, this plan addresses the critical near-term needs during the next 

five to ten years and creates a Science and Technology Program. Please describe this 

program in more detail. How has this program been funded? What are the projected 

costs? 

Answer. The Louisiana Coastal Area plan (LCA plan) is currently under consideration for Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 2004 authorization. It is one 

avenue we are pursuing in order to implement the Coast 2050 plan (see response 

to question # 5, above). The cost of the LCA near-term plan is estimated to be 

$1,961,380,000 over a 10-year period, with $1,171,110,000 of that total being requested for WRDA 2004 authorization. Of this portion, $100,000,000 would be dedicated to the Science & Technology (S&T) program, and an additional $175,000,000 

would be used for an associated Demonstration Project program. 

The overall purposes of the Science and Technology (S&T) program are to provide 

the necessary planning and predictive tools for efficient program implementation, to 

facilitate resolution of scientific and technological uncertainties, and to integrate advancing science and technology into planning, design, and operation of future 

projects and program components. All activities of the S&T program would be coordinated through an S&T Office. The office would provide a physical location and 

a single point of contact for State and Federal agencies, universities, and private 

sector engineering firms and individuals with interests in science and technology related to the Louisiana coastal zone. The S&T office will coordinate scientific and engineering research and analytical tool development in support of LCA objectives. 

Demonstration projects are another tool that will be used by the S&T office to help 

advance the LCA program. Through focused design and monitoring of such projects, 

critical areas of uncertainty may be resolved, leading to more cost-effective project 

construction and operation in the future. 

The LCA plan builds upon the best available science and engineering knowledge, 

which has resulted in part from the restoration activities that have been ongoing 

in coastal Louisiana for the past several decades. The construction of over 400 

projects of varying scales since 1986 has taught managers what types of projects are 

most cost-effective, achieve the intended ecological benefits, and are most appropriate for a specific location. However, uncertainty is inherent in ecosystems, and 

is therefore unavoidable when managing large-scale ecological systems. Acknowledging and identifying these uncertainties is critical to the advancement of any 

large-scale restoration program. Additionally, large-scale restoration programs may 

last for decades, and a mechanism is needed to ensure that the best available 

science and engineering knowledge continue to be incorporated into planning, design, and operation of components of the restoration program. 

As the LCA Program advances, uncertainty will be reduced through research and 

demonstration projects directed by S&T Office. Through a process called adaptive 

management, information resulting from demonstration projects as well as other research directed by the S&T office may be incorporated into future planning, design, 

80

and operation of individual projects within the LCA restoration program. Additionally, adaptive management allows for large-scale ecosystem restoration to proceed 

even as researchers work to reduce those uncertainties. Therefore, the S&T program 

and demonstration projects are essential pieces of the adaptive management of the 

LCA program. 

By instituting and funding a formal Science & Technology program we can recruit 

and maintain state-of-the-art expertise with appropriate support for modeling, monitoring and advanced engineering. Recognizing the critical role of applied coastal 

science for restoration, the State of Louisiana has already invested in a coastal R&D 

program currently housed in the Governor’s Office of Coastal Activities and directed 

by a senior coastal scientist. This program is currently operating on state funds at 

close to a $1 million/year level. 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BUNNING

Question 1. This legislation calls for $1.425 billion in mandatory spending to fund 

these conservation programs. Given our already tight spending constraints, why 

should these funds in particular be exempted from the annual appropriations process? 

Answer. Louisiana has already lost 1900 square miles of land (an area the size 

of Delaware), and continues to lose coastal wetlands at a rate of 24 square miles 

per year. If restoration is not implemented quickly, Louisiana could lose another 500 

square miles by the year 2050. 

Saving these wetlands is not only important to the state of Louisiana, but to the 

Nation as a whole. Louisiana is nationally important in its contribution to energy 

supply and security. Nearly 30% of all oil and gas consumed in the United States 

either is produced in or travels through Louisiana. When oil and gas production 

from the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is factored in, Louisiana ranks first in the 

Nation in crude oil production and second in the Nation in natural gas production. 

Our wetlands provide protection for over 40,000 of miles of pipelines and major components of the infrastructure and services to support the OCS activities. In addition, 

these coastal wetlands protect an internationally significant complex of shallow and 

deep-draft ports from the destructive forces of storm-driven waves and tides. This 

complex handles 21 percent of the Nation’s waterborne commerce, more than any 

other port in the Nation, and has the most active segment of the Nation’s Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) (Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center (WCSC), 

2002). Coastal Louisiana’s environmental services include commercial fishing landings at a dockside value of $305 million in 2002, and account for approximately 30 

percent of the total catch by weight in the lower 48 States (USDOC 2002). 

Additionally, the proposed restoration activities may also contribute to reduction 

in nutrient loading to the continental shelf that that is needed in order to reduce 

the hypoxic zone that develops each year off the coast of Louisiana. Currently, managers are looking to the farmers upriver in the Mississippi River basin to reduce 

nutrient runoff from agricultural fields. While this also will be needed to address 

the problem fully, diverting Mississippi River water through Louisiana’s coastal 

wetlands before it reaches the open Gulf of Mexico is a crucial component of the 

overall effort to reduce the hypoxia problem. 

Historically, royalties from OCS oil and gas activities have bypassed Louisiana 

and gone directly to the Federal government. In 2002, Louisiana only received 

0.30% of the OCS revenue generated Nationwide. That is less that one-half of one 

percent of revenue returned to the state that leads the country in OCS crude oil 

production. These monies are crucial for the restoration of our coastline which contributes so greatly to the energy security and environmental sustainability of the 

Nation. 

Question 2. This legislation will provide funding for many multi purpose and 

multi jurisdictional programs. How can we ensure that there will be collaboration 

and communication among private, local, State, and Federal interests? 

Answer. Louisiana has a proven record of collaborative relationships among private, local, state, and federal interests. Through a variety of avenues, the state encourages communication between all who live and work in the coastal zone. Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco has elevated coastal restoration to the highest priority of state issues with which she will deal during the next four years. The Governor’s Executive Assistant for Coastal Activities chairs a task force of all State resource agencies which authorizes all restoration program and project funding. 

The Governor’s Advisory Commission on Coastal Restoration and Conservation 

was established in 2002 to represent the principal stakeholders (business and industry, commercial and recreational fishing, local government, NGO’s and the national 

environmental community, etc.). Its purpose is to advise the Governor and state legVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:01 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\97188.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
81

islature on the overall status and direction of coastal restoration and to foster coordination among federal, state, and local agencies and the public. 

Louisiana’s Coastal Zone Management Program involves a partnership between 

Louisiana’s Department of Natural Resources (LDNR), NOAA, and local parish governments. A Parish Coastal Wetlands Restoration Program is implemented through 

local governments throughout Louisiana’s 20 coastal parishes. LDNR coordinates 

this program, which primarily involves construction of low-cost shoreline protection 

structures. 

Finally, Louisiana has three very good examples of effective collaboration and 

communication among all interests in the coastal zone with regard to the restoration program.

• The Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) provided a one-time appropriation of $150 million to assist states in mitigating impacts from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production. Louisiana was one of seven coastal states 

eligible to receive funds under CLAP. In 2001, Louisiana received $26.4 million 

that was utilized for project construction, monitoring, erosion control, or control 

of invasive species. Before coastal states and coastal political subdivisions received funding, the state was required to submit a CIAP plan detailing how 

funds will be spent. In Louisiana, the LDNR was responsible for creating this 

plan utilizing input from private, local, and state interests. • Significant federal involvement in coastal restoration began in 1990 with the 

passage of the Coastal Wetlands Planning Protection and Restoration Act 

(CWPPRA). This law allocated federal funding for the planning, identification, 

and implementation of priority coastal restoration projects. The CWPPRA program is guided and directed by the Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force comprising representatives from 5 federal agencies (USACE, 

NOAA/NMFS, NRCS, USFWS, and USEPA) and the State of Louisiana, represented by the Governor’s Executive Assistant for Coastal Activities. This 

group makes final decisions concerning issues, policies, and procedures necessary to execute the CWPPRA program and its projects. Considerable collaboration and communication on a federal level has been demonstrated over the 

past 14 years through the construction of 68 CWPPRA projects. 

• A clear example of Federal/State/Local cooperation in Louisiana came in 1997-

1998 when federal, state and local governments collaborated to create the Coast 

2050 plan. This restoration plan outlines the general ecosystem strategies for 

restoring coastal Louisiana. It is based upon elements of previous restoration 

efforts along with new initiatives from citizens, local governments, state and 

federal agencies, and the scientific community. The level of citizen support for 

this approach to restoration planning in coastal Louisiana was demonstrated by 

the fact that Parish Councils and Police Juries of all 20 coastal parishes passed 

resolutions in support of the Coast 2050 Plan.

Question 3. You have mentioned that these programs have had good experiences 

working with sports fishermen and hunters. Could you elaborate on how sportsmen 

in Kentucky, for example, would benefit from this legislation? 

Answer. The connection to fishermen and hunters is evident in Louisiana’s nickname, the ‘‘Sportsman’s Paradise’’. In large part, this Sportsman’s Paradise is Louisiana’s coastal wetlands and the fish and wildlife they support. In Louisiana, as in 

Kentucky and other portions of the Mississippi River drainage basin, duck hunting 

is a popular form of outdoor recreation. The ducks hunted in these states breed during the spring and summer in the northern U.S. and Canada. Many ducks travel 

the Mississippi flyway from their breeding grounds to winter in the Mississippi alluvial flood plain. Ducks that use this flyway funnel over many states, including Kentucky, while traveling to their wintering habitat. Louisiana wetlands provide the 

largest and most important wintering habitat for those birds using the Mississippi 

flyway. Since quality of winter habitat improves breeding success of ducks, monies 

used to restore Louisiana’s wetlands can directly affect the numbers of ducks available for harvest in other states along the flyway. 

In addition to migrating waterfowl, Louisiana also provides essential stop over 

and wintering habitat for neotropical migratory song birds. These long distance migrants tend to be more vulnerable to habitat loss and fragmentation than resident 

birds or short distance migrants. Therefore, maintaining their habitat in Louisiana 

is of considerable importance to the preservation of these fascinating and ecologically important birds. 

Louisiana also provides opportunities to sports fishermen from Kentucky and 

around the country. For example, bass fishing continues to grow nationally. Because 

of the vast amount of suitable habitat, the largest bass tournament in the country, 

the Bassmasters Classic, has taken place in New Orleans in 1999, 2001, and 2003. 

82

This tournament is nationally televised and is not only of tremendous interest to 

Louisianans, but also to the rest of the country. 

RESPONSES OF JOHN BAUGHMAN TO QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR DOMENICI

Question 1a. In your testimony, you note that you have testified several times before Congress on past efforts to enact legislation to dedicate OCS revenues to conservation programs. 

Why has it been so difficult for Congress to reach consensus on this issue? 

Answer. While previous legislative efforts to dedicate OCS revenues to conservation passed the House in 2000 by a wide margin, the bill was never scheduled for 

floor attention in the Senate. The difficulty centered principally around the provision to dedicate statutorily these funds to conservation, thus removing these expenditures from discretionary appropriations oversight. Less so, property rights concerns 

about additional federal land acquisition also impeded passage. 

Question 1b. How does S. 2590 differ from previous Congressional attempts? 

Answer. S. 2590 is different in that it is a smaller bill in both portfolio and price 

tag. Significantly, federal-side Land and Water Conservation Fund is not in the bill 

as introduced. 

Question 2. Your testimony notes that in 1996, over 62 million American participated in wildlife viewing with an economic impact of nearly $30 billion. Can you 

share some more recent figures with the Committee? 

Answer. 80 Million Americans participated in wildlife viewing in 2001—an economic impact of nearly $108 Billion. 

Question 3. You propose at least 2 amendments to S. 2590 as introduced. Please 

explain what these proposed amendments are and why you feel they are necessary. 

Answer. The 2 amendments, as described below, related to eligibility of projects 

for funding under the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration account in PittmanRobertson. Both amendments would allow the State fish and wildlife agency further 

discretion over fund expenditures. Our testimony details further the need for these.

• Currently, the WCRA caps expenditures for wildlife-associated recreation at 

10%. We are asking that expenditures for that be at the discretion of the state 

fish and wildlife agency according to it’s needs, and that the statutory cap be 

removed. 

• Currently, the Pittman-Robertson law precludes spending any funds on wildlife 

law enforcement. We are requesting that, at the discretion of the state fish and 

wildlife agency, up to 10% of WCRA funds be eligible for law enforcement use. 

RESPONSES OF JOHN BAUGHMAN TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BUNNING

Question 1. This legislation calls for $1.425 billion in mandatory spending to fund 

these conservation programs. Given our already tight spending constraints, why 

should these funds in particular be exempted from the annual appropriations process? 

Answer. Because the history of funding for natural resources conservation in the 

United States under discretionary appropriations for the last 30 years continues to 

decline. With increasing human populations, pressure on land and habitat, and 

human growth and development in sensitive habitats as our coastal areas, we need 

long-term and assured funding to ensure that population growth is consistent with 

natural resource conservation. The vagaries and uncertainties of discretionary appropriations simply cannot address those challenges. 

Question 2. This legislation will provide funding for many multi-purposed and 

multi-jurisdictional programs. How can we ensure that there will be collaboration 

and communication among private, local, state, and federal interests? 

Answer. The wildlife title authorizing language, currently in statute as part of the 

Pittman-Robertson law, requires cooperation among governments and the opportunity for public participation. 

Question 3. You have mentioned that these programs have had good experiences 

working with sports fishermen and hunters. Could you elaborate on how sportsmen 

in Kentucky, for example, would benefit from this legislation? 

Answer. Just as the so-called non-game species have benefited from game and 

sport fish conservation programs under Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson/

Wallop-Breaux, habitat conservation programs for non-game species will also benefit 

game species found in these habitats. Similarly, increased access to lands for all 

wildlife associated recreation uses will enhance hunting and fishing opportunities 

for sportsmen and sportswomen. 

83

1The Monster in Our Backyard, Hoover Digest No. 3, 191, 197 (2004). 2See, e.g., Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825, 833 n.2 (1987) (‘‘And thus the 

announcement that the application for (or granting of) the permit will entail the yielding of a 

property interest cannot be regarded as establishing the voluntary ‘‘exchange... .’’); Dolan v. 

City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 385 (1994) (‘‘Second, the conditions imposed were not simply a 

limitation on the use petitioner might make of her own parcel, but a requirement that she deed 

portions of the property to the city. In Nollan, supra, we held that governmental authority to 

exact such a condition was circumscribed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.’’). 3 American Land Rights Association, Willing Seller—a Myth, Hearing on Land Acquisition and 

Maintenance in the National Parks, Testimony Before the Resources Subcommittee on National 

Parks, Recreation and Public Lands United States House of Representatives (September 27, 

2003), available at http://www.landrights.org/ubbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=getltopic&f= 

8&t=000037. 

RESPONSES OF DEFENDERS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS TO QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR DOMENICI

Question 1. Ms. Marzulla, I gather from your written testimony that your organization is fearful not only of the federal government having more money available 

to purchase private property and add it to the federal estate, but also that states 

and localities may pursue acquisition of private property more aggressively. Can you 

elaborate on those concerns for the Committee? 

Answer. Documenting more than 10,000 cases of eminent domain abuse by local 

and state governments, the Hoover Institution has recounted the level of abuse that 

takes place each day by local government:

The typical person lacks the resources, knowledge, and skills to take on the 

local leviathan that our local governments have become. The odds are further 

stacked by the ability of politicians to use their own citizens’ dollars against 

them. Except for the rare situation in which local media take an interest, individuals usually stand no chance against the very officials that in our federalist 

system are supposed to protect our rights.1

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly stepped in to curtail local government’s 

extortionate schemes, which falsely claim to be ‘‘voluntary’’ arrangements to acquire 

private land.2

State and local governments, through their police powers, have come to exercise 

just as much damage to the civil rights of American citizens as the federal government. Congress should consider the extent of state and local governments’ violations 

of private property rights before it invests these institutions with additional power, 

and additional resources to enable the use of that power. 

Question 2. Ms. Marzulla, you note in your testimony that you are skeptical of 

S. 2590’s requirement that private property can only be purchased from a ‘‘willing 

seller.’’ I think what I am hearing is that when the government, either federal, state 

or local, is the only ‘‘willing buyer,’ then the ‘‘willing seller’’ is at a significant disadvantage. Please comment. 

Answer. S. 2590’s provision that privately owned land will be purchased only from 

‘‘willing sellers’’ does not adequately protect private landowners because the government always holds in reserve the paramount power of eminent domain that allows 

it to take any home, farm, business or factory it pleases. 

The government often harasses citizens into selling their property. The American 

Land Rights Association has reported finding significant abuse and harassment on 

the part of National Park Service agents once sellers become hostile to initial offers 

for purchase from the Park Service.3 These agents have searched out individuals 

who are in financial need because of personal loss and by purchasing certain properties in a community, they have ‘‘checker boarded’’ entire communities. 

The phenomenon known as ‘‘condemnation blight’’ illustrates how the government 

rarely purchases from a ‘‘willing seller,’’ since private property owners often have 

no choice but to sell to the government. Condemnation blight occurs when property 

values plummet due to the threat of government condemnation or by delays between 

the time the government announces a proposed acquisition and the time the actual 

condemnation occurs. In the City of Norfolk, Virginia, for instance, the Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority targeted 90 acres for condemnation in East 

Ocean View in an effort to develop valuable waterfront property. When NRHA identified the 90-acre site in 1993, it did not have the funds to purchase the property 

in two to three years as announced, and years later, the city still had not purchased 

most of the targeted property. 

According to one commentator:

The city has, in effect, put a dome over East Ocean View, imposing conditions 

that prohibit private property owners from acting in their own best interests. 

84

4 Condemnation Rights in Ocean View, The Virginia-Pilot (May 26, 1998), available at

http://www.vaemdomain.com/essays/oceanview.html. 5See Richmond Elks Hall Ass’n v. Richmond Redevelopment Agency, 561 F.2d 1327 (9th Cir. 

1997) (‘‘When a public entity acting in furtherance of a public project directly and substantially 

interferes with property rights and thereby significantly impairs the value of the property, the 

result is a taking in the constitutional sense and compensation must be paid.’’). 6Trial Tr. at 355, Norman v. United States, No. 95-667L (Fed. Cl. Dec. 2, 2003). 

For these property owners in the path of condemnation, there is no market to 

sell their property because buyers will not willingly purchase property in a 

neighborhood targeted for demolition. The only potential buyer is NRHA, which 

puts NRHA in a uniquely advantageous bargaining position. Banks make it difficult, if not impossible, to refinance mortgage loans. Landlords find it almost 

impossible to attract quality tenants to a neighborhood featuring boarded-up 

buildings, broken windows, and trashed buildings, all awaiting demolition.4

In Richmond, Virginia, a similar story unfolded when the Richmond Redevelopment Agency had repeatedly advised a landowner that it would acquire a property 

as part of a redevelopment zone, but thirteen years after the property was initially 

included in the zone, it decided to abandon the acquisition. The property owner sued 

in federal court and won, with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming on appeal that the government’s actions had so interfered with the landowner’s property 

rights, it had to pay compensation for the land taken.5

Question 3. Ms. Marzulla, do you believe that this legislation can be amended so 

as to adequately protect private property owners from having their land taken without fair compensation? 

Answer. Yes, the bill could incorporate a requirement guaranteeing no net gain 

of public land. That is, if a government wishes to purchase land from a seller under 

the Americans Outdoors Act, it must subsequently sell a different piece of public 

property to a private buyer. With this guarantee in place, the bill would at least 

place an obstacle in front of the gradual encroachment of private property by the 

government. 

The bill should also set explicit limits on the amount and types of property to be 

purchased, the tactics available to government actors in those purchases, and internal checks on abuses to guard against condemnation blight and ensure that these 

sales are truly voluntary. There should be a limit set on the amount of time that 

can elapse between announced sales of private property and acquisition. 

Again, it should be stressed that these changes would be relatively minor in scope, 

and that the heart of the bill’s purpose—to convert vast amounts of private property 

into publicly owned land—is contrary to Defenders’ mission. We see little value in 

amending the bill’s structure in minor ways while disapproving of its larger consequences on private ownership. 

Question 4. In his testimony, Mr. Diamond notes that increased conservation-related tourism, such as bird-watching, will lead to increased property values. How 

do you respond? 

Answer. Certainly conservation and recreational activities do increase the value 

of privately owned land in some circumstances, but not always. 

For example, in one case seeking just compensation in the U.S. Court of Federal 

Claims for a taking of property located in Reno, Nevada, the government required 

property owners to set aside 200 acres of their land as a conservation (wetland) 

area. According to the broker who was tasked with marketing the remainder of the 

land next to the conservation areas, these areas reduced the value of the private 

land. At trial for damages, he testified that, ‘‘As a matter of fact, we see [the conservation areas] as a real danger. You’ll notice that a lot of the wetlands have to 

be left in their existing state. They had wells, holes that were dug by the ranchers. 

As a matter of fact, we see it as dangerous to children, and for residents that don’t 

want to enter them. And we cannot touch them to manicure them or do any 

work . . . We did not advertise that as an amenity.’’ 6

RESPONSES OF DEFENDERS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS TO QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR CRAIG

Question 1. You imply during your testimony that the true answer to many of the 

problems with our public lands is not more money, but spending our money more 

wisely. Can you give the Committee a few examples of what you are seeing on the 

ground? 

Answer. Yes. For instance, in the Pacific Northwest, the federal designation of 6.9 

million acres of privately owned land as federal habitat for the northern spotted owl 

led to what are commonly known as ‘‘green ghettos.’’ The University of Oregon reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:01 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\97188.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
85

7 J. Heissenbuttel & W. Murray, A Troubled Law in Need of Revision, 90 J. FORESTRY 13 

(1992). 8 Id.

9Linda Platts, Politics Manages Our Public Lands, Tom Daschle Shows How, PERC Reports

(Dec. 2001), available at http://www.perc.org/publications/percreports/sept2002/politics.php. 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 Randall O’Toole, Should Congress Transfer Federal Lands to the States?, Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 276, July 3, 1997, p. 1.

ported that local taxes were increased by tenfold in five Oregon counties to replace 

the income generated from lost timber sales.7 The resulting loss of jobs led to 

marked increases in affected communities in unemployment, alcoholism, suicide, 

battered spouses, and troubled children.8

According to the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), public land 

managers often fail because they have to kowtow to politician’s wishes rather than 

managing the land properly, as many private parks are able to do. PERC states that 

‘‘[o]n-the-ground federal land managers have little authority to care for the more 

than 400 million acres in their charge. These trained professionals, supported by biologists, botanists, forest ecologists, and a host of other scientific experts, are often 

taking orders from Washington politicians who know nothing about forest health.’’ 9

PERC further notes the Forest Service’s mismanagement: 

Year after year, the General Accounting Office has criticized the Forest Service 

for the severity of its accounting and reporting deficiencies. One particularly 

glaring error arose in fiscal year 1995 when the Forest Service could not account for $215 million of its $3.4 billion operating budget. The GAO reports that 

the agency is ‘‘unable to reliably keep track of billions of dollars of major assets, 

cannot accurately allocate revenues and costs to its programs, and made significant errors in preparing its financial statements.’’10

PERC lauds the private management of the Clinch Valley forest in Virginia:

[T]he Clinch Valley Forest Bank, the brainchild of the Nature Conservancy, deserves mention. The Clinch River Valley in southwest Virginia is one of the biologically richest watersheds in the country. Much of the land is owned by small 

private landowners, who may rely on the timber for income or to meet sudden 

cash needs such as medical emergencies and school tuition. The Nature Conservancy has come up with a plan that links conservation with the land’s economic 

productivity. Landowners may deposit the legal rights to their timber in return 

for an annual dividend of about 4 percent on the appraised value of the timber. 

The individuals retain ownership, but the bank acquires the right to grow, manage, and harvest the trees in perpetuity. To fund the dividend payments, the 

forest bank will harvest and sell the timber in a [sic] ecologically sound manner 

that protects the health of the watershed and the forest.11

While the federal government is particularly ineffective at managing land, the 

states perform just as badly. According to analyst Randal O’Toole:

State governments are no better managers than are federal bureaucrats. They 

are just as economically inefficient, ecologically short-sighted, and politically 

driven as their federal counterparts . . . In fact, state governments have been 

rapidly expanding... their land estates... 12

Private property ownership fosters environmental protection by rewarding those 

who conserve their resources and refrain from harming the public by use of their 

land. Indeed, it is no surprise that in those countries where private property is, or 

was until recently, not protected, neither is the environment. In Bangladesh, Africa, 

Chernobyl, and Eastern Europe, where property rights were or are at under governmental control, incentives to protect the environment or natural resources remain 

non-existent, and the environment falls into ruin. 

Question 2. Some concerns have been raised by groups such as yours that an expanded land acquisition trust fund will erode any multiple-use management of public lands. Can you expand on your concerns and the reasoning behind it? 

Answer. We do believe that multiple-use management of lands would be eroded 

by an expansion in the land acquisition trust fund. This is because government does 

a remarkably poor job at managing public land in an ecologically sensitive way, private stewardship of land, particularly if incentives could be offered to private landowners, would be much more effective at preserving the multiple uses of important 

and ecologically significant land. 

In the early 1960s, Interior Secretary Stuart Udall initiated a program in which 

the National Park Service would reward landowners for being good stewards. If they 

86

13General Accounting Office, Report to Congressional Requesters, Land ownership—Information on the Acreage, Management, and Use of Federal and Other Lands (Mar. 13, 1996), available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.21&filename= 

rc96040.txt&directoryr/diskb/wais/data/gao.

met certain criteria, their land would be nominated as a National Natural Landmark, and they would receive recognition and awards for their excellent stewardship. But this program turned from one based on incentives to one that precluded 

private landowners from exercising the full scope of their property rights. If Secretary Udall’s plan to provide incentives for private stewardship of land had continued, the government could encourage multiple-use aspects of private land. In government hands, however, even if such efficient use is possible, it has rarely been 

realized. 

RESPONSES OF DEFENDERS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS TO QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR LANDRIEU

Question 1. If every piece of property in the United States was privately owned, 

where would the general public go to enjoy the outdoors, such as open lands and 

lakes? 

Answer. Approximately 630 million acres, or nearly one-third of the United 

States, is already owned by the federal government.13 Much of that land is out 

West, with states such as Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Utah virtually belonging to 

the federal government; Nevada is almost entirely owned (79 percent) by the federal 

government. The country is hardly in danger of every piece of property being privately owned. 

Even if all land were in private ownership, however, all navigable waters in the 

United States are public property and thus, the public would still enjoy the right 

to use all navigable lakes, rivers, streams, and seashores. Due to the federal government’s navigational servitude, a private owner cannot prevent the public from accessing and using a navigable water for fishing, boating, or other recreational activities, at least not without the government’s permission. Furthermore, states also regulate these navigable waters and the lands underneath them for the public use 

under the public trust doctrine. 

Further, Defenders does not take the position that all property must be privately 

owned. Although we strongly favor additional constraints on the government’s ability to confiscate private land, we recognize the occasional, if rare, benefit to stateowned property. Unfortunately, the Americans Outdoors Act fits squarely into the 

type of legislation that most endangers private property rights, and has the potential to seriously undermine constitutional rights. 

Often, the government’s zeal to achieve social objectives, like those stated in the 

Americans Outdoors Act, endangers constitutional freedoms. The government’s efforts to secure benefits for one group of individuals almost always impairs the ability of others to secure their own rights; the Americans Outdoors Act is no exception. 

Perhaps one reason why many of us are so willing to trade individual property 

rights for desirable public benefits is that we have, in many instances, forgotten 

why we have property rights protection in the first place. Government plays such 

a large role in our daily lives that it is difficult to imagine any social good not 

emerging from the government. Government provides us with roads, schools, police 

protection, and innumerable other public benefits. 

In our testimony, we distinguished the governments of the Soviet Union and other 

communist nations from our American democracy, which rejects the idea that government must own excessively large amounts of property for the public good. From 

the Ten Commandments to Justinian’s Code, John Locke to James Madison, and 

Thomas Jefferson to today, private property rights have constituted a central part 

of our civil society, and help to ensure that our government will not grow too large. 

That private property does not always efficiently meet public demands, or that it 

burdens certain segments of society, does not mean that the government should expand its holdings so significantly as to undermine fundamental civil rights. The 

Americans Outdoors Act, despite good intentions, would severely hinder constitutional rights, and would violate the traditions of the founders of this nation. 

RESPONSES OF DEFENDERS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS TO QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR BUNNING

Question 1. This legislation calls for $1.425 billion in mandatory spending to fund 

these conservation programs. Given our already tight spending constraints, why 

should these funds in particular be exempted from the annual appropriations process? 

87

Answer. We think this question is better directed to the witnesses who provided 

testimony before the Committee in support of this legislation. Since Defenders opposes passage of the Americans Outdoors Act, as it is now drafted, we have not considered whether funds to support the legislation should be exempted from the annual appropriations process. 

Question 2. This legislation will provide for many multi-purposed and multi-jurisdictional programs. How can we ensure that there will be collaboration and communication among private, local, state, and federal interests? 

Answer. Again, this question is better directed to those witnesses who provided 

testimony before the Committee in support of this legislation. Since Defenders opposes passage of the Americans Outdoors Act, as it is now drafted, we have not considered how the legislation would provide for collaboration and communication 

among private, local, state, and federal interests. 

Question 3. You have mentioned that these programs have had good experiences 

working with sports fishermen and hunters. Could you elaborate on how sportsmen 

in Kentucky, for example, would benefit from this legislation? 

Answer. No comment. 

(89)

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES, 

Washington, DC, June 4, 2004. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR ALEXANDER: The Association strongly supports and endorses your 

initiative reflected in the proposed ‘‘Americans Outdoors Act’’ to address the need 

for assured and dedicated funding for conservation and recreation that is state and 

local-based and directed. We are particularly appreciative of your recognition in 

Title IV—Conservation and Restoration of Wildlife, of the need for providing funds 

to the state fish and wildlife agencies for comprehensive fish and wildlife conservation, education and recreation programs. As you know, all 50 State fish and wildlife 

agencies are members of the Association. 

The Title IV funds will be particularly significant in positioning the state fish and 

wildlife agencies to proactively conserve declining fish and wildlife species before the 

only remedy is to list them as threatened or endangered. Addressing the life needs 

and habitat requirements of declining species early on allows greater use of voluntary, non-regulatory programs in working with private landowners when flexibility in choice of management tools is still available. This will avoid not only the 

‘‘emergency-room’’ need for the Endangered Species Act, but also minimize the socioeconomic impacts of this largely regulatory statute. Preventative conservation 

makes good biological sense, good economic sense, and good common sense. 

We applaud your dedication to shepherding a bipartisan bill through the legislative process, and look forward to working with you to bring this to legislative success. The support and assistance of the 50 state fish and wildlife agencies stands 

ready to assist you in your endeavor. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN BAUGHMAN, 

Executive Vice President. 

THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY, 

Betheda, MD, June 7, 2004. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR ALEXANDER: The Wildlife Society strongly supports your initiative 

to introduce the Americans Outdoors Act, reopening deliberations on the need for 

long-term, dedicated conservation and recreation funding. The Wildlife Society is the 

organization of professional wildlife biologists and managers, dedicated to wildlife 

stewardship through science and education. For more than a decade we have advocated for a permanent funding source, statutorily dedicated to fish and wildlife conservation, wildlife related recreation, and conservation education. Your commitment 

to shepherding such an initiative through Congress is of great importance to the 

wildlife profession. 

There are significant benefits to wildlife and habitat in the Americans Outdoors 

Act. Most importantly, Title III would provide $350 million annually in assured, 

long-term funding for state fish and wildlife programs. These funds would be allocated through the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Account established in the 

Pittman-Robertson Act, which apportions funds on a formula of 2⁄3 population and 1⁄3 land area. This would mean more than,$6 million per year for Tennessee and 

more than $5 million per year for Louisiana to conserve all species of wildlife, to 

reverse declines of species in need of conservation, and to meet public demand for 

outdoor recreation and conservation education. 

90

Your leadership in drafting a bill that can engender bipartisan support is extremely valuable and much appreciated. We are poised to help you build momentum 

to successfully move this bill through the legislative process. Thank you again for 

your commitment to conservation. 

Sincerely, 

THOMAS M. FRANKLIN. 

BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB, 

Cody, WY, June 9, 2004. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR ALEXANDER: The Boone and Crockett Club is pleased to see the 

‘‘Americans Outdoors Act’’ introduced to continue the dialog about how to fund state 

wildlife agencies to preserve their lead role in delivering wildlife conservation at the 

local level, and to provide carefully selected additional lands for Americans to use 

in recreation. We continue to be supportive of legislation that taps logical funding 

sources, carefully and clearly protects the rights of the private landowner, and helps 

to conserve America’s outdoors. 

We are pleased to see a bipartisan effort under way and look forward to working 

with you, other members of Congress and the Administration to pass legislation 

that meets the needs of the states, the American public, and America’s outdoor heritage. 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT MODEL, 

President. 

AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION, 

Alexandria, VA, June 21, 2004. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR ALEXANDER: The American Sportfishing Association strongly supports your initiative reflected in the proposed ‘‘Americans Outdoors Act’’ that would 

assure and dedicate funding for conservation and recreation that is state and localbased and directed. We are particularly appreciative of your recognition in Title 

IV—Conservation and Restoration of Wildlife, providing funds to the state fish and 

wildlife agencies for comprehensive fish and wildlife conservation, education and 

recreation programs. The American Sportfishing Association is a non-profit trade organization whose members include fishing tackle manufacturers, boat builders, 

tackle retailers, state fish and wildlife agencies, angler organizations and the outdoor media. 

The Title IV funds will be particularly significant in positioning the state fish and 

wildlife agencies to proactively conserve declining fish and wildlife species before 

having to list them as threatened or endangered. Addressing the life needs and 

habitat requirements of declining species early on allows greater use of voluntary, 

non-regulatory programs in working with private landowners and giving an amount 

of flexibility to choose the best management practices available. This will not only 

avoid requiring listing under the Endangered Species Act, but it will also minimize 

the socio-economic impacts of this largely regulatory statute. Preventative conservation makes good biological sense, good economic sense, and good common sense. 

We applaud your dedication to shepherding a bipartisan bill through the legislative process, and look forward to working with you to bring this to legislative success. The support and assistance of the sportfishing industry stands ready to assist 

you in your endeavor. 

Sincerely, 

GORDON C. ROBERTSON, 

Vice President. 

ARCHERY TRADE ASSOCIATION, 

Vienna, VA, June 22, 2004. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR ALEXANDER: The Archery Trade Association strongly supports your 

initiative reflected in the ‘‘Americans Outdoors Act’’ to address the need for dediVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:01 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\97188.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
91

cated funding for conservation and recreation that is state and local-based. We are 

particularly appreciative of your recognition in Title IV Conservation and Restoration of Wildlife, of the need for providing funds to the state fish and wildlife agencies for comprehensive fish and wildlife conservation, education and recreation programs. 

The Title IV funds will allow state fish and wildlife agencies to proactively conserve declining fish and wildlife species before the only option is to list them as 

threatened or endangered. Addressing the life needs and habitat requirements of declining species early allows greater use of voluntary, non-regulatory programs in 

working with private landowners when flexibility in choice of management tools is 

still available. This will avoid not only the ‘‘trauma-type’’ use of the Endangered 

Species Act, but will minimize the socio-economic impacts of this regulatory statute. 

Preventative conservation will achieve biological goals in an economical fashion 

which makes good common sense. 

We appreciate your efforts to push this bipartisan bill through the legislative 

process, and look forward to working with you to bring this to legislative success. 

Please accept the support of our 500 manufacturers and over 2,000 retailers and 

know that we stand ready to assist you in your endeavor. 

Sincerely, 

JAY MCANINCH, 

CEO/President Archery Trade Association. 

NATIONAL MARINE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, 

Washington, DC, June 21, 2004. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR ALEXANDER: The National Marine Manufacturers Association 

(NMMA), the nation’s leading recreational marine trade association, your proposed 

legislation, the Americans Outdoors Act. NMMA represents over 1,500 member companies that are involved in every aspect of the recreational boating industry and our 

members manufacture over 80 percent of all recreational boats, engines, trailers, 

and accessories purchased by the boating community in the United States. 

NMMA focuses considerable resources to support initiatives to strength fisheries 

conservation and management because fishing is very important to a majority of the 

recreational boating community. Statistics show that nearly 80% of U.S. boat owners enjoy recreational fishing as a wholesome pursuit and escape from the stress of 

everyday-life. As you know, the Americans Outdoors Act will provide funding for 

programs important to fishing and wildlife conservation in general. The boost in 

funding for wildlife conservation programs in the ‘‘Americans Outdoors Act’’ will 

help bridge a funding gap that makes it difficult for state fish and wildlife managers 

to effectively do their jobs. State fish and wildlife managers need the funding provided in this bill in order to monitor and manage game and non-game species including valuable fish stocks. 

The coastal impact assistance will address a top conservation priority: protecting 

and enhancing wetlands. This habitat fills an irreplaceable niche that is vital to a 

huge variety of species. Wetlands habitat is under particularly heavy development 

pressure and is sensitive to the effects of offshore drilling related activities. The 

coastal mitigation support in your bill is an important step toward solving this important problem. 

The funding for the planning and development of state and local parks and recreation facilities will help reverse trends that are seeing fewer and fewer kids take 

up outdoor pursuits. Providing better access and facilities for outdoor enthusiasts 

can strengthen the fraying bond between Americans and the natural world. 

NMMA urges you to introduce the Americans Outdoors Act, and we are offering 

our services in this effort. Please do not hesitate to contact Jeffrey Gabriel of my 

staff at (202) 737-9764 or email at igabriel@nmma.org.

Sincerely, 

MONITA W. FONTAINE, ESQ., 

Vice President, Government Relations. 

92

FEDERATION OF FLY FISHERS, 

Livingston, MT, June 22, 2004. 

Hon. MARY LANDRIEU, 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR LANDRIEU: The Federation of Fly Fishers strongly supports and 

endorses your initiative reflected in the proposed ‘‘Americans Outdoors Act’’ to address the need for assured and dedicated funding for conservation and recreation 

that is state and local-based and directed. We are particularly appreciative of your 

recognition in Title IV—Conservation and Restoration of Wildlife, of the need for 

providing funds to the state fish and wildlife agencies for comprehensive fish and 

wildlife conservation, education and recreation programs. 

The Title IV funds will be particularly significant in positioning the state fish and 

wildlife agencies to proactively conserve declining fish and wildlife species before the 

only remedy is to list them as threatened or endangered. Addressing the life needs 

and habitat requirements of declining species early on allows greater use of voluntary, non-regulatory programs in working with private landowners when flexibility in choice of management tools is still available, This will avoid not only the 

‘‘emergency-room’’ need for the Endangered Species Act, but also minimize the socioeconomic impacts of this largely regulatory statute. Preventative conservation 

makes good biological sense, good economic sense, and good common sense. 

We applaud your dedication to shepherding a bipartisan bill through the legislative process, and look forward to working with you to bring this to legislative success. 

Sincerely, 

KIM GATES, 

Conservation Coordinator. 

AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY, 

Bethesda, MD, June 24, 2004. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR ALEXANDER: The American Fisheries Society strongly supports and 

endorses your initiative reflected in the proposed ‘‘Americans Outdoors Act’’ to address the need for assured and dedicated funding for conservation and recreation 

that is state and local-based and directed. We are particularly appreciative of your 

recognition in Title IV—Conservation and Restoration of Wildlife, of the need for 

providing funds to the state fish and wildlife agencies for comprehensive fish and 

wildlife conservation, education and recreation programs. 

The Title IV funds will be particularly significant in positioning the state fish and 

wildlife agencies to proactively conserve declining fish and wildlife species before the 

only remedy is to list them as threatened or endangered. Addressing the life needs 

and habitat requirements of declining species early on allows greater use of voluntary, non-regulatory programs in working with private landowners when flexibility in choice of management tools is still available. This will avoid not only the 

‘‘emergency-room’’ need for the Endangered Species Act, but also minimize the socioeconomic impacts of this largely regulatory statute. Preventative conservation 

makes good biological sense, good economic sense, and good common sense. 

We applaud your dedication to shepherding a bipartisan bill through the legislative process, and look forward to working with you to bring this to legislative success. 

Sincerely, 

GUS RASSAM, 

Executive Director. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, 

June 24, 2004. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. MARY LANDRIEU, 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR ALEXANDER AND SENATOR LANDRIEU: On behalf of the four million 

members and supporters of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), I would like 

to thank you for introducing the Americans Outdoors Act. Enactment of long-term 

93

and reliable annual appropriations for wildlife conservation, natural areas and safe 

neighborhood parks, recreation, and coastal restoration would be a milestone appreciated by this and future generations. 

The bill’s $350 million wildlife title is especially important to NWF. Its stable 

funding will enable state and tribal fish and wildlife agencies to effectively conserve 

wildlife, so our children’s children can experience the birds, fish, and wildlife that 

we enjoy in our backyards, streams, and rural areas. While state agencies manage 

all species within their boarders—with the exception of marine mammals—most of 

their resources are dedicated to the wildlife we hunt and fish. These programs have 

successfully restored wild turkey, elk, black bear, and striped bass to their native 

habitats. However, over 90 percent of the species within our nation are not hunted 

and fished and their needs are vast. The wildlife title embraces all species, but strategically invests in those that are most in need of conservation. It proactively addresses these needs through partnerships with landowners, nonprofit organizations 

and others in an effort to prevent species from becoming threatened or endangered 

in the first place. 

Our neighborhood parks and recreation areas are among the most valued assets 

of our cities and towns and reflect the vision and wisdom of past community leaders. 

Similarly, access and opportunities to hunt, fish, and study nature have contributed 

a major facet of American character. Your bill ensures that these proud traditions 

will continue as our nation and communities grow. 

We also support your effort to ensure that additional funds are made available 

for coastal restoration. Louisiana alone loses a football field every thirty minutes 

and between 25 and 30 square miles of marsh and swamp a year due to a range 

of factors including the impacts of oil and gas activities. 

We truly appreciate the leadership and consultation with colleagues that are reflected in your bill and the consideration the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 

Committee will afford your bill as a result. Having said that, we do urge that as 

the bill makes its way through the legislative process, it be amended to include titles on the federal side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and the 

Forest Legacy program (FLP). 

Federal LWCF makes a valuable and lasting contribution to the citizens of every 

state. The federal acquisition of willing-seller lands is a critical conservation tool 

that has been associated with OCS revenues for nearly three decades. 

The Forest Legacy program allows states to protect important forests that are 

threatened with conversion to non-forest uses and to protect local communities and 

their way of life. Designed to encourage the protection of privately owned forest 

lands, FLP is an entirely voluntary program. To maximize the public benefits it 

achieves, the program focuses on the acquisition of partial interests in privately 

owned forest lands. It encourages and supports acquisition of conservation easements, legally binding agreements transferring a negotiated set of property rights 

from one party to another, without removing the property from private ownership. 

Ultimately, the program is a win for private timber operators, landowners, wildlife 

and the environment. 

We applaud your effort to keep our common fish and wildlife common and to invest in the outdoors and recreation opportunities that contribute to the physical, 

mental, social, and spiritual health of our citizens and communities. These investments must be made each year to keep up with our nation’s growth and to save 

taxpayers the enormous costs that result when they are not 

Once again, thank you for introducing the Americans Outdoors Act. The National 

Wildlife Federation looks forward to working with you as the Americans Outdoors 

Act progresses through the legislative process. 

Sincerely, 

LARRY SCHWEIGER, 

President & CEO. 

COASTAL STATES ORGANIZATION, 

Washington, DC, June 24, 2004. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. MARY LANDRIEU, 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATORS ALEXANDER AND LANDRIEU: On behalf of the coastal states, I am 

writing to voice our support for the principles contained in the Americans Outdoors 

Act. The Coastal States Organization has long-held the position that revenues deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:01 Dec 13, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\97188.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
94

rived from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas development belong to all 

Americans and as such, should be reinvested in ocean and coastal programs that 

provide for the protection, restoration, and management of coastal resources. 

The recently released preliminary report by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

affirmed the need for assured and dedicated funding. The Commission called on 

Congress to ensure that a portion of the OCS revenues be invested in the conservation and sustainable development of ocean and coastal resources through grants to 

coastal states. 

As coastal resources face increasing pressure from use and development, it is important that funding be provided to assist states in mitigating the impacts. CSO 

asks you to consider providing all coastal states with an equitable share of the federal revenue from OCS oil and gas development. These funds will enable states to 

address erosion, habitat loss, environmental contamination, invasive species, and to 

mitigate the impacts of offshore oil and gas development. Coastal states where OCS 

oil and gas is produced may receive a larger portion of the compensation to address 

the environmental impacts of energy activities. Lastly, any OCS revenue-sharing 

legislation should contain assurances that no incentives for additional exploration 

or production on the OCS will be created and current moratoria on offshore oil and 

gas leasing are unaffected. 

This bill is an important step towards enacting dedicated funding for coastal conservation and strong coastal communities. We applaud this bipartisan effort and 

look forward to working with you on this legislation. 

Sincerely, 

TONY MACDONALD, 

Executive Director. 

HODGMAN INC., 

Montgomery, IL, June 14, 2004. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. MARY LANDRIEU, 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATORS: We are writing to express the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation 

Partnership’s strong support for the ‘‘Americans Outdoors Act.’’

In particular, we are pleased to see elements in this legislation that provide funding for programs important to hunting and fishing and wildlife conservation. 

The boost in funding for wildlife conservation programs in the ‘‘Americans Outdoors Act’’ will help bridge a funding gap that has made it difficult for state fish 

and wildlife managers to effectively do their jobs. In order to monitor and manage 

game and non-game species so that all Americans can benefit from interacting with 

the wildlife of this country, state fish and wildlife managers need the funding provided in this bill. 

The coastal impact assistance will address a top conservation priority: protecting 

and enhancing wetlands. This habitat fills an irreplaceable niche that is vital to a 

huge variety of species. Wetlands habitat is under particularly heavy development 

pressure and is sensitive to the effects of offshore drilling related activities. The 

coastal mitigation support in your bill is an important step toward solving this important problem. 

The funding for the planning and development of state and local parks and recreation facilities will help reverse trends that are seeing fewer and fewer kids take 

up outdoor pursuits. Providing better access and facilities for outdoor enthusiasts 

can strengthen a bond between Americans and the natural world that has become 

frayed. 

At the Conference on the Conservation of Natural Resources at the White House 

in 1908, our greatest conservation president, Theodore Roosevelt said, 

‘‘It is time for us now as a nation to exercise the same reasonable foresight in 

dealing with our great national resources that would be shown by any prudent man 

in conserving and wisely using the property which contains the assurance of wellbeing for himself and his children.’’

The ‘‘Americans Outdoors Act’’ represents just the sort of conservation foresight 

T.R. was talking about. This bill can help ensure that future generations are able 

95

to enjoy this country’s beautiful wild spaces and the fish and wildlife that live in 

them. 

Sincerely, 

RONALD W. FOSTER, 

President. 

STATEMENT OF BRAD HAYS, CHAIRMAN, U.S. SOCCER FOUNDATION

The United States Soccer Foundation, a public, not-for-profit organization committed to health and recreation through the increased development of the sport, 

would like to thank Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Senator Mary 

Landrieu of Louisiana for their leadership and express our strong support for the 

Americans Outdoors Act, a bipartisan effort to provide states and municipalities a 

permanent source of matching funds for parks and recreation. 

The Americans Outdoors Act provides a dependable source of recreation support 

for State and Local Governments by fully funding the stateside component of the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and providing ample funding for the 

Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR). Funding for these two programs have long been a priority for the entire U.S. Soccer membership (including 

national youth, adult, and professional soccer organizations). 

The reason for our support is clear: the LWCF has played an integral role in creating and developing our nation’s parks and recreation spaces. In its 35-year history, LWCF has helped communities develop more than 38,000 state and local park 

and recreation projects, including well over 7,000 soccer fields nationwide. UPARR 

(LWCF’s urban sister program) enhances opportunities for critically necessary recreation facilities in neighborhoods that need it most. A recent lack of dependable annual funding has turned UPARR into less of a resource, but we still view it as an 

untapped gem in assisting with the renovation of playing fields in the swiftly growing urban soccer market. 

Permanent annual funding for these two programs will allow soccer enthusiasts 

to enhance the development and growth of the game in their local communities. It 

will also allow organizations like the U.S. Soccer Foundation to better utilize the 

game of soccer as a vehicle to promote healthy and active lifestyles and improve the 

communities in which we live, work, and, now more importantly than ever before, 

play. 

The U.S. Soccer Foundation, and the U.S. Soccer Federation member organizations, including U.S. Youth Soccer; U.S. Adult Soccer; and the American Youth Soccer Organization, representing the over 19 millions Americans who play soccer each 

year, enthusiastically support the passage of the Americans Outdoors Act. 

STATEMENT OF CELINA MONTORFANO, DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, 

AMERICAN HIKING SOCIETY

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, American Hiking Society represents 5,000 members and the 500,000 members of our 150 affiliated organizations. 

As the national voice for America’s hikers, American Hiking Society promotes and 

protects foot trails and the hiking experience. As the only national recreation-based 

conservation organization dedicated to establishing, protecting, and maintaining 

America’s foot trails and a long-time partner with the National Park Service (NPS), 

USDA Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), American Hiking 

and its constituents have a very strong interest and stake in conservation and recreation funding programs for national parks, forests, trails, and public lands. 

In order for Americans to enjoy the outdoors and find healthy places to recreate, 

we need protected open spaces and access to natural and recreational resources. The 

Americans Outdoors Act, S. 2590, introduced by Senators Lamar Alexander and 

Mary Landrieu, funds a variety of critical outdoor recreation and conservation programs including the stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund. American Hiking applauds the sponsors for introducing this significant legislation and strongly 

urges the inclusion of the federal side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(LWCF) in the Americans Outdoors Act. The LWCF is one of the government’s most 

important land protection tools that protects open space, trails, and natural and 

recreation resources for the benefit of the nation and future generations of hikers. 

96

LWCF—BACKGROUND

The Land and Water Conservation Fund is a visionary and bipartisan program, 

established by Congress in 1964 to create parks, protect trails and open spaces, preserve wilderness and wildlife habitat, and enhance recreational opportunities. 

LWCF was created in response to the need for quality and accessible outdoor 

recreation as well as threats to the open space and natural resources that provide 

that recreational experience. Early successes of the program and the popularity of 

the projects that LWCF has made a reality created pressure to increase the amount 

of money in the Fund. In 1968 Congress made offshore oil and gas drilling lease 

proceeds a source for LWCF and in 1977 increased the amount of funds available 

to $900 million per year. 

Over the past decade, the majority of LWCF funds have been diverted to programs unrelated to the traditional LWCF uses such as land protection and recreation. While LWCF funds have been cut severely, the need for open space and recreation has soared. Authorized at $900 million annually, LWCF is one of the most important conservation tools ever designed and is critical to the future protection of 

national trails and trail lands. 

The federal program of LWCF funds the purchase of land and water areas for conservation and recreation purposes within the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management. During the last forty 

years, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has protected some of America’s 

most recognized and treasured national parks, wilderness, trails, forests, and refuges. Federal LWCF projects have protected lands and resources endeared by hikers 

including: Acadia National Park; Grand Canyon National Park; the Appalachian, 

Pacific Crest, Florida, Ice Age, and Continental Divide National Scenic Trails; Rocky 

Mountain National Park; King Range National Conservation Area; Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park; Denali National Park; Green Mountain National Forest; 

Gallatin National Forest; and many others. 

Federal land agencies obtain LWCF monies only after completing an in-depth 

prioritization process and receiving specific appropriations approved by Congress. 

After taking into account a variety of factors—including cost, threat/probability of 

development, local support, whether the project meets a public need, and federal 

management agency objectives, among other criteria—the agencies develop lists of 

prioritized needs for LWCF projects. These lists are then reviewed and approved or 

rejected by the Office of Management and Budget, after which they are included or 

excluded from the President’s budget. 

LWCF & THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM

Hikers, other recreationists, and all Americans benefit from our twenty-three national scenic and historic trails, but only one—the Appalachian National Scenic 

Trail—is fully open for public use from end-to-end. For most of these trails, barely 

half of their congressionally authorized length and resources are protected and 

available for public use. Land acquisition through the LWCF is an essential means 

for protecting the resources and continuity that form the basis for these trails. 

The NPS, Forest Service, and BLM play an essential role in protecting resources 

and rights-of-way critical to the integrity and continuity of these trails. Federal acquisition through LWCF is one of many land protection tools, but it is a critical and 

proven one. The federal government complements land acquisition through a number of alternative land protection mechanisms including conservation easements, 

private stewardship grants, challenge cost-share programs, and other types of partnerships. 

Land managers purchase land to protect the national trails only as opportunities 

arise and as Congress appropriates the necessary funds. If Congress doesn’t want 

to fund federal land acquisition, it doesn’t have to appropriate the funds requested. 

Congress’ intent to provide opportunities for outdoor recreation and appreciation 

and enjoyment of natural and historic resources may never be fully achieved along 

these trails without the agencies’ ability to purchase land from willing sellers 

through the LWCF. Many landowners have offered to sell their land to the federal 

government to maintain the continuity of a national scenic trail. Individual families 

have voluntarily protected many unique and special sites along the scenic and historic trails for several generations. 

Acquisition through the LWCF enables the federal agencies to carry out their responsibilities under the National Trails System Act (NTSA) to protect nationally significant components of our nation’s cultural, natural, and recreational heritage and 

to provide public access to and travel within them. Appropriations from the LWCF 

enable the federal agencies to respond to conservation opportunities presented by 

willing landowners. For most national scenic trails, the need to acquire land is acute 

97

and requires prompt action in order to save irreplaceable and invaluable resources 

and experiences. 

Ultimate control over how much land may be purchased for the national trails remains with Congress through the annual appropriation process. Acquisitions are 

also controlled by the limited funding available for acquisitions combined with the 

linear nature of these trails. However, if the administering agency can only protect 

a segment of trail corridor by acquiring a whole parcel larger than needed for the 

corridor, the NTSA allows agencies to exchange or dispose of land acquired as part 

of a whole tract that falls outside the area of trail acquisition. The federal land management agencies are needed as partners to add their staff and acquisition dollars 

to the efforts of state/local agencies and private organizations to protect the rightsof-way that will enable these trails to become the continuous footpaths Congress intended. 

The trails and trail lands protected through the LWCF represent one of our nation’s most valuable assets, bringing individuals and families outside for recreation, 

inspiration, and education, and providing healthy physical activities, alternatives for 

transportation, and protection for natural and cultural resources. Hiking is one of 

the nation’s most popular outdoor activities—73 million Americans hike regularly or 

occasionally (Outdoor Industry Association Participation Study 2002). By increasing 

physical activity, trail use such as walking/hiking reduces the risk of life-threatening diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer and combats one of the 

leading causes of preventable death today: obesity. Our parks, forests, and trails 

serve as outdoor classrooms for natural and cultural history in addition to outdoor 

recreation areas. Trails also provide economic vitality to communities, increasing 

property values and enhancing regional tourism. Nationally, sales of outdoor gear, 

clothing, footwear, and other accessories amount to more than $18 billion per year. 

CONCLUSION

American Hiking Society supports the conservation and recreation funding programs included in S. 2590; however, we strongly urge the Committee to amend the 

Americans Outdoors Act to include full funding of $450 million for the federal side 

of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a cornerstone program that protects 

trails and trail lands for the benefit of the nation and future generations of hikers. 

American Hiking Society and its members and member clubs do their part every 

year to help maintain our nation’s outstanding network of trails, contributing tens 

of thousands of volunteer hours worth millions in labor along with direct financial 

contributions. These efforts complement federal and state agency responsibilities to 

protect our natural, cultural, and recreational heritage and to provide public access 

to and travel within them. These responsibilities are not achievable without consistent, dedicated funding to both the stateside and federal sides of the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund, a visionary, proven program that provides essential conservation, recreation, economic, public access, and public health benefits to the nation. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, pending before you is a bill that 

challenges the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Senate and others 

to consider the national imperative for public recreation access and resource stewardship. This is not exclusively an issue of conservation and investment in federal 

lands most often discussed by the committee. Rather, it is an issue fully intergovernmental in nature. Public recreation and stewardship responsibilities are shared 

by state governments, where state park systems include over 6,000 sites and host 

over 750,000,000 visits annually, and with more than 5,000 ‘local’ public park and 

recreation entities that plan, finance, design, and manage over 80,000 sites. Our 

best estimate suggests that collectively local public park and recreation places—

from large regional parks to community recreation centers—likely host 2.5-3.0 billion visits annually. In reality, the American people seek a continuum of recreation 

destinations and experiences. 

Public investments in capital projects are most efficient when funds are sufficient 

to address specific public needs and are reasonably predictable. Despite exceptional 

work by members of this Committee and many other legislators, neither LWCF nor 

the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program, have, over time, had the benefit 

of sufficient, predictable funds. Accordingly, we urge the Committee to continue active consideration of S. 2590, to amend it as necessary, and to favorably report it 

98

to the Senate. NRPA will in the near future recommend specific areas where, in its 

judgment, S. 2590 should be strengthened. 

The National Recreation and Park Association is a 501(c)(3) organization. Among 

many activities, it is an advocate for progressive national policy and actions that 

support public recreation and park systems and services. Its membership consists 

of public executives, managers, elected and appointed citizen policy makers, and citizen advocates associated with the creation and public use of recreation and park 

places and public services. Our 23,000 members are associated with public park and 

recreation agencies at all levels, water and other conservation authorities, research, 

undergraduate and graduate education, continuing education and training, recreation services and site adaptations for persons with disabilities, and recreation for 

members of the Armed Forces and their dependents. Our trustees include representatives of this ‘‘community.’’ They are also representative of large and small businesses, foundations, and other private interests. 

Our earliest institutional roots reach to the creation in 1898 of the New England 

Association of Park Superintendents, to a merger in 1965 of five associated groups. 

Prior to 1965, most of these groups participated in the work of the congressionally 

authorized Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. They separately testified in support of the creation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. NRPA 

was the principal national not-for-profit advocate for the creation in 1978 of the 

Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act. The urban park restoration program is 

the only element of then-President Jimmy Carter’s urban initiative that the Congress enacted into law. 

THE RECREATION AND PARK IMPERATIVE

Today, the imperative for investing in public recreation resources is, in our view, 

at least as great and arguably greater than were circumstances in 1964 and 1978, 

respectively, when the U.S. Congress enacted the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund Act and the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act. Why? 

Population Growth: One answer lies in observations of U.S. Senator Bill Frist (R.-

Tenn.) as recent as July 12 in remarks at the National Press Club. By 2014, just 

short 10 years from now, Senator Frist observed, the U.S. population will approach 

or exceed 320 million people. Twenty-five percent of us will be over 65, and the fastest growing segment of our population will continue to be over 85. This will result, 

and is resulting, in two scenarios of critical importance: First, more people will result in increased demand for public recreation destinations, space, and services, in 

all likelihood close to where they live. Second, the availability of the most geographically critical space for public recreation and conservation, again, mostly close to 

home will be greatly diminished. Also, the purchase power of the presently authorized OCS revenue credited to the U.S. Treasury—$900 million annually (and 

amounts available for the restoration of urban parks in distressed places)—will be 

greatly diminished. 

Population Diversity: The national population will be increasingly diverse. The 

growth rate of minority populations—37 percent of total population—will be twice 

the rate of the general population by 2014. New immigrants are settling in large 

cities and small communities. This scenario brings significant social and economic 

change, and impacts the types and location of recreation demand, among other factors. A high percentage of this population will depend on public recreation resources 

and services. 

Healthy People and Health Care Costs: The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Act contains a single policy objective: To improve individual and public health 

through access to a network of recreation resources. There is an increasing abundance of medical science and practice that supports this objective. Increasingly, a 

physically active life-style through recreation is a viable strategy for disease prevention and health promotion for many people. Access to this information and interpreting it is recognized by health professionals, policy-makers, and health-focused 

organizations. This spring, for example, 26 groups, including NRPA, urged House 

and Senate appropriators to recognize the health outcomes of active recreation by 

appropriating more adequate funds for LWCF and urban park-aided investments. 

Advocates for Health, Public Parks, and Recreation, include the American Heart Association, Center for Science in the Public Interest, State Directors of Health Promotion and Education, Amputee Coalition of America, Institute for Cancer Prevention, Association of State and Territorial Public Health Nutrition Directors, and 

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, among others. 

Health and health care costs will ‘‘pretty much determine’’ whether or not (American) companies will compete successfully in the global market place, Sen. Frist observed. The administration’s announcement on July 16 that certain types of obesity 

99

will be considered an illness and thus eligible for Medicare, could dramatically 

change public health care costs and estimates. Active recreation will not be a panacea, but it must be considered as an element of a healthy lifestyle. 

Revelations in the Journal of the American Medical Association (March 10, 2004) 

on the increasing rate of mortality attributable to physical inactivity and poor diet 

increase the imperative to invest in public park and recreation facilities that encourage active lifestyles. The 400,000 deaths annually due to physical inactivity and 

poor diet is the ‘‘largest increase among all causes of death,’’ the report observes. 

Also, Kenneth H. Cooper, M.D., M.P.H. recently noted, ‘‘(Today) our kids are fatter 

and less fit than they have been in the history of this country.’’ (Statement to National Governors’ Association, Winter Meeting, Feb. 22, 2004). Idaho governor and 

National Governors Association president Dirk Kempthorne on July 17 announced 

an NGA policy initiative that will anticipate state health care strategies and costs 

of a soon-to-retire ‘Baby Boom’ generation. These individuals, most with reduced incomes, are expected to place enormous demands on local and state park systems, 

and recreation-accessible federal resources. 

A report by the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion reinforces the recommendations of health-recreation community. The Center 

observed, ‘‘(C)haracteristics of our communities such as the accessibility and location 

of parks, trails, sidewalks and recreation centers... may play an even greater (than 

social environments) role in promoting or discouraging an individual or family’s 

level of physical activity.’’

More sufficient congressional support for increased public access through recreation development and resource conservation holds high potential for at least stabilizing some types of health costs over the long term. For example, the four diseases 

that may be prevented by appropriately active lifestyles, including active recreation—heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes—are life-threatening and costly to 

treat. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has observed that if physically inactive people were to become sufficiently active, the nation could potentially 

reduce health care costs by over $75 billion a year. Active recreation also can promote mental health by reducing anxiety and depression. Youth, especially, can benefit from active recreation. About 15 percent of all children are obese, a condition 

that increases the risk of high blood cholesterol, high blood pressure, and diabetes. 

By being physically active on a regular basis, often at public park and recreation 

sites, youth may be able to avoid or delay health problems associated with obesity 

and related conditions. With sufficient predictable funds thousands of public park 

and recreation facilities in American communities will be created, restored, and expanded, thus offering greater opportunity for active lifestyles. 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT NEEDS

Since 1990, the National Recreation and Park Association has undertaken three 

national surveys at 5-year intervals to objectively estimate local public recreation 

and park investment needs. In January 2000 NRPA surveyed 500 local park and 

recreation agencies, selected randomly from 5,050 agencies nationwide to determine 

the needs, priorities, and probable funding sources for capital investment during fiscal years 2000 through 2004. Estimates of total local needs for the five-year period 

were developed. We are scheduled to initiate a 2005-2009 needs survey later this 

year. 

The NRPA research on 2000-2004 indicated that local park and recreation agencies need to invest, from all sources, an estimated $55 billion for rehabilitation, land 

conservation, and construction of facilities. Localities expected to have less than onehalf that sum available. The total estimated need is twice the amount, $27.7 billion, 

projected for the 1995-1999 period. It must be noted that this survey occurred prior 

to Sept. 11, 2001 and a major decline in the value of personal, corporate, foundation 

and other stocks.

Nonetheless, the capital investment priorities for FY2000-2004 are instructive. 

They emphasize the need to expand the capacity of public recreation systems generally, and enhance access—46.2% of local agencies ranked this as the greatest priority. Over 36% of the agencies ranked eliminating and/or reducing specific recreation deficiencies as the highest priority. Conserving specific natural resource features, and shaping and controlling the direction of land use change were ranked as 

the top priority by 20.2% and 9.2% of local agencies, respectively. 

In terms of fiscal need, the development of new recreation infrastructure ranked 

highest, with a total need of $25.5 billion (46.3%) nationwide. For those agencies expressing such needs, the averages need per agency was $5.6 million, up from $3 million for the previous five-year period. Rehabilitation and restoration needs of lands 

and facilities nationwide totaled $13.8 billion (25.2%). These needs are not for 

100

‘‘maintenance,’’ but reflect major costs for resource renovation to correct deficiencies 

due to age or wear, outdated design, accessibility for persons with disabilities, and 

to increase user capacity of existing lands and facilities. For those agencies expressing a need for rehabilitation, the average need per agency was $3 million, up from 

$2.2 million in the previous survey. 

Land acquisition needs including both fee simple purchase and less than fee approaches totaled $16 billion (28.5%). For those agencies expressing the need for investment in land acquisition, the average cost per agency was $3.4 million, up from 

$2.4 million estimated previously. The average amount of additional recreational 

space rose from 214 to 349 acres per local system. Local governments anticipated 

that about six percent of capital needs (almost $1.8 billion) would come from federal 

sources. 

LWCF DEDICATED VERSUS AVAILABLE FUNDS

Access to and investment of OCS revenues allocated to the Land and Water Conservation Fund have varied greatly. Appropriations have always been less than the 

$900 million authorized to be annually credited to the Fund, or requested by all governments. During the last 20 years (FY1985-FY2004), for example, revenues from

Outer Continental Shelf activities credited to the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund U.S. Treasury account total about $17.4 billion (Minerals Management Service, Minerals Revenue Management, 1982-2003). During the same period, actual 

LWCF appropriations—federal and state—totaled about $7.8 billion. Appropriations 

for assistance to states and local governments during this period totaled $876 million. Of this amount, about $551 million was appropriated during the period 2000-

2004. This followed four consecutive years of zero funds for grants. Assuming an 

equal distribution ($450 million each) for federal and state/local projects at full dedicated funding ($900 million), state assistance and federal investments, would each 

total $2.7 billion over the six-year life of S. 2590. 

The table below reflects the variability in LWCF appropriations for state assistance.

APPROPRIATIONS FOR LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND STATE/

LOCAL ASSISTANCE 

[Five-Year Periods from Fiscal Years 1965-2004] 

Period $ in Millions 

1965-1969 .............................................................................. 256

1970-1974 .............................................................................. 750

1975-1979 .............................................................................. 1.250

1980-1984 .............................................................................. 657

1985-1989 .............................................................................. 184

1990-1994 .............................................................................. 116

1995-1999 (1 year) ................................................................ 25

2000-2004 .............................................................................. 551

Total ............................................................................... 3.7 Billion

Through FY 2004 the LWCF state assistance program has made available over 

$3.7 billion to be apportioned to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 

Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands for 

planning (states only), acquisition and development of recreation resources. Through 

fiscal year 2003, nearly 40,000 projects have been approved to support acquisition 

or other forms of conservation and development of recreation facilities and infrastructure necessary for public access and recreation use. State and local LWCF fiscal partnerships occur in almost every county and a high percentage of small and 

large localities nationwide. LWCF appropriations for state and local projects have 

been equally matched by state and local contributions for a total LWCF grant investment in excess of $7 billion. 

Of the total number of grant projects, over 10,000 have helped states and localities conserve about 2.55 million acres of land. Over 27,000 projects have aided development or redevelopment of recreation sites. Through FY 2003 over sixty-five 

101

* ‘Close to home’—Within 15 minutes from home by foot or bicycle, or 10 miles from home 

by car or public transit. Witnesses appearing at most of the hearings of the Presidents Commission on Americans Outdoors (1985-1986) repeatedly stressed that public recreation investments 

should occur ‘close to home.’ PCAO staff reviewed a number of transportation ‘origin—destination’ studies and public recreation and park plans and practices. While perhaps imprecise at 

that time, it was a best estimate of where investments were of high importance. Presently, the 

security of children and other factors and conditions suggest that ‘closer to home’ may be preferred, especially for young people. 

percent of the total obligated funds have gone to locally sponsored projects to provide accessible ‘‘close-to-home’’ * recreation. 

DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS

Since FY1965, LWCF state assistance funds have been invested as follows:

Project Sponsor ......................................................................................................

State resource agencies, including park, forest, public land and wildlife, 

among others: .............................................................................................. 38%

Local governments, including municipalities, towns, townships, park districts other than counties: .......................................................................... 49%

County governments: ...................................................................................... 13%

Project Type ............................................................................................................

Land conservation: .......................................................................................... 33%

Development for public access and use: ........................................................ 62%

Planning (states only): .................................................................................... 2%

Combination—land conservation and development: .................................... 3%

Source: National Park Service

CONTEMPORARY AND FUTURE NEEDS

Requests for Fiscal Partnerships: Recent requests for both Land and Water Conservation Fund and Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program assistance bring 

perspective to macro-scale need estimates. Specific plans, projects and processes 

begin to define the nature of present and continuing work to be done. In North Dakota, for example, less than one-half of projects submitted to the state LWCF liaison 

officer for fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004 were funded. Unfunded local government projects totaled $4.57 million. All requests came from communities of less than 

15,000 and counties. Relative to LWCF-eligible projects, ‘‘For the past several years, 

the funds requested in those applications have far exceeded our (federal) allocation,’’ 

according to a state official. 

The Town Council of Brunswick, Maine recently adopted a $5,045,700 5-year capital improvement program principally for public recreation and park resources. 

Many projects would be eligible for Land and Water Conservation Fund assistance. 

Brunswick’s present system of trails and parks are central elements of a more livable, healthy community. 

The Murfreesboro, Tenn. Parks and Recreation Department anticipates capital investment needs of $15.8 million for Fiscal Years 2003-2008. All projects would be 

either LWCF or UPARR-eligible. Siegel Park at Regency Park Dr. illustrates the imperative for investment. This multi-feature park will serve a 370-unit public housing 

project in an economically distressed area. Park design responds to identified 

needs—a ‘community gathering place,’ girls softball, basketball, multi-purpose 

sports fields, tennis, and parking,’’ according to the agency director. 

A private consulting group advised NRPA in 2002 that the firm had at least 23 

local government clients with identified recreation facility needs. Needs were determined by assessments and feasibility studies. Clients included Juneau, Alaska, population 30,711; Fort Bragg, California, 7026; Windsor, Colorado, 12,000; Greenfield, 

Indiana, 14,600; Lehi, Utah, 19,000; and Camas, Washington, 11,534, among others. 

While the private firm’s specific clients continue to evolve, these and other clients 

indicate that the need for recreation investment across every population category. 

Planning, finance, architecture/engineering, construction, landscaping, and, ultimately, facility operations and recreation services, result in an array of jobs and 

payrolls—and ultimately more livable, economically viable communities. 

Portland, Oregon park and recreation officials, citing the city’s Parks 2020 Vision 

Plan (2001) anticipates 1870 additional acres of public parkland, including 620 acres 

of protected habitat; 100 new sports fields; 150 additional miles of trails, and completion of the 40-mile loop trail. Many swimming pools, some built in the 1920’s, 

are still in use but need repair. 

102

SUMMARY

Local and state park systems are critical to the health of the American people and 

others who work and reside among us. With sufficient funds, more recreation resources could become accessible. These resources address diverse public interests 

and our collective need for quality recreation and associated services for children of 

working parents. Local agencies in particular host programs that serve millions of 

nutritious breakfasts, lunches, snacks, and suppers to needy children. Public recreation and park sites and services help reduce crime and delinquency, especially during non-school hours, days and seasons. Public recreation and park managers recognize that at any given time perhaps 50 million people have a physical disability: 

They attempt to accommodate their needs for recreation. 

State and local park agencies contribute importantly to plant and wildlife diversity. Hundreds of local systems contain more than 5,000 acres, with many systems 

in excess of 15,000 acres. An estimated 80 to 85 percent of larger systems are typically undeveloped, thus contributing to an array of conservation and environmental 

outcomes. Most systems also provide opportunities to create public awareness of environmental conditions and convey messages about stewardship. 

The National Recreation and Park Association appreciates the opportunity to submit this statement. NRPA public policy director, Barry Tindall (202-887-0290), is 

available to discuss issues raised in this statement or to respond to questions.

Æ