Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

	<html>
	<title> - STATE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION ACT</title>
	<body><pre>
	[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
	[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




	STATE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION ACT

	=======================================================================

	OVERSIGHT HEARING

	before the

	SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS

	of the

	COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

	ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

	FIRST SESSION

	on

	FEDERAL FUNDING OF THE STATE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION ACT

	__________

	MARCH 11, 1997--WASHINGTON, DC

	__________

	Serial No. 105-2

	__________

	Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources


	<snowflake>


	U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
	40-050 CC WASHINGTON : 1997



	COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

	DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
	W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
	JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
	JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
	ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
	JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
	JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
	JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
	WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
	KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
	RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
	BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
	HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
	LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
	GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
	WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
	Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
	WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
	JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
	JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
	ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
	CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
	KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
	JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
	RICK HILL, Montana Islands
	BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado NICK LAMPSON, Texas
	JIM GIBBONS, Nevada RON KIND, Wisconsin
	MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

	Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
	Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
	Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
	John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
	------

	Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands

	JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
	ELTON, GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
	JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
	JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
	WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
	RICHARD W. POMBO, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
	HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
	LINDA SMITH, Washington FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
	GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
	WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
	Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
	JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
	JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
	ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
	RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
	JIM GIBBONS, Nevada Islands
	RON KIND, Wisconsin
	Allen Freemyer, Counsel
	Steve Hodapp, Professional Staff
	Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel



	C O N T E N T S

	----------
	Page

	Hearing held March 11, 1997...................................... 1

	Statements of Members:
	Christian-Green, Hon. Donna, a U.S. Delegate from the Virgin
	Islands.................................................... 4
	Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni, a U.S. Delegate from American Samoa.. 3
	Hansen, Hon. James, a U.S. Representative from Utah.......... 1
	Hefley, Hon. Joel, a U.S. Representative from Colorado....... 4
	Smith, Hon. Bob, a U.S. Representative from Oregon........... 2

	Statements of witnesses:
	Beck, Judy, Commissioner, Glenview Park District, IL......... 12
	Prepared statement....................................... 32
	Cove, Thomas J., Vice President of Government Relations,
	Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association................... 9
	Prepared statement....................................... 30
	Murphy, Donald W., Director, California Department of Parks
	and Recreation............................................. 7
	Prepared statement....................................... 29
	Stevenson, Katherine, Associate Director, National Park
	Service.................................................... 24
	Prepared statement....................................... 34
	Tindall, Barry S., Director of Public Policy, National
	Recreation and Park Association............................ 5
	Prepared statement....................................... 40

	Additional material supplied:
	Murphy, Donald: LWCF Funding Levels.......................... 39
	Stevenson, Katherine: Receipts, Appropriations and
	Unappropriated Balances Reported by Treasury Dept. (LWCF).. 37
	Tindall, Barry:
	Capital Investment in Parks and Recreation............... 49
	LWCF Project Examples.................................... 48



	FEDERAL FUNDING OF THE STATE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION ACT PROGRAMS

	----------



	TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 1997

	House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National
	Parks and Public Lands, Committee on Resources,
	Washington, DC.
	The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:17 a.m., in
	room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James Hansen
	(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

	STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES HANSEN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
	UTAH; AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC
	LANDS

	Mr. Hansen. We are here at this relatively early hour today
	to learn a little about the needs and benefits of Federal
	funding for the State Land and Water Conservation Fund program.
	This has been a highly successful program, which has brought
	the opportunity for open space recreation to millions of
	Americans on a daily basis.
	I am disappointed to see that Secretary of the Interior
	Bruce Babbitt, like Secretary James Watt before him, has set
	off on a pathway to eliminate funding for the State Land and
	Water Conservation Fund program. This is particularly ironic
	because the Clinton Administration endorsed the revitalization
	of this program in a 1994 report.
	Today, we will hear from the Administration that it just
	simply is not a high enough priority for them to seek funds. I
	find that curious when the Administration is seeking nearly
	$300 million for Federal land acquisition in fiscal year 1998.
	Included within the Administration's request are such items as
	$4.2 million request for the Appalachian Trail, where the
	Federal Government is now buying up the viewshed along the
	trail at a cost of over $2 million per mile, and $22 million to
	buy several dams in the State of Washington.
	I know that there are those who advocate increasing funds
	for both the Federal and State LWCF programs. That is really
	only a question of money, and I look forward to their
	suggestions as to where the funds will come from. In the
	meantime, it is appropriate to ask the question of priority.
	Specifically, should Congress continue to fund the Federal LWCF
	program exclusively?
	The State LWCF program not only addresses the highest
	priority needs of the American public for outdoor recreation
	close to home, but because of the matching requirements is an
	even better deal for the taxpayer than Federal land
	acquisition. Further, report after report documents that the
	Federal Government cannot properly manage the 650 million acres
	already entrusted to it.
	In fact, several years ago the Interior Inspector General
	recommended that the Fish and Wildlife Service suspend
	acquisition altogether, until they could properly manage the
	lands that they had already acquired.
	I am pleased that a grassroots effort has begun to help
	revitalize this program. I encourage those persons associated
	with that effort to work with us on the Committee. As Members
	become more aware of the benefits of this program through
	efforts such as this hearing, I believe that it will be
	possible to generate the strong bipartisan support for this
	effort to restore the original vision of this Act which was to
	provide recreation opportunities for all Americans.
	I have been on this committee for nine terms now, and we
	have looked at this every time and I have yet to see something
	occur. I would really like to see something come to fruition at
	this point.
	Mr. Hansen. My friend from Oregon, the Chairman of the
	Agriculture Committee, is with us. Mr. Smith, do you have any
	opening comments in this regard?

	STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM OREGON

	Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just an observation or
	two. The Soil and Water Conservation Fund, as I recall, was
	always a sinking hole that those who wanted and could not fund
	any other program, find money for any other program, used it.
	And as you and I sat and watched the addition to the Federal
	lands to 650 million acres and no money to support those
	additions, the other parks and other purposes, we raised the
	question all along why are we taking more land off the tax
	roles, especially in the western States.
	In my district, 75 percent of the land is already owned by
	the Federal Government. The Federal Government does not need
	any more land in my part of the State of Oregon and of course
	in many States of the West, as you well know, including your
	own. A heavy, heavy percentage of the lands in those States
	already belong to the Federal Government and the tax structure
	on the rest of the land that is privately held supports all the
	infrastructure so we are pinched--by the way, the Federal
	Government is a lousy neighbor. They do not pay their way.
	So as one who comes from that kind of a background I am
	very concerned. I know, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, in 1994
	Mr. Clinton himself recommended that the shares be in this
	manner 30 percent to the State, 30 percent to the Federal
	Government, 30 percent to cities, and 10 percent discretionary.
	So before we go forward I would like to analyze how we
	ought to share this thing. Frankly, I am more inclined to
	believe that the States have a better idea how to manage this
	fund than does the Federal Government. And taking the
	opportunity for the Federal Government to make wrong decisions
	I prefer to give it all to the States and maybe some of the
	cities. So if we are going to fund it I would like to see it
	distributed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I
	notice he pointed out that he felt the Federal Government was a
	lousy neighbor. As you know, members of this committee, we are
	going to have a payment in lieu of tax problem as the amount
	recommended by the Clinton Administration is substantially
	less.
	The problem we have out in the West, we have all of the
	folks encouraging people to come out to our areas. Like you,
	many of the areas in the first congressional district and some
	of the counties are 90 percent owned by the Federal Government.
	So folks come out and they have a great impact on the area and
	we have to clean it up. They are up there hiking and they break
	a leg and we have to go get them. They start a fire, we have to
	put it out. And then they turn around and say we do not want to
	pay you anything.
	So payment in lieu of taxes will be an issue here and I
	hope we can handle that. I am pleased to see my friend from
	American Samoa come in, the ranking member of the committee,
	Mr. Faleomavaega. Do you have anything you would like to say in
	opening statement, sir?

	STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A U.S. DELEGATE FROM
	THE TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA

	Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, my apologies for being
	late. The traffic was not very favorable in my coming this
	morning. I certainly would like to offer my personal welcome to
	the Chairman of our Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from
	Oregon who is also a member of the committee. I am very happy
	to see him here this morning.
	For the sake of time, I am going to submit my statement for
	the record and would like to proceed and welcome our gentlelady
	from the Virgin Islands and other members of our committee, the
	gentleman from Colorado. I would like to proceed if it is all
	right with you.
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. Your full statement will
	be included in the record.
	[Statement of Mr. Faleomavaega follows:]

	Statement of Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a U.S. Delegate from American Samoa

	Since enactment of the Land and Water Conservation Fund in
	1964, over $3 billion have been appropriated for matching
	grants to the 50 States and U.S. insular areas used for land
	acquisition, open space needs and recreation development.
	Through this program more than 2.3 million acres have been
	acquired and recreation facilities built on some 25,000 sites.
	I'm sure each of us can point to successful protects in our
	communities which were made possible through LWCF funding. In
	American Samoa we have used the funds to improve the Pago Pago
	Park and Marina, Utulei Public Beach, Pago Stadium, Mialoa
	Fishing Complex, and the Lavolava Golf Course. Improvements
	that our visitors and residents alike have enjoyed.
	Funding for both the State and Federal side of the Land and
	Water Conservation Fund comes out of receipts from surplus
	Federal property sales and offshore oil and gas leases. Each
	year $900 million is credited to the program from these
	receipts, however, throughout the 1980's and 1990's less than
	one third of the amount credited has been appropriated for use.
	During the 104th Congress State side funding was zeroed out
	completely and the Federal share was cut substantially.
	Both the Federal and State sides of LWCF deserve continued
	funding--the Federal side allows for protection and
	conservation of areas of national significance while the State
	side allows State and local governments to determine how to use
	the funds to address local concerns and interests. I know it is
	the opinion of some that only one side of LWCF should be funded
	at the expense of the other but I think the success of this
	program shows that adequate funding for both sides should be
	reinstated.
	I thank the Chairman for calling this morning's oversight
	hearing and look forward to hearing from our witnesses
	regarding their experiences with the Land and Water
	Conservation Fund.

	Mr. Hansen. The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands is
	recognized.

	STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, A U.S. DELEGATE FROM
	THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

	Ms. Christian-Green. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and good
	morning to the witnesses here today. I am new to this committee
	so I have not been participating in this ongoing discussion but
	I look forward to doing so this morning. And I feel very
	strongly about the importance of maintaining parks.
	It has been one of the main complaints as I campaigned this
	year through the Virgin Islands that our parks were in
	disrepair and our young people had no good places to go for
	recreation so I am very much interested in hearing the
	testimony. And I know the importance of parks not only to
	maintaining our country's health but also our quality of life.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Colorado, you are
	recognized.

	STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL HEFLEY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
	COLORADO

	Mr. Hefley. Mr. Chairman, I think our first meeting of the
	overall committee this year, in our packet of materials was a
	map from--I have forgotten where it was from, but it showed the
	public lands in this country, the Federal lands that were
	owned, and it showed it in a very dramatic and graphic way,
	something I knew and understood intellectually but to see it,
	it really is shocking.
	And that is that from the Colorado eastern border east
	there are almost no colored areas. Now, sure, there were a few
	parks and there were a few military bases and so forth that
	were Federal land east of the Colorado eastern border. From the
	eastern border of Colorado west it looked like the Federal
	Government owned everything because of the colored areas.
	And it is something that--it is a map, I wish I had it with
	me this morning, that we ought to have with us here in the
	committee to illustrate this and put it in perspective every
	time we talk about land and water issues because I do not think
	most people understand and I did not understand it quite as
	graphically as this displayed it.
	The West is largely owned by the Federal Government and
	partially because when they had the early settlement that was
	land that no one wanted at that time. And now we are living
	with that kind of a legacy. You are in Utah and in Washington
	and in Oregon, and certainly in Colorado. So as we think of
	these things, I think we ought to think of it in the
	perspective of that fact that the Federal Government owns a
	good part of the western United States and very little of the
	East. I think that is why we have trouble getting our eastern
	colleagues to understand what we are dealing with.
	Mr. Hansen. I think the gentleman's point is well taken.
	Our eastern folks do not have any idea of what we go through
	but we should have some wilderness in the East. I appreciate
	their efforts. The gentleman from Puerto Rico.
	Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no
	comments to make.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. Would the Chairman yield?
	Mr. Hansen. I yield to the gentleman.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. Just to tell my friend from Colorado that
	one of the latest issues of the National Geographic magazine
	points out the fact where Federal lands currently are located
	and I think the gentleman probably got a copy----
	Mr. Hefley. Someone handed me the map, Mr. Chairman, and
	the colored areas are Federal-owned lands and this illustrates
	what I am saying. This is Colorado's eastern border. If you
	look at Colorado west, what it amounts to, and if you look at
	Colorado, what it amounts to, and that is pretty dramatic.
	Mr. Hansen. I think the point the gentleman made is that--
	no disrespect to our good friends from the States east of the
	area. But they have very little understanding of the problems
	we have out in our area. We are grateful for our witnesses who
	are here.
	Our first panel consists of Barry S. Tindall, Donald W.
	Murphy, Thomas J. Cove, and Judy Beck. If these folks would
	like to come up and you have a little sign there in front of
	you. If you can all figure out which one is yours we are OK. We
	appreciate you being with us today. We will start with Mr.
	Tindall, Director of Public Policy, National Recreation and
	Park Association, and then we will just move on across.
	Does anybody here have a statement that is going to take
	longer than five minutes? I really appreciate that. That is
	very kind of you. And if you will notice in front of you there,
	there is a traffic light and when the green goes on that means
	go, yellow means wind it up, and red means stop. And I would
	really appreciate you staying within the time. And I appreciate
	you being here. Mr. Tindall, we will turn to you, sir, and the
	time is yours.

	STATEMENT OF BARRY S. TINDALL, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY,
	NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION

	Mr. Tindall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Barry
	Tindall. I am Director of Public Policy for National Recreation
	and Park Association. We appreciate the invitation to be here
	this morning to share some points of view on something we have
	been advocates for for a long, long time. Before I get into my
	statement, I might say that my organization is looking forward
	with great enthusiasm to meeting in Salt Lake City this fall.
	We will bring between 5,000 and 6,000 public and other park and
	recreation folks into your State. We look forward to seeing and
	using the recreation resources at all levels of government,
	city, county and Federal resources as well.
	Let me also say that I do not fully understand the western
	point of view, if you will. My home is in New Jersey or was in
	New Jersey until I moved to northern Virginia, but my
	organization has historically supported a continuum of
	recreation destinations that range from the smallest community
	play lot to many of our great Federal resources.
	I want this Subcommittee to understand that we are a
	national association but most of our members, frankly, are non-
	Federal employees. We have an intense interest in the stateside
	of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as well as the Urban
	Park and Recreation Recovery Program and other things that are
	related, other statutes, policies, related to providing
	recreation resources and experiences.
	You have my statement. In answer to your question, yes, it
	would take far longer than five minutes to get through it. I do
	not intend to burden you with that. I would simply say that the
	stateside of the Land and Water Conservation Fund is, in fact,
	one of the great American conservation successes in this
	country. We have invested something in the order of $3.2
	billion of Federal funds.
	The important thing to note is that the States and
	subdivisions of States, with a great infusion of private sector
	interest, has more than doubled that money. It has leveraged in
	many cases 4 to 1, 5 to 1, 10 to 1, times the amount of the
	Federal investment to conserve land and to provide recreation
	access.
	Your staff asked us to say something about the needs for
	the program in the near future. In 1995 we did a national
	random sample survey of the 5,000 local park and recreation
	systems in this country that have at least one full-time
	executive. They told us that something in the order of $27.3
	billion would be necessary. That is the big picture dollar
	amount to restore, to increase the capacity, and to protect
	land for capital investment in parks, municipal and county
	public park and recreation systems.
	The States told us that they need at least $3 billion. We
	think this is a very conservative figure and maybe Mr. Murphy
	can expand on that. I think it is important, when you are
	looking at the Land and Water Conservation Fund, to recognize
	that the fund and its dollars are critically important, but it
	has also encouraged the States and local governments to
	undertake a large number of other conservation and recreation-
	related initiatives--State Wild and Scenic Rivers, State trail
	systems, and State planning processes, for example. When the
	Land and Water Conservation was created in 1964 and
	operationalized in 1965, there were very few States that had
	anything approaching a comprehensive statewide planning
	process, but the fund provided incentives to encourage that
	type of thing and many States have worked out similar
	relationships with local governments.
	It is important, and I will try to wrap up with just
	focusing on what we think has gone wrong with the Land and
	Water Conservation Fund, particularly State assistance, since
	1981 and the abolishment of the Heritage Conservation and
	Recreation Service, originally the Bureau of Outdoor
	Recreation.
	That was the principal planning agency in this country for
	recreation and parks. It managed the Land and Water
	Conservation Fund. It negotiated between the Federal agencies
	as to what Federal priorities would be. That entity was
	abolished in 1981 and that exposed, inside the Interior
	Department, the stateside of the Land and Water Conservation
	Fund to horrible political pressures and the priorities of the
	Federal land systems, not only those managed by Interior, but
	the Agriculture folks as well through the Forest Service. So
	that is an issue, the abolishment of the agency.
	The elimination of the minimum allocation for State
	assistance in 1976, I believe, was another serious strike
	against the stateside of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
	The reversal of that, to provide the Federal agencies with not
	less than 40 percent, obviously provides no protection
	whatsoever to the stateside of the Land and Water Conservation
	Fund.
	Limited consideration of State and local alternatives to
	Federal land conservation actions is another thing that, we
	believe, has caused the demise in land and water. The near
	abandonment of the resource investment concept is another. The
	American people will extract in excess of $2 billion in Outer
	Continental Shelf receipts this year. Our calculations indicate
	that a minimal percentage of that will go back to the Land and
	Water Conservation Fund and, as proposed by the Administration,
	exclusively for Federal lands.
	Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would mention the absence of a
	grassroots constituency. That is not surprising because the
	stateside of the Land and Conservation Fund was created by
	Congress to be a grassroots-up program. That is, decisionmaking
	is best at State and local government levels. And, frankly,
	that has worked so well that some Members of Congress, maybe
	many Members of Congress, are challenged to gain political
	identify or connection, if you will, with the program.
	Given the budget stresses of the last several years I think
	the evidence will show that Members of Congress and maybe even
	people in the Executive Branch tend to be associated with
	specific Federal projects versus the more generic State
	program. I will stop at that point and be happy to answer any
	questions that the Subcommittee may have a little bit later on.
	[Statement of Mr. Tindall may be found at end of hearing.]
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Tindall. We appreciate your
	comments. Our next witness is Donald W. Murphy, Director of
	California Department of Parks and Recreation. Mr. Murphy, it
	is good to see you again, sir. I appreciate your great comments
	with us both in California and here last year, especially your
	fine statement on the Park Reform Act. That was an excellent
	statement. I will turn the time to you, sir.

	STATEMENT OF DONALD W. MURPHY, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
	OF PARKS AND RECREATION

	Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is certainly good
	to see you again and good to be here and I appreciate the
	invitation. It is a privilege to be here today to talk about
	the vital importance of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
	for State and local programs.
	By way of introduction, let me tell you that I sit here
	wearing several hats. In 1991, Governor Pete Wilson appointed
	me Director of the California Department of Parks and
	Recreation. It is the nation's largest State park system with
	1.3 million acres and a budget of nearly $200 million. I have
	been with California State Parks since I entered as a park
	ranger cadet in 1980.
	Additionally, I serve as president of the National
	Association of State Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers,
	commonly referred to as NASORLO, and it is the organization of
	State officials whose responsibility it is to apportion LWCF
	moneys to their respective States.
	Lastly, I am co-chair of the new organization, Americans
	for Heritage and Recreation, a newly formed coalition of LWCF
	stakeholders dedicated to securing more stable funding for
	conservation and outdoor recreation. This new organization
	represents a broad spectrum of individuals and ideas, from the
	Wilderness Society to the Sporting Goods Manufacturing
	Association, represented by my friend Tom Cove here, brought
	together with the realization that the restoration of LWCF for
	its original intention is vital for all of America.
	This is what I want you to understand from me today. A
	program that has worked so well for so many years has gotten so
	far off track that we really need a crane to put it back on
	track. And I am not here to denigrate the Federal funding side
	of the LWCF in favor of the State funding side. The two are
	necessary parts of a whole, and one should not exist without
	the other. But since I was invited here to speak on the
	importance of the stateside funding, I wish to confine my
	remarks to that area.
	When the Land and Water Conservation Fund became law in
	1965, this was its statement of purpose. The purposes of this
	part are to assist in preserving, developing, and assuring
	accessibility to all such quality and quantity of outdoor
	recreation resources as may be available and are necessary and
	desirable for individual active participation in such
	recreation, and to strengthen the health and vitality of the
	citizens of the United States by (1) providing funds for, and
	authorizing Federal assistance to, the States in planning,
	acquisition, and development of needed land and water areas and
	facilities, and (2) providing funds for the Federal acquisition
	and development of certain lands and other areas.
	The last portion of this statement is most important for my
	purposes here today. As the law was written, one of the first
	principles behind the Land and Conservation Fund is assistance
	to the States. This need was widely recognized on both sides of
	the aisle, and in prior Republican and Democratic
	administrations.
	In the years following this Act's passage, the States
	benefited greatly from LWCF. But with the coming of the 1980's,
	this changed dramatically. Support for the State and local
	programs plummeted. In the last two fiscal years, there were no
	LWCF appropriations for State and local matching grants.
	California is a case in point. In the 1970's, the Golden
	State benefited greatly from the LWCF, averaging a little more
	than $11 million each year which the State matched of course
	with an additional $11 million. Since then, however, funding
	dropped as quickly as a rock off the Golden Gate Bridge. In the
	1980's, the average LWCF annual appropriation for California
	fell to less than $7 million, and so far this decade we faced
	even worse averaging about $1.4 million. That is a mere 10
	percent of the funding we received in the 70's.
	The negligence is as bipartisan as the creation of the act
	itself, and spans administrations of both parties. California
	is not unique in this. Attendance in State parks around the
	country rose by more than 30 million annually between '87 and
	'92. In his 1995 report to Congress on the LWCF, National Park
	Service Director Kennedy said, ``States continue to support
	this program and depend on its annual apportionment to
	supplement existing funding sources in providing recreation
	opportunities to their communities. In many local instances it
	constitutes the only means of financing much-needed
	recreational opportunities for its populace, including youth-
	at-risk, senior citizens, the economically disadvantaged, and
	those with disabilities.''
	There are many debates in these corridors, and even in this
	Subcommittee, about the role of Federal Government in
	preserving public lands. We experience this in Sacramento as
	well, I assure you. In another way, therefore, I cannot stress
	enough the importance of LWCF for States and local communities.
	In short, it gives more power to the people by placing the
	funds closer to home. Here in Washington, you refer to it as
	States' rights. Thousands of miles west of here, at the
	Capitol, they refer to it as local control. The benefits of
	this are numerous. More people are involved in the
	decisionmaking process. Communities must match the LWCF grant,
	so they have an incentive and a goal that can be attained. In
	many areas, problems in a State or community are best answered
	by those who live there.
	In its day, the LWCF has built ballparks in urban settings
	such as Oakland, it acquired Martin Luther King, Jr.'s boyhood
	home in Atlanta, and it helped finish off the Appalachian
	Trail. Over the life span of the program, stateside funding has
	financed more than 8,500 acquisition projects covering more
	than 2.3 million acres, and funded 28,000 outdoor recreational
	facility developments.
	Thirty some-odd years ago, the creation of the Land and
	Water Conservation Fund was a bipartisan measure that makes
	sense even today. It is an issue that is broad enough for all
	to accept and one that crosses many boundaries. That is why
	such a broad coalition has come together, as I said earlier.
	The restoration of the State and local LWCF funding should
	be an easy decision for you, and it is an easy decision that
	will immediately show many rewards throughout the country.
	There is no controversy in restoring State and local support in
	LWCF, but I can assure you there will be if this noble effort
	is abandoned.
	As you said yourself, sir, the need for public outdoor
	recreation space is greatest in urban and suburban areas of
	this country. For these reasons, continued exclusive focus on
	Federal land acquisition cannot be justified. I could have not
	said it better myself, sir. Thank you very much.
	[Statement of Mr. Murphy may be found at end of hearing.]
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. I appreciate your
	testimony. Mr. Cove, Vice President of Government Relations,
	Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association. The time is yours,
	sir.

	STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. COVE, VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT
	RELATIONS, SPORTING GOODS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

	Mr. Cove. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Tom Cove. I
	am the Vice President of SGMA. We are the national trade
	association for producers of athletic equipment, footwear and
	apparel, and we welcome the opportunity to testify. In 1994, I
	was honored to serve on the National Park Service Review
	Committee for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
	I continue to endorse the report's basic finding, namely,
	that a reinvigoration of the land and water vision is vitally
	needed in order for the country to save its heritage of open
	spaces and parks. Within my industry, as already has been
	mentioned today, we regard the experience of a well-funded
	stateside Land and Water Fund to be a demonstrable success.
	The fund allowed a great diversity of land to be protected
	and created an inventory of recreational opportunities for
	citizens in every State. Beyond the actual money it provided,
	the fund's incentives created partnerships that have resulted
	in innovative programs to protect habitat, preserve historic
	sites and provide recreation.
	The fund was a promise made to the American people
	beginning in 1965 that has delivered a return on investment
	that any Wall Street banker would be proud to call his or her
	own. And, sadly, the promise has been broken in recent years
	when the funding for the stateside of the fund was cut
	substantially.
	Let me take a moment to highlight why we think the State
	assistance program is important. State and local parks are
	where the vast majority of Americans recreate day in and day
	out. Although most Americans might love to visit our showcase
	national parks regularly, they are unable to do for reasons of
	economics, geography or competing leisure alternatives.
	The fact is most Americans recreate close to home. Whether
	for toddlers in a playground, teenagers on a ball field, or
	senior citizens on a nature trail, accessible recreation
	opportunities are basic to quality of life. Participation in
	recreation is valued not just for enjoyment but because
	Americans know it leads to improved health, better appreciation
	of nature and stronger, shared values.
	Providing recreation opportunities close to home is more
	imperative than ever. In the 1996 report, the Recreation
	Roundtable found that the greatest barrier to participation in
	outdoor recreation in America was lack of discretionary time.
	Local recreational alternatives speak directly to Americans'
	needs to carve more time out of the day.
	And at the same time the quality of recreation experiences
	in certain locations is falling. In the same Recreation
	Roundtable study, Americans living in large, urban areas are as
	a group the least satisfied with their recreation
	opportunities. The study also found that residents of America's
	largest metropolitan areas participate on average in fewer
	recreation activities and on a less frequent basis than other
	Americans.
	A '95 Washington Post article, entitled ``No Place to
	Play'', recounts the tragic story of two young girls who died
	after playing in an abandoned car in Southeast Washington. The
	underlying theme of the story, as articulated by many angry
	residents of the neighborhood, was the lack of opportunities
	for local children to recreate in a safe, enjoyable way.
	Seeing images of unscathed community gardens and parks
	located next to torched buildings after the '92 Los Angeles
	riots makes clear how urban communities value open spaces. In
	suburban America, conflicts over use of parks are increasingly
	commonplace. We see at the beginning of every season, soccer
	and football league administrators battling over access to
	precious fields.
	Primary school parents view junior high and high school
	sports programs as a threat to their children's ability to get
	field time. Women's sports proponents are becoming more vocal,
	appropriately so, about receiving their fair share of choice
	locations and practice times.
	This can limit the number of young people who have the
	opportunity to play sports and rarely are the elite athletes
	the one who loses, but more likely the intramural player for
	whom hurdles to participation become quickly instrumental.
	Privately owned fee-based facilities are being developed to
	meet the need for recreation. While these complexes do deliver
	quality services, we should not allow personal financial
	resources to determine citizens basic access to recreation.
	At the same time, there are almost daily reports about the
	negative health consequences of America's sedentary lifestyle.
	Just last Friday, the CDC reported 35 percent of the country's
	adults and 13 percent of our children weigh dangerously more
	than they should. This is the most overweight our nation has
	been since the government began compiling statistics in the
	'60's.
	The need to make recreation alternatives available to all
	Americans is good public policy. I do not want to leave the
	impression that the Land and Water Fund is simply or should be
	simply a funding vehicle for recreation. Any discussion of Land
	and Water must include its fundamental conservation legacy. The
	protection of threatened land and water resources remains a
	central and essential basis for the fund.
	Of particular concern is that we might be bringing up
	generations of Americans who have no connection to the wonders
	of our country's vast natural legacy. The policy implications
	of having large numbers of citizens with no hands-on contact
	with nature and conservation are scary.
	Looking forward in terms of funding, we believe that
	theoretical premise of investing royalty income from depletion
	of one non-renewal resource for protection of a different
	precious resource remains strong and valid. It should be
	maintained if at all possible.
	In closing, I would just associate my remarks with my
	friend, Mr. Murphy. And I want to be clear as much as our
	industry values the stateside fund, we do not advocate draining
	the Federal account to increase State appropriations. We
	understand the significant budget constraints facing the
	Congress but I think I would just like to look to the '94
	report which was eloquent in capturing the vision we endure.
	So I will close with this. We envision a network of parks,
	preserves, open spaces, greenways, recreations sites and
	centers stretching across this nation, touching all
	communities, and accessible to all Americans. It is a noble and
	appropriate vision, one which the Land and Water Fund can
	definitely deliver and will only take the commitment--a long-
	term commitment--of resources to make it happen. I thank you
	for the opportunity to testify.
	[Statement of Mr. Cove may be found at end of hearing.]
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Cove. We appreciate your
	testimony. Commissioner Judy Beck, Glenview Park District of
	Illinois. Commissioner, we are grateful to have you with us and
	we will turn the time to you.

	STATEMENT OF JUDY BECK, COMMISSIONER, GLENVIEW PARK DISTRICT,
	ILLINOIS

	Ms. Beck. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee,
	thank you. My name is Judy Beck and I am an elected park
	commissioner in Glenview, Illinois, and have been for 18 years.
	I am one of 2,100 elected in our State to serve without
	compensation. I have also served as the president of the
	Illinois Association of Park District, representing over 300
	forest conservation and park districts in the State.
	And I would like to speak today on behalf of restoring
	funding through the local grant portion of the Land and Water
	Conservation Fund, a commitment by Congress that is fundamental
	to the protection of recreational opportunities for all
	Americans wherever they reside.
	As a locally elected official I am certainly aware of the
	need to contain spending but I also am aware of the need for a
	partnership, one that has a long history of success and that is
	what my remarks will be dedicated to this morning. In Illinois,
	our State's existing public recreation lands and facilities are
	inadequate to meet the needs of 11.5 million people, 80 percent
	of whom reside in just 18 communities.
	Less than 4 percent of Illinois' land is in public
	recreation and conservation use. Although we are recognized as
	a leader in recreation distribution systems intense competition
	for land brought about by urban sprawl in the agricultural
	counties severely limits our ability on the local level to
	afford the increasing demand for public open space and
	recreation lands.
	And without increased and stable Federal funding
	opportunities will disappear and recreation lands and pristine
	natural areas in Illinois for future generations will be lost
	forever. Last year, projects totaling more than--last year
	communities sought $24 million in assistance and over the years
	we have had projects totaling more than $290 million in value
	funded in Illinois. The need and the demands obviously are
	there.
	Let me briefly tell you about some of the parks' industry.
	We are a separate unit of government authorized by State
	statute that encompasses all of the Village of Glenview and
	parts of five other surrounding villages and unincorporated
	Cook County, with an approximate population of 50,000. We have
	independent taxing capabilities for open space and recreation,
	the limits of which have been capped and our budget by design
	is 60 percent fees and charges.
	The challenge, though, in Glenview, indeed in all of
	Northeastern Illinois and in other suburban and urban areas is
	to provide for open space and recreation in highly populated
	areas with a strong economy driving up land values. To
	illustrate that, undeveloped land in my community is priced by
	the square foot, not by the acre.
	I would like to share with you the outstanding results of
	the Land and Water Conservation Program in my community. The
	Grove, a 123 acre nature preserve and center, is on the
	national historic landmark register. It was the home of Robert
	Kennicott, who at the time was the western most natural
	scientist for the Smithsonian Institution, the discoverer of
	dozens of species of plants and animals, many of which are
	threatened and remain on the site today, and one of the early
	explorers of Alaska.
	In 1975, LWCF money was used as a part of a million dollar
	package to purchase 82 acres of Robert Kennicott's homestead.
	That money was leveraged with State and public funds as well as
	private contributions that include six acres and the Kennicott
	homestead from the Zenith Corporation.
	Again in 1995, LWCF dollars were used in the same manner
	adding to the Grove 41 acres so it was owned by the John C. and
	Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. As a result of that, our
	agency was able to reunite two parcels that were once
	originally part of Kennicott's Grove. We now have open space,
	we have habitat, we have two museums, and the nature center.
	None of this would have been possible without the original
	Land and Water Conservation dollars. In addition, the
	operation, maintenance and management of this project is
	locally, not federally funded. Today the Grove is a vital part
	of our community. Approximately 18,000 school children visit
	the Grove and the total annual attendance is about 55,000. It
	is clear that by any measurement this is a success story.
	I testify before you today because I believe in the value
	of parks and recreation and what it adds to the lives of all
	Americans. I have seen the impact of suburban sprawl and the
	tremendous brownscape problems in the city. I have also seen
	firsthand that stateside funding is a stimulus to acquire
	additional money for investment in our parks.
	Funding does more than provide opportunities for fun and
	games. It impacts youths at risk, crime prevention, health care
	cost reduction, economic growth, urban revitalization, improved
	environmental quality, and promotes a tremendous sense of
	family pride in the community. If recreation is viewed as an
	industry in 1990 through a study we found that we contribute
	$3.1 billion to the Illinois economy including 7,000 private
	sector jobs.
	I am asking for your assistance and I thank you for the
	opportunity to bring the concerns of local officials before you
	today.
	[Statement of Ms. Beck may be found at end of hearing.]
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Commissioner, I appreciate your
	testimony. The gentleman from American Samoa is recognized for
	five minutes.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
	testimony that has been forwarded this morning by members of
	our panel, and I do have a couple of questions I would like to
	ask collectively for their response. I am informed that the
	Appropriations Committee does not favor supporting funding
	State grant programs.
	At the same time it is my understanding if the number one
	request from members of the Appropriations Committee is to
	provide funding for Federal land acquisition that this seems to
	be one of the problems that we have with the law itself, the
	Land and Water Conservation Fund. If we put these two together
	and there is some very strong disagreements in terms of how we
	go about in resolving it.
	Now I believe the record will show that the members of this
	side of the aisle have always been very supportive of State
	grant programs especially when it is on a matching basis, 50/50
	match. And I guess the question that is raised here is where do
	we get the money to pay for this.
	And I would like to ask the members of the panel if you
	have any comments to that effect. How do we convince the
	Members that what you are saying is positive and that we should
	be supportive of funding of the program?
	Mr. Murphy. I would like to take a shot at that in the
	beginning since you asked it collectively. We are here to
	advocate for the original intent of the Land and Water
	Conservation Fund which was $900 million from the Outer
	Continental Shelf oil royalties. That is where the money came
	from and that is where it should continue to come from.
	It was a bipartisan agreement back in 1965. It basically
	said that we are going to use money made from this nonrenewable
	resource to support outdoor recreation and protect other
	natural and cultural resources in this country. It was a
	perfect tradeoff and it made absolute sense and it continues to
	make sense today, and that is where the money should continue
	to come from.
	However, I want to hasten to add that none of us are
	insensitive to the fact that this country faces a tremendous
	deficit and that we are in the process after the newly formed
	organization that I mentioned, AHR, Americans for our Heritage
	and Recreation of looking at ways that we can bring back to
	Congress and to this committee a restructuring at LWCF in
	looking at other funding sources and we are in that process
	right now with our stakeholders.
	We think it is very important to at least take a honest
	look at that. However, it should not be ignored that this $900
	million is there. It was a commitment that this country made to
	its people and that commitment should continue to be honored.
	As far as the Federal side of the fund is concerned, as you say
	there are general requests but Mr. Tindall alluded to the fact
	that what happens is that because this program has worked so
	well and the programs have taken place on a State and local
	level there has unfortunately been a disconnect with Members of
	Congress on the stateside of the fund because it has been
	administered so well locally.
	And what we have got to do is to get Members of Congress
	educated as to how their individual districts are benefiting
	tremendously from this fund even though they may not recognize
	it and see the same direct connection that they see when
	Federal acquisition takes place which they then get political
	credit for.
	But the record is clear that that is there to show Members
	the tremendous benefit that has been derived in their
	individual districts. It is just a matter of education and that
	is also one of the goals and objectives of this newly formed
	organization, AHR, to get Members educated in that regard.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Tindall.
	Mr. Tindall. Yes. I cannot really speak to your first
	observation that the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee may
	not look favorably, either collectively or individually, on the
	stateside of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I have some
	personal opinions on that relative to certain members but I
	will keep those personal for the time being.
	There are individual members on that Subcommittee and in
	the Congress who believe that there is absolutely no Federal
	role, no Federal obligation, no Federal responsibility to do
	anything relative to parks and recreation for State or local
	units of government. That is the perspective and point of view
	that they have, and probably nothing that we can do can
	dissuade them from that view.
	We would argue that you could make a parallel statement
	relative to local police forces, or support for local prison
	construction, or local education or transportation. You could
	go through a whole litany of Federal aid investments.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. Or for that matter the entire National
	Park Service should return to the States for the localities to
	administer.
	Mr. Tindall. Well, I am not suggesting that. The National
	Park System and the other Federal land systems play critical
	roles in this country. But we addressed one Member of Congress
	in a private meeting a few weeks ago who said, ``I want to cut
	the Federal Government out of this completely.'' Now, I think
	this Subcommittee in 60 minutes or less could probably draft an
	amendment that would take OCS revenues and send them, on some
	formula basis, directly to the governor of each State.
	That would create a great equity of distribution. Now that
	legislator may or may not write that legislation. But it could
	happen and the Federal side could work exactly as it works
	today, make a case for Federal systems, for units of the
	Federal systems, and see what that adds up to.
	But the point is, and if you look at the Administration's
	numbers, and I am not sure we are talking about the same
	numbers in terms of what the Administration has requested----
	Mr. Faleomavaega. Zero.
	Mr. Tindall. From the Land and Water Conservation Fund for
	fiscal years 1998 and 1997--that is zero as far as the
	stateside is concerned, but there are dollars requested with
	the Federal system. By our calculations it comes out to 7.2
	percent of total OCS revenues of in excess of $2 billion.
	Now, we are not a poor nation. Certainly we have budget
	problems, but more so it is a question of priorities and how we
	use those dollars versus whether we should have parks or
	whether we should have transportation or whether we should have
	more police or security, things like that.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. I am sorry. My time is up, Mr. Chairman.
	I will wait for the next round. Thank you, Mr. Tindall.
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Colorado is
	recognized for five minutes, Mr. Hefley.
	Mr. Hefley. Thank you, and thank the panel. In light of the
	bond issues that have been passed by various States and local
	jurisdictions in recent years and the lottery, a lot of States
	including Colorado have a lottery which proceeds go to parks
	and outdoor recreation. Do we really need this fund today, do
	the States really need it?
	Mr. Murphy. Well, speaking on behalf of the State of
	California where we have passed some local bond measures, we
	have not passed a State bond measure for the last ten years in
	the State of California. And for me the unequivocal answer is
	yes, we do need this fund because it is an investment in the
	heritage of the people of this nation.
	And I might add quickly that it is not a fund that comes
	all from the Federal Government. I really need to emphasize
	that this is a matching fund for the States so the States have
	incentive and responsibility so it is an investment made by the
	Federal Government in each of its constituent 50 States and
	territories who in turn have to make an investment of their own
	as well.
	In going back to the fundamental principle here, we talked
	about using Outer Continental Shelf oil royalties, a resource
	that belongs to all of the people of this nation, and I
	emphasize all of the people, not the government. It belongs to
	the people who are in the individual States and it was a
	bipartisan decision that that money would be divided amongst
	the States and the States would match that fund.
	I think the need is greater than ever, especially in terms
	of the pressures and the numbers of population increases in the
	demographic changes that we have particularly in the State of
	California just to keep up in this regard. So I think the
	program is needed now more than ever and it is not just a
	matter of money but it is a matter of commitment and
	philosophical investment in the heritage of this country.
	Ms. Beck. I would also like to respond. I think that you
	have to keep in mind that the Land and Water Conservation Fund
	is not funding projects, it is really usually seed money from
	which a project is built. And while there is a 50 percent match
	that is required, it is usually only one small portion of the
	project and it enables with the overall aura of Federal funding
	buying the project in the local community, put together a
	package, go out into the private sector and get private givers
	and foundations involved.
	I started out with a group of other citizens in front of
	bulldozers in order to--it is just this classic story, in order
	to preserve what had been deemed a national historic landmark
	but there were no Federal funds that went with that
	designation. It was strictly up to the local community to
	somehow gather the dollars and the will in order to preserve
	that precious part of America's past.
	Mr. Tindall. Congressman, there is a dimension of the Land
	and Water Conservation Fund that has not really been cited here
	this morning. We certainly agree with the previous comments in
	response to your question. But what gets overlooked here is
	sort of the planning process and the anticipation that a
	community can do something about its open space and its
	recreation space needs.
	I have no numbers whatsoever to support this. But my hunch
	is that the hope, the anticipation, that community X or
	community Y or the State of California, the State of New
	Jersey, is going to get a certain amount of resources on an
	annualized basis for Land and Water Conservation Fund projects
	encourages communities to think about their needs.
	And I think, frankly, there were far more projects that
	were unfunded by the Land and Water Conservation Fund, even in
	the better days than there were those that received assistance.
	But the notion that citizens are thinking about their needs
	through a planning process is encouraging. I think they find
	ways to get the resources whether or not they get a Land and
	Water Conservation Fund grant. But it encourages public
	thinking and private thinking about a community's resources and
	how they are going to be used.
	So they have these intangibles out there. But we totally
	agree. The seed money, the catalytic effect of the Land and
	Water Conservation Fund has been phenomenal. Our data suggests
	that only 6 percent of this large need figure would come from
	Federal sources. That is all Federal sources, not just Land and
	Water, but ISTEA and urban park moneys and maybe some other
	things. They all go into that mix.
	Mr. Hefley. Does the panel see these funds as needed
	primarily for acquisition of more land or for operation
	infrastructure to utilize better the lands that you already
	are?
	Mr. Murphy. I would like to respond to that. I think that
	speaking especially on behalf of the State of California, I
	think that the fund certainly should be used for addressing
	some of the infrastructure problems, rehabilitating some of the
	facilities, taking care of lands and projects that have already
	been developed over the years. That may be one of the
	structural things that is a problem with the fund right now but
	certainly those funds should be used for that as well.
	On the acquisition side there are still in many States
	including the State of California active acquisition programs
	that are necessary in certain areas especially in some urban
	areas where there are recreational facilities that need to be
	built and land that needs to be acquired to buy those
	facilities, greenways that need to be developed in urban areas
	to provide the kind of atmosphere for people growing up in
	urban environments that they should have for their health, an
	inspiration and vitality that was mentioned in the original
	fund.
	So I think that there is still a mix but clearly the
	emphasis speaking on behalf of the State of California needs to
	be to address some of these recreational infrastructure
	problems and worn out facilities, many of which were developed
	with the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the first place.
	Mr. Tindall. Congressman, if you look at the first page of
	our survey, which is actually part of our testimony, the rank
	order, if you will, is new construction--almost 50 percent of
	the resource needs. Rehabilitation, as Mr. Murphy is
	suggesting, is second, 30 some percent of resource needs, and
	land acquisition is about 18 percent of fiscal resource needs.
	That is the rank order at the municipal level, the local level.
	Mr. Cove. From the industry point of view, we see the
	capital investment whether it is for land acquisition or for
	some of the more infrastructure rehabilitation, in some cases
	development, it is capital investment and it is fundamentally
	not operations. We perceive this fund being used for operations
	to be sort of a black hole. That can go anywhere and we would
	not be able to support that kind of--but in terms of the land
	acquisition we also see this as much more real toward people
	than toward land. The land is to be used, particularly in the
	stateside, for all sorts of very close to home recreation and
	conservation needs that in the context of the discussion that
	the community started with about how much land is owned by the
	Federal Government in the West, etc., we see that as a
	completely different type of land acquisition than the
	stateside acquisition would be able to deliver.
	Ms. Beck. I also think you need to look at the pattern,
	particularly in the urban and suburban areas where when kind of
	a white elephant comes on the market and happens to have some
	historical significance they look to the local park district
	and it is usually an opportunity but unfortunately it is a
	pretty expensive opportunity in order to take a historic
	building and restore it and make it available as a public
	facility and so those funds are often capital intensive.
	Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentlelady from the Virgin
	Islands.
	Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think my
	questions have been pretty much answered through the clear
	testimony and the questions of my colleagues. I would just like
	to make a comment and respectfully suggest that with regard to
	the map if there were more greenspace east of the Colorado that
	may help to begin to eliminate some of the social ills that
	tend to predominate in our cities and that is my comment.
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Puerto Rico.
	Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The
	acquisition program requires that--for the States requires a
	matching fund of 50 percent. Is that correct? And is the same
	matching fund the requirement for the improvement programs or
	for the rehabilitation programs?
	Mr. Murphy. That is correct.
	Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Although I think that the acquisition
	program State grants are funded obviously you can acquire more
	land with the same amount of money, Federal money, than you can
	for the Federal land acquisitions but what I have noticed in my
	own personal experience, and I might be wrong, is that usually
	most of the State parks are not as well maintained as some of
	the national parks, most of the national parks. Am I correct in
	that observation or have you had a different experience?
	Mr. Murphy. Well, it is certainly not the case in
	California and in fact that National Park Service and the State
	of California, we have joint management agreements where we
	have lands that are contiguous to each other. In California the
	same people that founded the National Park Service founded the
	State park system in California and I would say that there is
	no difference. It may be a difference in degrees depending upon
	funding from one year to the other or one park unit to the
	other but I do not think there is any general large scale
	difference between the two.
	I think that all our park systems especially when you look
	at it that this is a system of nationwide parks and you do not
	make a distinction between national and State and local, we
	think of it in terms of a system of parks. We certainly all do
	suffer from the failure of the infrastructure just as we are
	nationwide looking at failure of the infrastructure in this
	nation and that is probably the greatest problem nationwide for
	all of our parks is the failure of the infrastructure and the
	need to address maintenance backlogs and those types of things.
	Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I do not know much about California
	because I am from Puerto Rico and I do not travel very often to
	California.
	Mr. Murphy. I understand.
	Mr. Romero-Barcelo. But we in the eastern area have found--
	what I have said is from my observations. I have not made an
	analysis of it but it seems that the State parks are getting
	deteriorated faster and that there seems to be less controls
	about internal activities within the park or encroaches upon
	the park and in a lot of State parks you find the facilities
	that are not really usable because they are torn down or broken
	much more so than the national parks. Do you have any
	information about this or do you know anything about the
	situation in California? Am I correct? Am I wrong?
	Mr. Murphy. Well, your question was--your observation is
	that facilities or resources in your State parks are more
	deteriorated than Federal systems.
	Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Right. I do not know. Maybe I am wrong.
	If I am wrong--you said I am wrong as far as California
	obviously.
	Mr. Murphy. When I mentioned that new facilities and the
	rehabilitation facilities are constituted by 80 percent of the
	priorities it is local governments which make those
	investments. I do not think--I would not want to leave the
	impression with the Subcommittee it is because the States or
	the territories are not taking care of resources to the extent
	that they can. Things wear out and they wear out quickly
	depending on how many people use them. The Federal people have
	the same dilemmas.
	I think we need to understand how many--I mean what the
	pressures on State and local governments today to pick up more
	and more cost for things that range frankly from welfare to
	security to juvenile justice. I mean these are very expensive
	programs or services where we are in the midst of a great
	national action to push some of those costs elsewhere. That is,
	frankly, impacting the money available to take care of public
	park and recreation resources.
	Dealing in southern California with immigration costs for
	education, health care and things like that in other parts of
	the country, that takes money and sometimes that money comes
	out of State or county park and recreation budgets.
	Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Well, maybe then we should be thinking
	in terms of providing funding for rehabilitation and
	maintenance over the existing ones until they get up to a
	certain level rather than thinking of new acquisitions when the
	existing ones are not at the level that we should have them.
	Mr. Murphy. Well, under certain circumstances you can use
	the Land and Water Conservation Fund for rehabilitation if the
	resources degraded to such a point that it is unserviceable.
	And our view is that restoration is just as good a conservation
	initiative as going out and doing something new. It is, and we
	have not talked much about this, I briefly mentioned the urban
	park and recreation recovery program which is a non-acquisition
	program and may apply to the conditions that you have in your
	area.
	Mr. Romero-Barcelo. What I am trying to point out is
	perhaps we should be more concerned at this point in time with
	rehabilitating and putting parks in the proper condition before
	we think of further acquisitions. I am just evaluating what we
	should be doing.
	Mr. Murphy. Well, our view is, and this is where the Land
	and Water Conservation Fund has such beauty, if your community
	in 1995 has one priority, it may be an opportunity to conserve
	land, in 1997 it may have a rehabilitation need. In 19 whatever
	it might have a new cap, a new facility need. So there needs to
	be flexibility to State and local governments to deal with
	those priorities recognizing that they will change over time.
	Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, my time is up. I am sorry,
	go ahead.
	Ms. Beck. I would just like to comment that it seems the
	supposition is that the state of the parks you have observed is
	because of lack of maintenance. It could be from overuse. In
	the county of Cook outside of Chicago, well, actually Chicago
	resides in the county, there is a county forest preserve
	system. The picnic permit program there begins on January 1.
	They issue the picnic permits for the coming year.
	There is a tradition there to have people camp outside of
	the county building in January in Chicago in order to get
	picnic permits. That is how scarce the amount of space is and
	how great the need is.
	Mr. Hefley. [presiding] Thank you very much. Mr. Delahunt.
	Mr. Delahunt. I have no questions.
	Mr. Hansen. Mr. Kildee.
	Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My State of Michigan
	has been a beneficiary of both State grants and the Federal
	conservation component of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
	and I think both are extremely important. I do not think it is
	really a question of playing one against the other although I
	do know the appropriations for the State grants have been
	zeroed out.
	But I think that we really have to approach people within
	the Congress and make sure that they do not zero them out. I
	think when we set this money aside back in '64, '65, these were
	earmarked funds and I always felt that like many other of the
	special funds here that they should be taken totally off budget
	and used for the purpose for which they were originally
	intended.
	I know that is easier said than done but I really believe
	that there is so much need in the country, take my own State of
	Michigan, if we were to take the Land and Water Conservation
	Fund and each year spend all that was available for both the
	State grants and the Federal grants that we would still have
	some unmet needs in the State of Michigan.
	We have done a lot with both areas. We have preserved the
	habitat of the cerulean warbler, which was on the verge of
	extinction, up there because of this fund. We were able to
	acquire Grand Island, an island the size of Manhattan Island,
	which was going to be clear cut by one of the timber companies
	up there that would acquire that because of this.
	And in so many areas it seems to me that--I for years have
	been in the Congress now, this is my 21st year in Congress, and
	I have always felt that we should be looking at the needs and
	having traveled throughout the country, traveled throughout my
	State, feel that if we were to take this off budget and spend
	all the money we would still not meet all the needs.
	I was sponsor of a bill in Michigan which became law for a
	bond for recreation purposes, and in that bonding I made sure
	we had an amendment in that much of it was used for what we
	call in Michigan up north, but also to acquire land in and near
	cities for recreation there. I think that is the balance we
	tried to achieve.
	But, Mr. Murphy, let me ask you, is the real problem with
	the Land and Water Conservation Fund that Federal agencies are
	getting too much money or is it that insufficient annual
	funding puts undue strains on your agency, your State and local
	colleagues, and your Federal partner to protect the resource
	lands we so urgently need?
	Mr. Murphy. I certainly do not think the Federal side is
	getting too much money. It is just that right now the
	Appropriations Committee has decided not to fund the stateside,
	it is all of the money is going to one side and not the other,
	and so what I would argue for is that there is just not enough
	of the $900 million that is allowed under the law being
	appropriated for the fund so that there can be better
	distribution of the funds.
	I think the decision in itself is fundamentally unsound and
	I think it is our responsibility, my responsibility as the
	leader of Parks and Recreation in the State of California and
	the stakeholders and the constituency to prevail upon the
	Members of the Congress to convince them otherwise. We have
	that job to do and I believe we will be successful but I do not
	believe that it is that the Federal Government is getting too
	much. I mean we are talking about a $900 million fund and all
	of it is going to the Federal side, about $158 million, and
	that is just patently not fair.
	Mr. Kildee. And I would march with you to the
	Appropriations Committee to urge that they do that. I think
	that Congress--the whole Congress is responsible for this. We
	have to approve all the allocations of funds. But I certainly
	agree that the States should be getting what is intended to be
	your allocation when this was set up.
	And I would agree, I do not think we necessarily do that by
	robbing Peter to pay Paul on this, that we should make sure
	that both the State allocation and the Federal allocations are
	addressed. I have asked to be drafted a bill to take the Land
	and Water Conservation Fund off budget so that money would be
	used for its intended purpose.
	Now I know that that is going to be difficult to pass but I
	am still getting the bill drafted and I will introduce it.
	Perhaps it might not take effect right away or it might not
	pass right away but by the year 2002 we are hopefully going to
	have the budget balanced and maybe we can start seriously using
	these funds for the intended purpose. Hopefully we could do it
	before then but in the meantime I certainly agree with you, Mr.
	Murphy, that we should be taking care of those State
	allocations and I will be urging my colleagues in Congress to
	do that but not at the expense of the Federal allocations, just
	allocations for both areas. Thank you very much.
	Mr. Tindall. I would just say, Mr. Kildee, we would welcome
	your march to the Appropriations Committee. But I would hope
	your route would go through the Budget Committee because the
	appropriators in this area very legitimately are dealing with a
	constrained allocation to function 300. In our judgment, this
	nation with OCS resources ought at minimum to be able to put
	another $.5 billion into that allocation, another half a
	billion, with an assumption that that will go to the Land and
	Water Conservation Fund.
	Others will quibble about the amount, but let us start with
	that and let us convince Mr. Kasich and others that it is in
	fact good business. We think it will return to the national
	treasury a great deal of benefit over the long-term.
	Mr. Kildee. I agree. I served on the Budget Committee for
	six years and I know the budget process very well, but I do
	know that even within that budget process the Appropriations
	Committee, when they do sit down making their distribution that
	there is still a great deal of flexibility there and we used to
	decry that sometimes but I will certainly go to the Budget
	Committee too but there is still flexibility when they make
	those allocations under the Budget Act. Thank you.
	Mr. Hefley. Does anyone have second round questions that
	they would like to ask at this time? I would just ask one quick
	question of the panel and then we will excuse you. We have done
	a good deal of talking today about the original intent of this
	legislation. The original intent was for outdoor recreation for
	all Americans but in recent times with the change in the
	funding and so forth it seems to be--we seem to be spending the
	money on habitat preservation.
	Now I spoke to a group of environmental groups that were in
	a convention not too long ago and some in that group said that
	for the public lands man should not be there at all. In other
	words, 100 percent preservation, not recreation. Man should not
	recreate on the public lands.
	Now do you all in your positions, particularly you, Mr.
	Murphy, running a major park system, but do you all find that
	kind of tension between those two goals?
	Mr. Murphy. Those kinds of tensions have always existed.
	This argument has raged for years in this country, the
	preservationist concept versus the conservationist concept. But
	just let me speak for a minute from my point of view as a park
	director and someone that has been in this business for 20
	years and that is involved in preservation of habitat and
	natural areas as well as providing outdoor recreation for
	people.
	For me, this is all about providing connections and what I
	mean by that is that humanity, human beings, need a connection
	to their world and to their environment. And to directly answer
	your question, I do not believe in what I would think is the
	more extremist point of view of some of my colleagues in the
	environmental community that man should not be in certain
	areas.
	I think certain areas certainly should be controlled and
	managed if there are sensitive habitats and perhaps there are
	certain kinds of activities that should not be allowed. I think
	that goes without saying. But I also think it is extremely
	important to recognize that the connections that are provided
	for human beings through their interaction with the environment
	is a spiritual and psychological process that binds us to the
	earth, to the universe, and teaches us things about ourselves
	and about the world that we would not otherwise understand.
	That is why it is important to set aside these areas. My
	family recreates in the John Meir Wilderness every year. That
	is our annual trip. And I cannot tell you the bonding that
	takes place between myself and my children and the spiritual
	refreshment that accrues as a result of that interaction. For
	me, that is what it is all about.
	So we are conserving and in some cases protecting these
	areas not only for the sake of the animals and the flora and
	fauna that we are protecting but also for the sake of the human
	interaction with these areas as well. And I think that making
	sure that those connections are provided for is extremely
	important and I think taking humanity and man out of the
	equation is a dangerous approach to that. That is my opinion.
	Mr. Tindall. I think, Congressman, that to the extent that
	you underfund or do not fund the stateside of the Land and
	Water Conservation Fund, and the States and local governments,
	you will continue to skew its purposes. In fact, because the
	State and local governments have focused on access for man and
	the development of basic facilities--such things as wastewater
	treatment facilities, for example.
	You cannot have large numbers of people coming in to
	natural or naturalistic environments and not provide for basic
	human services. Trail heads, all of these things that encourage
	and aid access are eligible for Land and Water Conservation
	Fund assistance. And that has been the strength and the
	priority of State and local park and recreation systems from
	the outset.
	Have we purchased a lot of land? Yes, we have purchased a
	lot of land and some of that is strictly habitat. And some of
	it is for a quarter acre of land in downtown Chicago or
	Glenview. We are not prepared to put a weighting or evaluation
	on projects. One of the greatest Land and Water projects I have
	ever seen was maybe a tenth of an acre park next to a Russian
	Orthodox church in Juneau, Alaska.
	Anyone can plan a 500-acre park, but to plan a quarter
	acre, a tenth of an acre park, you have real challenges! So we
	bring in people. We do not agree that we should lock up land,
	however you choose to protect it. There are certainly precious,
	more fragile lands that need to be dealt with very carefully.
	But it is interesting. I do not believe that endangered
	species land acquisition was an eligible activity through the
	Land and Water Conservation Fund. It was added later, and if
	you look at how the Fish and Wildlife Service has fared, if you
	will, after that switch in the law the Fish and Wildlife
	Service was getting a large percentage of the annual Federal
	mix of moneys.
	It is not good or bad. It illustrates that we need a
	recreation resource trust or a revised view of the Land and
	Water Conservation Fund that provides options for investment in
	rational land uses and land conservation.
	Mr. Cove. As my colleagues mentioned, obviously this
	tension has gone on for some time but even in the recreation
	industry we regard it as a good tension. It is not bad as
	historic arguments go on and frankly even some of my colleagues
	in industry, if they went too far on the people side it would
	be bad for business.
	The habitat preservation is a fundamental element of the
	outdoor experience. Whether you step in it or walk in it, at
	some point you appreciate it, value it, and live off of it
	because if you do not preserve the habitat the quality of the
	outdoor experience will be diminished over time. So it is a
	tension that we have no problem with addressing on a regular
	basis and would hope that it would continue to be there.
	Ms. Beck. I also believe that there is not one simple
	answer. It complicates management of a site. We have eight
	threatened and endangered species on 123 acres in a large urban
	area and we have been able to manage both public access and
	habitat and species preservation at the same time.
	I do not know what the future holds. I think there are some
	areas where the public intrusion might in a specific case be
	endangerous to some species but certainly the vast majority is
	really just a management issue and a careful management issue.
	Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
	participation this morning. It has been very helpful. Our
	second panel is made up of Katherine Stevenson, Associate
	Director of the National Park Service. Good morning and
	welcome, and we will turn the time over to you.

	STATEMENT OF KATHERINE STEVENSON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
	PARK SERVICE

	Ms. Stevenson. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for
	inviting me to testify. I have a written statement I would like
	to be entered into the record, please.
	Mr. Hefley. Without objection.
	Ms. Stevenson. Thank you very much. The Land and Water
	stateside has a truly unique legacy in the history of American
	conservation and recreation. After the passage of the Act in
	1964, more than $3.2 billion in Federal assistance has been
	invested in some 300,000 sites and 37,000 projects. I should
	say that this amount, as the people who have spoken before I
	have, has been matched so that something like $6.5 billion has
	been invested in park and recreation on the Federal and
	stateside.
	Appropriation levels peaked in the late 1970's reaching
	almost $370 million in 1979. In more recent years,
	appropriation levels ranged in the mid to low $20 million
	range. In fiscal year 1996 the Administration proposed funding
	in the amount of $25 million. The Congress appropriated zero
	dollars.
	The report language that year said no funds are provided
	for new grants and the managers intend that no funds will be
	provided in the future. Following that lead, in 1997 the
	Administration requested nothing for the program and Congress
	appropriated nothing. That was in keeping with the
	Administration's ongoing efforts to balance the budget as well
	as the direction of the Congress.
	There are no funds proposed for fiscal year 1998, nor are
	there any plans to request funds in the foreseeable future. In
	the report language accompanying the 1997 appropriation,
	Congress indicated that we should use the administrative funds
	for the closeout of the State grants program. In just a few
	minutes, I am going to talk about that closeout but for now I
	would like to look at the rewards of a truly visionary program.
	The facilities that the $6.5 billion bought are just on the
	street, across town in the intercity, in virtually every nook
	and cranny of our country. The parks and projects serve every
	segment of the public. Millions of Americans have walked,
	jogged, picnicked, hiked, biked, fished, hunted, golfed, or
	played ball in at least one of these areas. These are the
	destination parks for families of campers and hikers, parks
	where kids learn baseball and swimming and appreciation of
	nature.
	Clearly, the Land and Water Fund has had a broad impact on
	outdoor America. As a result of the Act and its funding, States
	bought land and improved recreation areas. They also
	established their own scenic river and recreational trail
	systems and created new State programs to enhance recreation
	opportunities.
	The $6.5 billion was well invested, very well invested, and
	protections were put in place to protect that taxpayer
	investment. With Section 6(f) of the Act Congress guaranteed
	that all property acquired or developed with this money must be
	maintained in perpetuity for public recreational use regardless
	of future funding efforts. Of course, as needs changed
	conversions are permitted when the property is replaced with
	another of at least equal fair market value and usefulness.
	The approval of these conversions and the protection of the
	Federal investment is an essential role played by the National
	Park Service in concert with the States. As we move out to
	close out the grants project selection, we will also establish
	an ongoing process to protect the properties in the long-term.
	At the direction of Congress to close down the grant
	process, we are planning to terminate the obligation process by
	August 30, 1997. All active projects with unexpended balances
	will be terminated on September 30, 2000. We then plan to
	expend our energies on the protection of the 30,000 assisted
	sites with a much reduced but committed grant staff.
	We believe very strongly in the legacy of the Land and
	Water Conservation Fund and we are doing our best to protect
	that investment. Thank you very much. I will be happy to answer
	any questions you may have.
	[Statement of Ms. Stevenson may be found at end of
	hearing.]
	Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Ms. Stevenson. I asked the question
	of the other panel, let me ask it of you. Do you think that the
	funds from this fund should be able to be used for other things
	other than acquisition, in other words, for infrastructure,
	operation, those kinds of things?
	Ms. Stevenson. I think repair for sites, particularly those
	purchased with Land and Water money or assisted originally is a
	very good idea. I think if we get into maintenance with this
	money, as I think one of the previous witnesses called it a
	black hole, and I think that is probably true. I think it is an
	expenditure that no one could support.
	Mr. Hefley. The Administration has stated that funding for
	the highest--that it is seeking funding for the highest
	priority projects and has no funds to seek, no plans to seek
	funds for the State Land and Water Conservation Program in the
	foreseeable future. Let us consider a minute the
	Administration's request for the funds for the Appalachian
	Trail land acquisition. This year you have requested an
	additional $4.2 million and in '95 the Administration spent
	$4.2 million to protect a total of two miles of trail for an
	average cost of over $2 million per mile.
	In fact, in 1995 the Administration purchased land in seven
	States which the trail does not even cross. Now are these the
	high priority types of things you are talking about and how
	many such high priority Federal needs are there which are more
	important than the State needs?
	Ms. Stevenson. I am not at all familiar with the land
	acquisition for the Appalachian Trail so I cannot comment on
	that. But what we do face is opportunities where willing
	sellers within authorized boundaries for national parks are
	wanting to sell land that we believe is very crucial to the
	protection of the park. Those are the vast majority of the
	funds that we are asking Congress for. And those are usually
	the projects that we hear most from congressional Members about
	why aren't we protecting significant battlefield lands, why
	aren't we protecting significant wildlife habitat within
	national parks.
	And, you know, it is a very difficult balance. I cannot say
	that any one of these, and I think the panel is really in the
	same position, it is a very difficult balance between
	significant lands authorized within parks and significant lands
	used for recreation purposes on the stateside. The Congress has
	a very tough row to hoe. I do not envy you in trying to make
	choices between what things to fund and what not to fund.
	Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
	American Samoa.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, and welcome, Ms. Stevenson,
	before the Subcommittee. I am just trying to see if I get the
	picture properly here. We have just had members from our
	community testifying that it is a disaster on the part of the
	Congress and the Administration not to provide funding for this
	very important program, yet on behalf of the Administration are
	you just simply following because the Congress definitely has a
	position that they do not want to fund this program anymore or
	do you feel that you are in agreement with the position that
	the Congress now takes in view of the funding aspects of the
	program?
	Ms. Stevenson. As I said before, it is not an easy balance.
	The Administration is trying very, very hard to balance the
	budget from its end. In order to do that, we have to make
	choices. The Land and Water Fund is a very significant program,
	always has been a significant program, but we are faced with
	having to make choices of where to spend the very limited
	funds, where to ask Congress for money.
	In those cases, we have come down on the side of asking for
	money particularly within authorized boundaries of parks and of
	course other Federal lands. It is not an easy choice. That is
	not to say that we do not believe that this is a terrific
	program. We do. And we know the States have terrible needs but
	we are sort of stuck as you all are.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. So basically in terms of priorities
	realizing also that $900 million is not chicken feed as far as
	trying to provide--I want to ask another related question to
	this. The Congress on a bipartisan basis established this fund.
	It was not called a trust fund, it was a set aside and whatever
	funds or money that we got from these sales of the oil and gas
	leases which amounts to about $900 million was to go to the
	Land and Water Conservation Fund.
	We are about to debate a very interesting position now
	taken by the Administration. This involves the State
	Department, and the State Department is now proposing that we
	are going to charge every American that calls in for passport
	information and by getting this amount of money which the State
	Department expects to obtain about $595 million to assist in
	offsetting some of its resource needs within the agency or
	within the Department of State and it is going to be an
	interesting debate in the Congress whether or not this is the
	proper way that we go about funding or provide funds for agency
	activities.
	And in a similar fashion I notice that we did this
	previously in setting aside this $900 million trust fund. We
	have expended over $3 billion in the last 30 years and of
	course we can give the numbers to justify the fact that this
	was a very successful program as far as the States and
	territories are concerned.
	My question is should the Congress allow this kind of
	thing, to allow each agency to go ahead and make charges and
	then reprogram the money for agency use and the Congress should
	not have any say on how that money should be utilized?
	Ms. Stevenson. As you know, we have a fee program in
	national parks and we are convinced that Americans who want to
	use national parks are willing and excited about paying fees
	that the money stays in the national parks. In terms of the
	$900 million when you talk to Members of Congress who are on
	the Budget Committee what they say is it is all money. It does
	not matter whether it was set aside, we use it for offset of
	the budget, of the deficit.
	And certainly esoteric kind of discussion is above my head,
	I have to admit, but I believe it is all money they say and so
	it is hard to set aside for any individual purpose. And I think
	I will reserve my comments on the State Department.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. So as a matter of our national policy
	basically despite the concerns that have been expressed earlier
	by some of our leading citizens out there in the country it
	seems that basically as far as the Congress and the
	Administration is concerned the Land and Water Conservation
	Fund is axed.
	Ms. Stevenson. It seems so, sir.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. Simply because of higher priorities.
	Ms. Stevenson. Yes, sir.
	Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Hefley. The gentleman from Massachusetts.
	Mr. Delahunt. Historically, the Land and Water Fund
	received about $900 million annually?
	Ms. Stevenson. No. Actually I have a copy and I will be
	happy to provide for the record the list of all the
	appropriations year by year.
	Mr. Delahunt. I am talking about receipts.
	Ms. Stevenson. Oh, receipts. I believe that is correct.
	Mr. Delahunt. Then--oh, can this--you have the last two or
	three fiscal years. How much is going to the Federal side?
	Ms. Stevenson. Federal side, total bureaus in 1996 was $138
	million.
	Mr. Delahunt. And how much stateside?
	Ms. Stevenson. That year was zero.
	Mr. Delahunt. That year was zero?
	Ms. Stevenson. 1996 was zero.
	Mr. Delahunt. So the remaining, subtract $138 million from
	that $900 million, went to the deficit reduction.
	Ms. Stevenson. That is right.
	Mr. Delahunt. And has that been in the past two or three
	years?
	Ms. Stevenson. When you say past two or three, if you are
	saying 1995 there was $216 million that went to the Federal
	side and that year there were $25 million in State grants
	rounded up. And then the balance went to deficit reduction.
	Mr. Delahunt. So the reality is that for some time now that
	$900 million has been--we have been underpaying----
	Ms. Stevenson. That is correct.
	Mr. Delahunt. [continuing]--purposes that would--we were
	provided for the----
	Ms. Stevenson. The highest appropriation I believe was in
	1978, which was $805 million stateside and $681--I am sorry, I
	am not right there. That was $175 million to State grants. But
	I would be happy to provide this for the record. You can look
	at it.
	Mr. Delahunt. Maybe you could help me with this. Could you
	just walk through how you plan to close out the State and
	what's involved here?
	Ms. Stevenson. Yes. This year----
	Mr. Delahunt. Let me just add one other question. I presume
	that you are working in individual States with this close-out
	thing?
	Ms. Stevenson. Yes, we are working--actually we are working
	with NUSARLO, which is the organization of States so that we
	have a single contact, but what we plan to do is terminate the
	obligation process, which means we will not be obligating any
	more funds as of August 30, 1997. And then that gives the
	States from then until the year 2000 to get rid of any
	unexpended balances, anything that they might have on the books
	from a project that has failed or something that is not doing
	very well that they can shore up, get a match, whatever is
	necessary. And that will be all done by September 30, 2000. So
	that is pretty much a three-year process for them to totally
	get rid of all of the--expend all of the money that is on their
	books right now.
	Mr. Delahunt. Thank you.
	Ms. Stevenson. You are welcome.
	Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Ms. Stevenson. We appreciate you
	being here and it has been helpful. Thank you very much.
	Ms. Stevenson. Thank you so much.
	Mr. Hefley. The committee stands adjourned.
	[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned;
	and the following was submitted for the record:]

	Testimony of Donald W. Murphy, Director, California Department of Parks
	and Recreation; and President, National Association of State Outdoor
	Recreation Liaison Officers

	It is a privilege to be here today to talk about the vital
	importance of the Land and Water Conservation Fund for state
	and local outdoor programs.
	By way of introduction, let me tell you that I sit here
	wearing several hats. In 1991, Governor Pete Wilson appointed
	me Director of California State Parks, the nation's largest
	state park system, with more than 1.3 million acres and a
	budget of approximately $180 million. I have been with
	California State Parks since I entered as a park ranger cadet
	in 1980.
	Additionally, I serve as president of the National
	Association for State Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers
	commonly referred to as NASORLO, the organization of those
	state officials whose responsibility it is to apportion LWCF
	moneys in their respective states.
	Lastly, I am a co-chair of Americans for our Heritage and
	Recreation, a newly formed coalition of LWCF stakeholders
	dedicated to securing more stable funding for conservation and
	outdoor recreation. This new organization represents a broad
	spectrum of individuals and ideas, from the Wilderness Society
	to the Sporting Goods Manufacturing Association, brought
	together with the realization that the restoration of LWCF for
	its original intention is vital for a better America.
	This is what I want you to understand from me today. A
	program that has worked so well for so many years has gotten so
	far off track we need to get a crane to put it back in place.
	I am not here to denigrate the federal funding side of the
	LWCF in favor of the state funding side. The two are necessary
	parts of a whole, and one should not exist without the other.
	But since I was invited here to speak on the importance of the
	stateside funding, I wish to confine my remarks to that area.
	When the Land and Water Conservation Fund became law in
	1965, this was its statement of purpose:
	``The purposes of this part are to assist in preserving,
	developing, and assuring accessibility to all citizens of the
	United States of America, of present and future generations,
	and visitors who are lawfully present within the boundaries of
	the United States of America, such quality and quantity of
	outdoor recreation resources as may be available and are
	necessary and desirable for individual active participation in
	such recreation, and to strengthen the health and vitality of
	the citizens of the United States by (1) providing funds for,
	and authorizing federal assistance to, the States in planning,
	acquisition, and development of needed land and water areas and
	facilities, and (2) providing funds for the Federal acquisition
	and development of certain lands and other areas.''
	The last portion of this statement is most important for my
	purposes here today. As the law was written, one of the first
	principles behind the Land and Water Conservation Fund is
	assistance to the states. This need was widely recognized on
	both sides of the aisle, and in prior Republican and Democratic
	administrations.
	In the years following this Act's passage, the states
	benefited greatly from the LWCF. But with the coming of the
	1980s, this changed dramatically. Support for state and local
	programs plummeted. In the last two fiscal years, there were no
	LWCF appropriations for state and local matching grants.
	California is a case in point. In the 1970s, the Golden
	State benefited greatly from the LWCF averaging a little more
	than $11 million each year. Since then, however, funding
	dropped as quickly as a rock off the Golden Gate Bridge. In the
	1980s, the average LWCF annual appropriation for California
	fell to less than $7 million.
	So far this decade, we've fared even worse, averaging about
	$1.4 million--that's a mere 10 percent of the funding we
	received in the 1970s.
	The negligence is as bipartisan as the creation of the act
	itself, and spans administrations of both parties.
	In the meantime in California, our population has
	increased, placing even more pressure not just on the 264 units
	of our beautiful State Park system, but on regional and local
	parks as well. Increased population means more demand for more
	parks.
	California is not unique in this. Attendance in state parks
	around the country rose by more than 30 million annually
	between 1987 and 1992. In his 1995 report to Congress on the
	LWCF, National Park Service Director Roger Kennedy pointed this
	out well. He wrote:
	``States continue to support this program and depend on its
	annual apportionment to supplement existing funding sources in
	providing recreation opportunities to their communities. In
	many local instances it constitutes the only means of financing
	much-needed recreational opportunities for its populace,
	including youth-at-risk, senior citizens, the economically
	disadvantaged, and those with disabilities.''
	There are many debates in these corridors, and even in this
	subcommittee, about the role of federal government in
	preserving public lands. We experience this in Sacramento as
	well, I assure you.
	In another way, therefore, I can't stress enough the
	importance of LWCF for states and local communities. In short,
	it gives more power to the people, by placing the funds closer
	to home. Here in Washington, you refer to it as ``states'
	rights.'' Thousands of miles west of here, at the state
	Capitol, they refer to it as ``local control.''
	The benefits of this are numerous. More people are involved
	in the decision-making. Communities must match the LWCF grant,
	so they have incentive and a goal that can be attained. In many
	areas, problems in a state or community are best answered by
	those who live in that state or community.
	In its day, the LWCF has built ballparks in urban settings
	like Oakland, it acquired Martin Luther King, Jr.'s boyhood
	home in Atlanta, and it helped finish off the Appalachian
	Trail. Over the life of the program, stateside funding has
	financed more than 8,500 acquisition projects covering more
	than 2.3 million acres, and funded 28,000 outdoor recreational
	facility developments.
	Thirty some-odd years ago, the creation of the Land and
	Water Conservation Fund was a bipartisan measure, and that
	makes sense even today. It's an issue that's broad enough for
	all to accept, and one that crosses many boundaries. That's why
	such a broad coalition has come together, as I said earlier, to
	work for it.
	The restoration of state and local LWCF funding should be
	an easy decision for you, and it is an easy decision that will
	immediately show many rewards throughout the country. There is
	no controversy in restoring state and local support in LWCF,
	but I can assure you there will be if this noble effort is
	abandoned.
	As this own subcommittee's oversight plan states, ``the
	need for public outdoor recreation space is greatest in urban
	and suburban areas of this country. For these reasons,
	continued exclusive focus on federal land acquisition cannot be
	justified.''
	I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you very much.

	------


	Statement of Thomas Cove, Vice President of Government Relations,
	Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association

	Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Thomas Cove and I am
	Vice President of the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association
	(SGMA). SGMA is the national trade association for producers
	and distributors of athletic equipment, footwear and apparel.
	I welcome the opportunity to testify this morning and
	commend the Committee for its decision to hold a hearing on the
	stateside of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. My industry
	and the broader recreation community are encouraged by the
	attention this hearing brings to this important program.
	In 1994, I was honored to serve on the National Park
	Service Review Committee for the Land and Water Conservation
	Fund. I understand our report has been made available to the
	Resources Committee--I urge you to look at it closely as it
	represents the results of countless hours of discussion and
	consensus building. As the sole industry representative on the
	review committee, I was extremely impressed by the caliber of
	my colleagues and new thinking they brought to problems facing
	the stateside of the Land and Water Fund. I continue to endorse
	the report's basic finding, namely, that a reinvigoration of
	the LWCF vision, whether in its current programmatic form or
	otherwise, is vitally needed in order for the country to save
	its cherished heritage of open spaces and parks.
	Within my industry, we regard the experience of a well-
	funded stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund to be a
	demonstrable success. The Fund allowed a great diversity of
	land to be protected and created a significant inventory of
	recreational opportunities for citizens in every state.
	Thousands of local parks and facilities were developed under
	the state assistance program, providing tangible and intangible
	benefits to generations of Americans. Not insignificantly,
	beyond the actual funds it provided, the Fund's incentives
	created countless partnerships that have resulted in innovative
	programs to protect habitat, preserve historic sites and
	provide recreation.
	The Land and Water Conservation Fund was a promise made to
	the American people beginning in 1965 that has delivered a
	return on investment that any Wall Street financier would be
	proud to call his/her own.
	Sadly, much of the promise was broken in recent years when
	funding for the stateside of the Fund was cut substantially, to
	the point of its virtual elimination today.
	We strongly urge the Committee to take action to revitalize
	the LWCF ideal. Technical and financial assistance to state and
	local conservation and recreation has a long history of
	bipartisan support. The program was recommended by the Outdoor
	Recreation Resources Review Commission in the 1960's, President
	Reagan's Commission on Americans Outdoors in the 1980's, and
	the National Park Service Review Committee in 1994 and yet
	today is threatened with extinction.
	Let me take a moment to highlight our view of the value of
	the state assistance program.
	State and local parks are where the vast majority of
	Americans recreate day in and day out. Though most Americans
	might love to visit our showcase national parks regularly, they
	are unable to for reasons of economics, geography, or competing
	leisure alternatives. Most Americans recreate close to home, in
	local, regional and state parks. Whether for toddlers in a
	playground, teenagers on a ball field, or senior citizens on a
	nature trail, easily accessible recreation opportunities
	contribute significantly to quality of life for individuals,
	families and communities across the country.
	Participation in recreation is valued not just for
	enjoyment but because Americans know it leads to improved
	physical and mental health, better appreciation of nature and
	the environment, and stronger, shared values.
	Providing recreation opportunities close to home is more
	imperative than ever. In its research report titled Recreation
	in the New Millennium, the Recreation Roundtable found that the
	greatest barrier to participation in outdoor recreation in
	America in 1995 was lack of discretionary time. Twice as many
	people cited time versus money as a major hurdle to outdoor
	recreation participation. Local recreation alternatives speak
	directly to Americans' need to carve more time out of the day.
	At the same time, the quality of recreation experiences in
	critical areas is diminishing. In the same Recreation
	Roundtable study, Americans living in large, urban areas are,
	as a group, the least satisfied with their recreation
	opportunities. The study also found that residents of America's
	largest metropolitan areas participate on average in fewer
	recreation activities and on a less frequent basis than other
	Americans.
	A 1995 Washington Post article, entitled ``No Place to
	Play'', recounts the tragic story of two young girls who died
	after playing in an abandoned car in Southeast Washington. The
	underlying theme of the story, as articulated by many residents
	of the girls' neighborhood, was the lack of opportunities for
	local children to recreate in a safe, enjoyable way. Too often
	this is a way of life in low-income urban neighborhoods.
	Images of unscathed community gardens and parks located
	next to torched buildings and looted businesses in the
	aftermath of the 1992 Los Angeles riots illustrate the value
	urban communities place on protected open spaces.
	In suburban America, conflicts over usage of parks and open
	space are increasingly commonplace. At the beginning of every
	season, soccer and football league administrators do battle
	over access to precious fields. Primary school parents view
	junior high and high school sports programs as a threat to
	their children's ability to get field time. Women's sports
	proponents are becoming more vocal, appropriately so, about
	receiving their fair share of choice locations and practice
	times.
	Lack of fields, courts and facilities can limit the number
	of young people who are given the opportunity to play sports.
	Rarely are the ones who miss out the elite athletes, but more
	likely the intramural player for whom hurdles to participation
	become quickly insurmountable.
	Privately owned fee-based facilities are springing up to
	meet the need for recreation. While these first-class complexes
	of sport fields and support facilities can and do deliver
	quality services, we should not allow personal financial
	resources to determine citizens basic access to recreation.
	At the same time, there are almost daily reports about the
	negative health consequences of America's sedentary lifestyle.
	Just last Friday, the government's Centers for Disease Control
	and Prevention reported that, due to inactivity and overeating,
	35 percent of the country's adults and 13 percent of our
	children weigh dangerously more than they should. This is the
	most overweight the nation has been since the government began
	compiling statistics in the 1960's. According to the National
	Task Force on the Prevention and Treatment of Obesity, the
	economic costs of obesity in the United States exceed $68
	billion annually. The need to make recreation alternatives
	available to all Americans is good public policy.
	I do not want to leave the impression that the LWCF is, or
	should be, simply a funding vehicle to provide safe, affordable
	recreation opportunities. I have focused on the recreation
	issues because I know them better, but any discussion of LWCF
	must include its fundamental conservation legacy. The
	protection of threatened land and water resources remains a
	central and essential basis for the fund.
	Development pressures in urban, suburban and exurban
	America are well documented. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
	found that the amount of developed land in the United States
	increased by 14 million acres between 1982 and 1992. According
	to National Growth Management Leadership Project, during the
	last twenty years in the New York metropolitan area population
	grew by 8 percent while amount of urbanized land increased by
	65 percent. During the same period, population in Seattle grew
	by 38 percent but the amount of urban area grew by 87 percent.
	In Denver, projections tell the same story.
	Many wildlife and plant resources are threatened by this
	development. Strapped state and local budgets limit options to
	address habitat degradation. Hundreds of non-game species will
	benefit if action is taken before the need for threatened or
	endangered designations. An appropriately funded Land and Water
	Conservation Fund would offer real potential to protect
	important natural settings.
	Of further concern is the possibility that we are bringing
	up generations of Americans who have no connection to the
	wonders of our country's vast natural legacy. The future policy
	implications of having large numbers of citizens with no hands-
	on contact with nature and conservation are scary. Both for our
	industry and for the country.
	Looking forward, I offer several recommendations for
	consideration. First, the Fund clearly needs to be modified to
	allow states and localities greater flexibility to take action.
	Devolution requires the ability for states and localities to
	adapt a program to locally developed and implemented
	priorities. Second, the equity of private land owners must be
	respected. Third, federal-state-local partnerships as well as
	public-private collaborations should be encouraged. LWCF
	regulations should be amended to facilitate such partnerships.
	Fourth, oversight and administration of the program should be
	raised to the Department of Interior level. Its current status
	within the National Park Service does not serve the program or
	NPS well.
	The theoretical premise of dedicating royalty income from
	depletion of a non-renewable resource for investment in
	protection of a different precious resource remains strong and
	valid. It should be maintained if at all possible.
	Having participated in policy battles on Land and Water
	Fund for several years now, I must be clear that as much as my
	industry values the potential of an appropriately funded
	stateside fund, we do not advocate draining the federal account
	to increase stateside appropriations. We understand the
	significant budget constraints facing this Congress but believe
	a full investment in both federal and stateside accounts will
	reap fully justifiable dividends for generations to come. The
	1994 report eloquently captures the vision we endorse, `` We
	envision a network of parks, preserves, open spaces, greenways
	and recreation sites and centers stretching across this nation,
	touching all communities, and accessible to all Americans.'' It
	is a noble and appropriate vision, and it will only take hold
	with a long term commitment of resources.
	Thank you for the opportunity to share my industry's views.
	I am happy to answer any questions the Committee might have.

	------


	Testimony of Judy Beck, Commissioner, Glenview Park District; Past
	President of the Illinois Association of Park Districts

	Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee:
	Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you
	today about a program that is near and dear to my community . .
	. a federal program that really works . . . a federal program
	that has changed the landscape of my town and perhaps many in
	America.
	My name is Judy Beck, I have been an elected park
	commissioner in Glenview, Illinois, for 18 years. I am one of
	2,100 elected in our state who serve without compensation. I
	have been president of our park district three times and am a
	recent past president of our state organization, the Illinois
	Association of Park Districts. As a local government official,
	I would like to speak today on behalf of restoring funding for
	the local grant portion of the Land and Water Conservation
	Fund. A commitment by Congress that is fundamental to the
	protection of recreational opportunities for all Americans.
	We at the local level are most certainly aware of the need
	to contain spending. We face on a much smaller scale, the same
	issue that you do. However, you should be aware that the local
	need for parks and open space cannot be achieved without the
	partnership of the federal government. A partnership that has
	had a long history of success.
	My objective this morning is to speak specifically to that
	portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund which had been
	devoted to enhancing outdoor recreation opportunities at the
	local level for Americans since 1965. Unfortunately, it is also
	the portion of the program which has been most drastically
	eroded during the past decade.
	The irony of this weakening federal commitment to the
	stateside funding component of LWCF for ``close to home park
	sites'' and recreational opportunities is that this is one of
	the most efficient and effective of all federal grant programs.
	Nationwide, since the program's inception, over $3.2 billion in
	federal seed money has been matched for a total investment of
	$6.4 billion to develop nearly 27,000 state, county and city
	park and recreation facilities and acquire 2.3 million acres of
	park land and open space.
	In Illinois the state's existing public recreation lands
	and facilities are inadequate to meet the needs of our 11.5
	million people. Less than 4% of Illinois' land is in public
	recreation and conservation use. Although Illinois is
	recognized as a leader with regard to its recreation
	distribution systems, intense competition for land brought
	about by urban sprawl and an agricultural economy severely
	limits the ability of local and state government to afford the
	increasing demands for public open space and recreation lands.
	Without increased and stable federal funding, opportunities to
	protect quality outdoor recreation lands and pristine natural
	areas in Illinois for future generations will be lost forever.
	The Land and Water Conservation Fund program, as originally
	set forth and funded through the late 60's and 70's,
	accomplished significant results in Illinois as well as
	throughout the country. More than 900 state and local park and
	conservation projects totaling more than $290 million in value
	were funded in Illinois. This year, communities are seeking $24
	million in assistance to enable them to carry out much needed
	projects. The needs . . . the demands . . . obviously are there
	. . . but the money is not. Increased funding for the LWCF
	stateside program is critical to meeting Illinois' close-to-
	home park and recreational needs.
	In Glenview, a suburb north of Chicago, we have been very
	fortunate. We have just received reimbursement for (what I hope
	is not one of the last) Land and Water Conservation Fund
	projects in Illinois.
	Let me briefly tell you about the Glenview Park District
	and the ``Grove''. The Glenview Park Dlsttict is a separate
	unit of local government authorized by state statute that
	encompasses all of the Village of Glenview and parts of five
	other surrounding villages and unincorporated Cook County, with
	an approximate population of 50,000. We have independent taxing
	capabilities for open space and recreation, the limits of which
	have been ``capped'' by our state General Assembly. By design,
	as much as 60% of our budgeted income is from fees and charges.
	The challenge in Glenview, indeed in all of Northeastern
	Illinois, is to provide for open space and recreation in a
	highly populated area, with a strong economy driving up land
	values. To illustrate that, undeveloped land is so expensive
	that it is priced by the square foot, not by the acre.
	I'd like to share with you the outstanding results of the
	Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Local Grant Program as
	it has been applied in our community. ``The Grove'' is a 123
	acre nature preserve and center, and national historic landmark
	that was the home of Robert Kennicott, the western most natural
	scientist for the Smithsonian Institution, the discoverer of
	dozens of species, plants and animals (many of which remain on
	this site today) and one of the early explorers of Alaska.
	In 1975, LWCF money was used as a part of a million dollar
	package to purchase 82 acres and Robert Kennicott's homestead.
	Money from LWCF was leveraged with state and local public funds
	as well as private contributions.
	In 1995, LWCF dollars were again used with state, local and
	private funds to add 41 adjacent acres owned by the John C. and
	Catherine T. Mac Arthur Foundation. As a result of the LWCF
	grant, our agency was able to reunite parcels that were once
	part of the original Kennicott's Grove. LWCF, and Illinois
	funding through its Open Space Land Acquisition and Development
	(OSLAD) Grant Program each contributed $400,000 toward the
	total purchase price of $2.275 million. The Mac Arthur
	Foundation contributed $400,000, the Local Grove Support
	Organization contributed $575,000, and the Glenview Park
	District contributed $500,000 to reach the total. It was LWCF
	and OSLAD's participation that leveraged the foundation and the
	local support to help us meet our goal.
	Today the Grove is a vital part of our community.
	Approximately 75,000 school children visit the Grove, and total
	annual attendance is about 500,000. This is a clear
	measurement, but just one example, of the success of LWCF
	spending.
	I testify before you today because I believe in the value
	that parks and recreation adds to the lives of all Americans. I
	have seen the impact of suburban sprawl in the Chicago suburbs
	and the tremendous brownscape problems in the city. I have also
	seen firsthand that stateside LWCF funding is a stimulus to
	acquiring additional monies for investment in our parks. This
	funding does more than provide opportunities for fun and games,
	it impacts youth at risk and crime prevention, health care cost
	reductions, economic growth, urban revitalization, and promotes
	a tremendous sense of family and community pride.
	Today I'm asking for your assistance and commitment to
	provide funding for the stateside component of LWCF. I assure
	you that your commitment will be recognized by the unseen
	future generations of Americans who will commend you for your
	foresight.
	Mr. Chairman, thank your for opportunity to bring the open
	space concerns of Illinois to the members of the subcommittee.

	------


	Statement by Katherine Stevenson, Associate Director, Cultural Resource
	Stewardship and Partnerships, National Park Service, Department of the
	Interior

	Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate
	the opportunity to testify on one of the National Park
	Service's important partnership programs, the Land and Water
	Conservation Fund (LWCF) state grant-in-aid program.
	As you travel across the country, in your State and in your
	District, many of the park sites you visit, from the smallest
	inner-city athletic field to the greatest expanses of
	wilderness, have a common link: the LWCF program. Given
	available resources, however, the Administration and Congress
	have decided to focus LWCF funding on top-priority Federal
	acquisitions for parks, forests, refuges and public lands. The
	LWCF State grants assistance program was not funded for Fiscal
	Years 1996 and 1997. In keeping with the Administration's
	ongoing efforts to balance the budget, funding was not proposed
	for FY 1998 nor are there plans to request any new grant
	appropriations in the foreseeable future. Instead, the
	Administration proposes funding for the most critical projects
	needed to protect resources or improve management of authorized
	parks and other areas.
	The unique place of the LWCF in America's conservation and
	recreation legacy can be better understood through a quick
	review of its origins.
	During the Eisenhower Administration, increasing
	consciousness of public health and environmental issues and an
	expanding need for recreational space resulted in the creation
	of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC)
	in 1958.
	After three years of research, the bipartisan Commission
	developed specific recommendations for a national recreation
	program. The ORRRC report emphasized that State, local, and the
	Federal governments and the private sector were key elements in
	the total effort to make outdoor recreation opportunities
	widely available.
	Largely as a result of ORRRC's work, the Land and Water
	Conservation Fund Act was passed and signed into law on
	September 3, 1964, as Public Law 88-578. The Act established a
	funding source for both Federal acquisition of park and
	recreation lands and matching grants to state and local
	governments for recreation planning, acquisition and
	development. It set requirements for state planning and
	provided a formula for apportioning annual LWCF appropriations
	to the States and Territories.
	The Act reflects two historic principles:
	(1) to provide predictable annual funding for high priority
	capital investments that help ensure conservation of our
	nation's natural resources and our ability to meet recreation
	needs, not only for the immediate present, but for future
	generations as well; and
	(2) to reinvest a significant portion of Federal returns
	from exploitation of one key natural resource, the mineral
	products removed from the Outer Continental Shelf areas, in
	conservation of other key natural resources, namely public
	parks, wildlife habitats and other recreation resources.
	By incorporating these principles, the LWCF Act became a
	model for resource conservation programs in many jurisdictions
	around the country.
	Several increases in the fund culminated with enactment of
	P.L. 95-42 in June 1977, which raised the authorization level
	of the Fund to $900 million for FY 1978 and subsequent years.
	The increases in the Fund's authorization over the years
	reflected Congress' understanding that the needs for the Fund
	had expanded in three ways: the State grant program needed to
	give more emphasis to urban parks and recreation areas; the
	grant program should help acquire and develop recreation
	facilities within urban areas; and the Federal side of the Fund
	program needed to contribute to meeting close-to-home
	recreation needs. The appropriations authority under the
	original LWCF Act was extended through 2015 with the enactment
	of P.L. 100-203.
	Since 1965, funding for the grants program has averaged
	approximately $105 million per year. Recently, the annual
	appropriations have been below this average: The FY 1995
	appropriation totalled $24.7 million, and in FY 1996 and 1997,
	the appropriation for new grants was zero.
	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, it was
	proposed that Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) mineral leasing
	receipts be tapped. In 1968, P.L. 90-401 raised the Fund's
	level to $200 million a year for five years making OCS revenues
	available to cover the difference between this minimum level
	and receipts from other sources.
	LWCF Grant Process
	Simply put, the LWCF grant program is a State-driven grant
	program. Each State receives a share of each annual
	appropriation called an ``apportionment''. This apportionment
	is made by the Secretary and is based on a legislative formula.
	Through a statewide planning process prescribed by the Act,
	each State, in concert with its local jurisdictions and
	subdivisions, establishes state priorities which serves to
	target the expenditures where the recipients, not the federal
	government, feel that it is needed most.
	Grants are made on a matching basis of no more than 50
	percent for the acquisition and development of public outdoor
	recreation areas and facilities.
	LWCF Program Accomplishments
	For the LWCF State grants program, over $3.2 billion have
	been appropriated to the 50 States, the District of Columbia,
	Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the
	Northern Marianas for planning, acquisition and development of
	outdoor recreation opportunities in the United States.
	Through FY 1995, a total of 37,300 projects have been
	approved to support the acquisition of open space for park
	lands or the development of outdoor recreation facilities. The
	Federal share of $3.2 billion has been matched by State and
	local contributions, for a total LWCF grant investment of over
	$6.5 billion. States have received about 8,200 grants and
	counties some 4,800, while cities, towns and other local
	agencies matched more than 24,000 grants.
	Of the total number of projects, about 10,000 have helped
	States and localities to acquire some 2.3 million acres of park
	land. Almost 27,000 projects have been for the development of
	outdoor recreation facilities. Seventy-five percent of the
	total funds obligated have gone to locally sponsored projects
	to provide close-to-home recreation opportunities that are
	readily accessible to America's youth, adults, senior citizens
	and the physically or mentally challenged.
	These facilities are down the street, across town, in the
	inner city, they're in virtually every nook and cranny of our
	country and serve every segment of the public. Millions of
	Americans and visitors to this country have walked, jogged,
	picnicked, hiked, biked, fished, hunted golfed, or hit a ball
	in at least one of these areas. These are the destination State
	parks for families of campers and hikers; parks where kids
	learn baseball and how to swim; parks where grade school
	classes visit nature centers.
	The Legacies of LWCF
	From a historical perspective, the LWCF has contributed
	significantly to the outdoor recreation estate over its 30
	years of existence. With funding ranging from several thousand
	dollars for picnic areas to millions for new national and state
	park lands, conservation areas and recreation facilities, the
	LWCF has had broad impact on outdoor America. Significant also
	is that a considerable amount of the income going to the Fund
	has come about through the leasing of offshore mineral rights,
	thus recycling an important natural resource back to public
	use. While one non-renewable resource is being used another is
	being protected.
	It is important to note that, in addition to the large
	number of projects, LWCF grants have had substantial long-term
	effects on our overall attitudes and policies toward outdoor
	recreation. The first legacy of this kind is the notion, basic
	to the LWCF Act, that States must assume a leadership role as
	providers of recreation opportunities.
	Today, there is clear evidence that the LWCF program has
	resulted in States taking greater responsibility for the
	protection and development of recreation resources at every
	level. The results of State leadership extend beyond simple
	increases in the size and number of recreation areas. Among
	other things, they include State actions to establish scenic
	river and recreational trail systems, to capitalize on the
	value of recreation resources in stimulating tourism and other
	economic opportunities, and to provide additional financial and
	technical assistance to local recreation efforts through State
	planning, grant, and loan programs.
	Second, when the Fund was established, State recreation
	planning was essentially non-existent. Statewide recreation
	planning has given States and their citizens new tools to
	analyze recreation needs and alternatives in a systematic and
	responsive way. Indeed, many states now require that local
	governments develop recreation plans as a condition for any
	type of Federal or State recreation assistance.
	The third legacy is our fiduciary responsibility. Section
	6(f)(3) of the Act that requires all property acquired or
	developed with LWCF assistance must be maintained perpetually
	in public outdoor recreation use. Section 6(f)(3) is the
	cornerstone of the local/State/Federal partnership and provides
	assurance that, regardless of future funding levels, each one
	of the sites receiving assistance under this program is
	protected and will remain in public park and recreation use in
	perpetuity. This provision has immeasurable impact on long-term
	protection of recreation resources.
	Section 6(f) is strong. This provision reduces the
	temptation to use LWCF-assisted park lands as a ``cheap'' or
	``convenient'' land-bank for strip mall or other non-recreation
	developments. Section 6(f) is also flexible. It recognizes that
	times and demographics change and that another use for the
	Fund-assisted property might one day be more appropriate. In
	these cases, converting the property to another use is called a
	conversion and is allowed as long as it is replaced with other
	property of at least equal fair market value and usefulness.
	The protective language of the law has prevented a large
	number of ``nuisance'' conversions. It has also worked in
	hundreds of successful cases where conversions have been
	approved. Here, the replacement lands have protected the
	original public investment and either maintained or enhanced
	the public recreation estate. The law has also withstood
	testing in the courts and found to be strong.
	Consistent oversight over the years has ensured permanency
	of LWCF's contributions to the national recreation estate. The
	most tangible evidence of the program in future years will be
	the tens of thousands of recreation sites across the country
	that will remain available for us and our children and our
	grandchildren.
	LWCF Program Status
	The vision of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review
	Commission in 1958 has been repeatedly reaffirmed. The
	President's Commission on Americans Outdoors concluded in 1986
	that a successor to the LWCF (due at that time, to expire in
	1989) should be created and dedicated from the sale of
	nonrenewable resources. In 1994 a committee established by the
	National Park System Advisory Board recognized our national
	failure to invest and reinvest in parks and recreation and
	proposed an American Network of Parks and Open Space and the
	revitalization of the LWCF and UPARR programs; and as recently
	as this year, the Americans for our Heritage and Recreation
	Coalition, consisting of a number of disparate groups which
	banded together to seek a reliable funding source for America's
	conservation and recreation needs, concluded that the LWCF is
	``arguably the most important environmental program of this
	century'' and that a reliable source of funding should be
	restored.
	We believe that it is essential to maintain the spirit and
	intent of the LWCF Act as provided for under Section 6(f)(3).
	In keeping with this direction, late last year, NPS established
	a special team to develop plans to accomplish these objectives.
	More specifically, the team has been charged with offering
	recommendations to accomplish the following:
	--expeditiously close-out the LWCF grants project
	selection, approval, and reimbursement processes;
	--establish an effective and efficient plan of action to
	protect the legacy created through the 37,000+ funded projects.
	The team has focused its initial energies on developing
	actions to close-down grant project operations as soon as
	possible. A draft plan of action was adopted and distributed at
	a special business meeting of the National Association of State
	Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers (NASORLO) in St. Louis on
	February 8. No opposition was expressed to the proposal by
	NASORLO. As of February 26, the following recommendations have
	been implemented:
	--the LWCF obligation process (which now uses unobligated
	funds from prior years' appropriations to fund a handful of new
	projects), will be terminated effective August 30, 1997;
	--all active projects with unexpended balances will be
	terminated effective September 30, 2000. (Ending dates for new
	and amended projects are limited to that same date).
	It should be noted that the Service, under the
	Administration's reinvention and downsizing initiative, has
	significantly reduced LWCF administrative costs, e.g., a 62
	percent reduction in FTE's since FY 1993. Further reductions
	are scheduled for FY 1998 which is in accord with the
	Administration's budget request. It should be noted that the
	lack of newly-appropriated funds for LWCF grant-in-aid
	assistance does not translate to a lack of need for program
	administrative support. In addition, the Secretary has
	continuing fiduciary responsibilities regarding the protection
	and stewardship for over 30,000 assisted sites as well as for
	over 600 projects which have contractual expiration dates
	extending into the end of year 2000.
	Thank you again for this opportunity. I will be glad to
	answer any questions you may have.

	------

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.001

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.002

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.003

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.004

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.005

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.006

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.007

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.008

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.009

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.010

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.011

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.012

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.013

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.014

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0050.015

	<all>
	</pre></body></html>