[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING ON H.R. 1051, NEW MEXICO STATEHOOD AND ENABLING ACT AMENDMENTS
OF 1997
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 17, 1997--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-30
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-699 CC WASHINGTON : 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
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 RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
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
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
Allen Freemyer, Counsel
Todd Hull and Dan Smith, Professional Staff
Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held June 17, 1997....................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate in Congress from
American Samoa............................................. 10
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 1
Prepared statement....................................... 8
Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 12
Smith, Hon. Robert F., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 11
Statements of witnesses:
Redmond, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Mexico........................................ 15
Prepared statement....................................... 16
Skeen, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Mexico.............................................. 12
Prepared statement....................................... 14
Additional material submitted:
Text of H.R. 1051............................................ 13
HEARING ON H.R. 1051, NEW MEXICO STATEHOOD AND ENABLING ACT AMENDMENTS
OF 1997
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 1997
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National
Parks and Public Lands, Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m.,
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V.
Hansen, Chairman, presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Hansen. The meeting will come to order. The
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands convenes to
hear testimony on H.R. 1051, Enabling Act of New Mexico, and
H.R. 1567, the Eastern Wilderness Act.
[H.R. 1051 can be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. The first bill is H.R. 1051. This bill would
amend the New Mexico Enabling Act of June 20, 1910, in order to
protect the permanent trust funds of the State of New Mexico
from erosion due to inflation. This would be accomplished by
modifying the basis on which distributions are made from those
funds and by loosening the current investment restrictions. The
modifications include changing the payout to a fixed percentage
of the fund, thereby allowing a portion of the interest and
dividend income received to be reinvested. This bill would also
loosen investment restrictions and allow broader investment
options and opportunities.
We are pleased to have two Representatives from New Mexico
with us today, Congressman Joe Skeen and Congressman Bill
Redmond. Unfortunately, Congressman Steven Schiff is ill and
unable to be here today. We all wish him a quick and complete
recovery.
We do want to extend our warm greetings to the new face on
Capitol Hill, Mr. Redmond, who is a newly elected
Representative from the traditionally Democratic but now
Republican Third Congressional District of New Mexico. We
welcome Mr. Redmond and are happy to have him here at our
Subcommittee hearing. Both Mr. Redmond and Mr. Skeen will have
a few words in support of H.R. 1051.
Back in 1964, we passed the Wilderness Act establishing the
National Wilderness Preservation System. The system was
designed to ensure that certain areas of our land would be
preserved in a natural condition for the use and enjoyment of
present and future generations. Sounds like a pretty noble
goal, doesn't it? A system of wilderness areas where nature,
instead of man, dominates the landscape; a place where both we
and our children can go to get away from the city and
experience nature in its pristine state just like our
forefathers did.
I think that from the outset, we have to concede that
wilderness is not free. When we designate part of our land as a
wilderness area, we foreclose our ability to use many of the
natural resources, impose economic limitations on surrounding
communities, limit our land management options, and we also
severely restrict the types of recreation that can be enjoyed
within the area. However, the American people have decided that
the goals of wilderness preservation are important enough that
they are willing to bear the costs.
Since 1964, Congress has designated about 103 million acres
of wilderness. Since I have entered government service, I have
been fortunate to have the opportunity to participate in the
wilderness designation process many times. During my
experience, though, I have noticed one glaring disparity in the
Act's implementation. Almost all of the Nation's wilderness
areas are in the West. Of those 103 million acres, almost 99
million are in the West. That is right, the West has over 95
percent of the Nation's wilderness.
Now that works out pretty well for a lot of westerners. Our
youth groups love to go backpacking in our wilderness areas. A
Boy Scout from Salt Lake City can go on a weekend excursion
with his troop into the beautiful High Uintas wilderness area.
He can hike up Explorer Peak overlooking the mountain valleys,
breathe in the fresh pine-scented air, and marvel at the beauty
of nature. It helps a young man to see past the streets. It
gives a kid the opportunity to meditate and think about life,
and the world, and to see a bigger picture.
I think kids need experiences like that. I think a good
quality wilderness experience is something that can benefit
anyone. And I think that people in the East need them just as
much as people in the West. So my question is this: Why are we
opting to preserve only western wilderness?
What are the effects of preserving wilderness on only one
side of the continent? Well, first we are gradually losing the
opportunity to save important ecosystems. The eastern forests
have a unique biological balance found nowhere else in the
world. Every day that we delay preservation, we are risking
irreparable damage to these ecosystems.
Second, it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to
have a good wilderness experience in the East. In the East we
have a situation where over 80 percent of the country's
population must share less than 5 percent of the country's
wilderness. The few wilderness areas that we do have in the
East are almost unbearably crowded.
Now, I will have to admit that there are a lot of
easterners for whom this really isn't a big problem. They can
just catch a plane to Colorado or Alaska for a weekend and have
a great wilderness experience there. A lot of these people
don't really think it is a problem that there isn't very much
wilderness in the East, and many of these people declined to
come to this hearing. They don't understand why we would need
more wilderness in the east if we can just designate more in
the West.
Well, it is a problem for the millions of eastern Americans
who can't afford to fly 2,000 miles to go camping for a
weekend. Is it fair to have a world where only wealthy
easterners are able to enjoy the wilderness? As it stands now,
the average kid living in the eastern inner city isn't going to
have the opportunity to experience the wilderness. His family
can't afford to take him out West, and inner city youth groups
don't have that kind of money. He really needs to get away from
the street and experience nature, even if it is just for a
weekend, but he will never get the chance. He probably needs
the wilderness experience more than anyone, and yet we have
created a system where he is the one with the least access to
wilderness.
For over 30 years now, Congress has followed basically the
same pattern. The agencies study the areas that might qualify,
whether it is a RARE I or RARE II process, or whether it is
national park or refuge wilderness. They then make
recommendations to Congress, and then we decide what should be
designated. We all get together, compare notes, argue a little,
and designate a few million more acres of wilderness in the
West, hoping to take some of the pressure off. Over the last 3
decades this has led to a staggering disparity between the
number of acres of wilderness in the West as compared to the
number of acres of wilderness in the East.
The last time we took a serious look at the issue of
eastern wilderness preservation was with the Eastern Wilderness
Act of 1975. This Act specifically designated about 204,000
acres of wilderness east of the 100th meridian and designated
several wilderness study areas. The Act was successful to a
certain extent, at increasing the amount of eastern wilderness.
However, it has been over 20 years since it has passed, and the
disparity between eastern and western wilderness acreage
continues to grow. It is time that we address this issue again.
Granted, there are a lot of reasons that wilderness
designation in the East is difficult. Among these include the
fact that there is less Federal land in the East, and there are
fewer unsettled areas in the East. However, I don't think it is
fair to deny easterners a chance to have wilderness in their
midst just because it is a little more difficult to designate
eastern wilderness than western wilderness. There are millions
of acres in the East that can and should become wilderness.
These areas must be preserved. If we neglect to do so, we may
lose the chance forever.
I think that H.R. 1567 would go a long ways toward
remedying the eastern wilderness problem. It will direct the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Interior to study
and inventory lands east of the 100th meridian that might
qualify as wilderness. A process of public hearings will then
ensue where State and local interests will be allowed to
express their views on proposed designations. From time to
time, following this period of local input, the Secretaries
will report to the President their recommendations as to the
suitability of these lands for wilderness preservation. The
President will then make recommendations with respect to each
area to Congress. The President's recommendations will become
effective only through an Act of Congress.
Several components of the bill would serve to make
wilderness designation in the East easier. First, it lowers the
acreage threshold in the East to 500 acres. This will help
alleviate the problem that it is more difficult to find large
unsettled areas east of the 100th meridian. Second, the bill
would allow State and private lands to be studied for
wilderness feasibility. This would help solve the problem that
there is so little Federal land in the East. Third, the law
would allow land to be designated as wilderness if it could
eventually qualify as wilderness through national reclamation.
This would help alleviate the problem that so little of the
East fits the ``untrammeled'' definition of the original Act.
It is time to start discussing the issue. It is time to
start doing something. This bill would finally force Congress
to make a decision on all potential wilderness in the East
sometime during the next 15 years.
I want to make one thing very clear. The bill does not
actually designate any wilderness areas. Congress would still
have to vote on each wilderness area. What this bill does is
force us to start acting. It is designated to make it a little
easier for eastern lands to qualify, and then to force us to
start considering each of those areas.
[The statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]
Statement of Hon. James V. Hansen, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Utah
The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
convenes to hear testimony on H.R. 1051, ``Enabling Act of New
Mexico,'' and H.R. 1567, ``Eastern Wilderness Act.''
The first bill is H.R. 1051. This bill would amend the New
Mexico Enabling Act of June 20, 1910 in order to protect the
permanent trust funds of the State of New Mexico from erosion
due to inflation. This would be accomplished by modifying the
basis on which distributions are made from those funds and by
loosening the current investment restrictions. The
modifications include changing the payout to a fixed percentage
of the Fund, thereby, allowing a portion of the interest and
dividend income received to be reinvested. This bill would also
loosen investment restrictions and allow broader investment
options and opportunities.
We are pleased to have two representatives from New Mexico
with us today, Congressman Joe Skeen and Congressman Bill
Redmond. Unfortunately, Congressman Steven Schiff is ill and is
unable to be here today. We all wish him a quick and complete
recovery.
We do want to extend our warm greetings to a new face on
Capitol Hill, Mr. Redmond, who is the newly elected
representative from the traditionally Democratic, but now
Republican 3rd Congressional District of New Mexico. We welcome
Mr. Redmond and are happy to have him here at our Subcommittee
hearing. Both Mr. Redmond and Mr. Skeen will say a few words in
support of H.R. 1051.
Back in 1964, we passed The Wilderness Act establishing the
National Wilderness Preservation System. The system was
designed to ensure that certain areas of our land would be
preserved in a natural condition for the use and enjoyment of
present and future generations. Sounds like a pretty noble
goal, doesn't it? A system of wilderness areas where nature,
instead of man, dominates the landscape. A place where both we
and our children can go to get away from the city and
experience nature in its pristine state just like our
forefathers did.
I think that from the outset, we have to concede that
wilderness is not free. When we designate part of our land as a
wilderness area we foreclose our ability to use of many of the
natural resources, impose economic limitations on surrounding
communities, limit our land management options and we also
severely restrict the types of recreation that can be enjoyed
within the area. However, the American people have decided that
the goals of wilderness preservation are important enough that
they are willing to bear the costs.
Since 1964, Congress has designated about 103 million acres
of wilderness. Since I've entered government service, I've been
fortunate to have the opportunity to participate in the
wilderness designation process many times. During my
experience, though, I've noticed one glaring disparity in the
Act's implementation. Almost all of the Nation's wilderness
areas are in the west. Of those 103 million acres, almost 99
million are in the west. That's right, the west has over 95
percent of this Nation's wilderness.
Now, that works out pretty well for a lot of westerners.
Our youth groups love to go backpacking into our wilderness
areas. A Boy Scout from Salt Lake City can go on a weekend
excursion with his troop into the beautiful High Uintas
Wilderness area. He can hike up Explorer Peak overlooking the
mountain valleys, breathe in the fresh pine scented air and
marvel at the beauty of nature. It helps a young man to see
past the streets. It gives a kid the opportunity to meditate
and think about life, and the world, and to see a bigger
picture.
I think kids need experiences like that. I think a good
quality wilderness experience is something that can benefit
anyone. And I think that people in the East need them just as
much people in the West. So my question is this: Why are we
opting to preserve only western wilderness?
What are the effects of preserving wilderness on only one
side of the continent? Well, first, we are gradually losing the
opportunity to save important ecosystems. The eastern forests
have a unique biological balance found nowhere else in the
world. Every day that we delay preservation, we are risking
irreparable damage to these ecosystems.
Second, it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to
have a good wilderness experience in the east. In the East, we
have a situation where over 80 percent of the country's
population must share less than 5 percent of the country's
wilderness. The few wilderness areas that we do have in the
east are consequently almost unbearably crowded.
Now, I'll have to admit, there are a lot of easterners for
whom this really isn't a big problem. They just catch a flight
to Colorado or Alaska for a weekend, and have a great
wilderness experience there. A lot of these people don't really
think it's a problem that there isn't very much wilderness in
the east, and many of these same people declined to come to
this hearing. They don't understand why we would need more
wilderness in the east if we can just designate more in the
west.
Well, it is a problem for the millions of eastern Americans
who can't afford to fly 2,000 miles to go camping for a
weekend. Is it fair to have a world where only wealthy
easterners are able to enjoy wilderness? As it stands now, the
average kid living in the Eastern inner city isn't going to
have the opportunity to experience the wilderness. His family
can't afford to take him out west and inner city youth groups
don't have that kind of money. He really needs to get away from
the street and experience nature, even if it's just for a
weekend, but he'll never get the chance. He probably needs the
wilderness experience more than anyone, and yet we've created a
system where he is the one with the least access to wilderness.
For over 30 years now, Congress has followed basically the
same pattern. The agencies study the areas that might qualify,
whether it is a RARE I or RARE II process, or whether it is
National Park or Refuge wilderness. They then make
recommendations to Congress and then we decide what should be
designated. We all get together, compare notes, argue a little,
and designate a few million more acres of wilderness in the
west, hoping it will take some of the pressure off. Over the
last three decades this has led to a staggering disparity
between the number of acres of wilderness in the west as
compared to the number of acres of wilderness in the east.
The last time we took a serious look at the issue of
eastern wilderness preservation was with the Eastern Wilderness
Act of 1975. This Act specifically designated about 204,000
acres of wilderness east of the 100th meridian, and designated
several wilderness study areas. The Act was successful, to a
certain extent, at increasing the amount of eastern wilderness.
However, it has been over 20 years since it was passed, and the
disparity between eastern and western wilderness acreage
continues to grow. It is time that we address this issue again.
Granted, there are a lot of reasons that wilderness
designation in the east is difficult. Among these include the
fact that there is less Federal land in the east, and that
there are fewer unsettled areas in the east. However, I don't
think it is fair to deny easterners the chance to have
wilderness in their midst just because it is a little more
difficult to designate eastern wilderness than western
wilderness. There are millions of acres in the East that can
and should become wilderness. These areas must be preserved. If
we neglect to do so we may lose the chance forever.
I think that H.R. 1567 would go a long way toward remedying
the eastern wilderness problem. It will direct the Secretary of
Agriculture and Secretary of Interior to study and inventory
lands east of the 100th meridian that might qualify as
wilderness. A process of public hearings will then ensue where
State and local interests will be allowed to express their
views on proposed designations. From time to time, following
this period of local input the Secretaries will report to the
President their recommendations as to the suitability of these
lands for wilderness preservation. The President will then make
recommendations with respect to each area to Congress. The
President's recommendations will become effective only through
an Act of Congress.
Several components of the bill would serve to make
wilderness designation in the east easier. First, it lowers the
acreage threshold in the east to 500 acres. This will help
alleviate the problem that it is more difficult to find large
unsettled areas east of the 100th meridian. Second, the bill
would allow State and private lands to be studied for
wilderness feasibility. This would help solve the problem that
there is so little Federal land in the east. Third, the law
would allow land to be designated as wilderness if it could
eventually qualify as wilderness through natural reclamation.
This would help alleviate the problem that so little of the
east fits the ``untrammeled'' definition of the original Act.
Finally, it would get the ball rolling, so to speak. For 20
years now we have been ignoring the question of eastern
wilderness. It's time to start discussing the issues. It's time
to start doing something. This bill would finally force
Congress to make decisions on all potential wilderness in the
east sometime during the next 15 years.
I want to make one thing very clear: this bill does not
actually designate any wilderness areas. Congress would still
have to vote on each wilderness area. What this bill does do is
force us to start acting. It is designed to make it a little
easier for eastern lands to qualify, and then to force us to
start considering each of those areas.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from American Samoa.
STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your calling
the hearing for these several bills that are now considered by
the Subcommittee at this time. But before making my statement,
I certainly would like to offer my personal welcome to the
gentleman from New Mexico, our colleague from New Mexico
Congressman Skeen, and certainly wish to thank him personally
for the tremendous help and his leadership that he has given in
the Appropriations Committee. And we really appreciate the help
he has given over the years.
Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee is considering two very
unrelated pieces of legislation today. I understand that H.R.
1051 is supported by the entire New Mexico delegation, and I am
unaware of any controversy associated with that legislation.
The other bill we are considering today is H.R. 1567 and is
likely to be one that we will focus on in the testimony and
questioning for this hearing. H.R. 1567 sets a procedure to
study designated managed wilderness lands in the eastern United
States that is for the most part duplicative, in my humble
opinion, of the existing Wilderness Act. In fact, whole
sections of the bill are taken verbatim from the current
wilderness legislation.
The bill does differ from existing law in several
significant aspects. First, it allows land to be recommended
for wilderness. If such land could be naturally reclaimed, so
it is original wilderness characteristics. Second, the bill
allows areas as small as 500 acres to be designated wilderness.
And third, the legislation provides for the study of all State
and private lands east of the 100th meridian for possible
wilderness designation.
It is this last provision that is most interesting, Mr.
Chairman. The Wilderness Act only provides that Federal lands
be studied and designated wilderness. Given some of the
concerns expressed during consideration of the biological
survey, I am surprised to see the proponents of H.R. 1567
advocating a study of vast amounts of private and State lands.
And maybe, Mr. Chairman, you can provide clarification on this
point.
I understand that the Administration witnesses today will
testify in opposition to H.R. 1567, citing the bill's
deviations from existing wilderness policy and its redundancy
with many of the provisions of the Wilderness Act.
For the past 30 years, Congress has provided for the study
and designation of Federal lands in the eastern United States.
In fact, the Eastern Wilderness Act was signed into law in
1975. Numerous eastern areas were designated wilderness prior
and subsequent to 1975.
Mr. Chairman, many Members of our side have voted for
eastern wilderness legislation. If there are new proposals to
designate wilderness in the East, I think we should consider
them. However, I believe that maybe we don't need a new law to
do this. Wilderness has been and continues to be studied and
designated pursuant to the Wilderness Act of 1964. I believe we
should continue to consider wilderness within that parameter
and with the law's policy and framework.
I thank the Chairman for providing me the opportunity to
make this statement and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's
comments. Let's just quickly point out to you that I have been
on this Subcommittee for 17 years and been part of every
wilderness Act that has come along, and every one of them
surrounds private and State property. And I fully--I want to
also add that every one of them has pieces of less than 5,000
acres which somebody seems to have a way of disobeying the law
very readily. I say that with respect to my good friend from
American Samoa.
The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Robert Smith. Mr. Chairman, I want to also welcome Mr.
Redmond and Mr. Skeen to this Subcommittee. While we are not
discussing their bill at this point, we are discussing an issue
of utmost importance to both of them and to we in the West. And
I am really proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. And I
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for an introduction of this idea.
For as long as I have been here, not quite as long as you,
and on an interrupted tenure, I have watched and sat and
listened to easterners trump up western wilderness programs
until I am sick of it, frankly. And the very idea that we
shouldn't be studying eastern wilderness opportunities seems
like total hypocrisy to me. I--in fact, I am surprised that I
don't see those protectionists who have advanced their ideas on
western wilderness as cosponsors of your bill. They are not
there. I am shocked, because they have ventured and supported
every wilderness program known to mankind for the years I have
been here. So I am surprised they don't support the idea in the
East.
Now, why is it wrong for westerners to ask that we study
eastern wilderness while we have been under the thumb of
easterners all these years studying western wilderness. So I
think it is just mightily fair that we advance this idea and
change the focus a tad. Obviously this is your intention, to
change the focus from the West being the recipient of all of
this great legislation to the East.
Now, there are lots of timberlands in the East. There are
lots of Federal lands in the East. Certainly the East is the
oldest part of our country. If we want to preserve antiquities,
we ought to look at the East first and not the West.
So I am delighted, Mr. Chairman, with this idea, and I
suggest that we ask those folks who have advanced wilderness
for all these years that you and I have sat here to be a part
of this legislation, because in all fairness we should
establish the East. If it is good policy for the West, it must
be good policy for the East.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Hansen. Gentleman from California, Mr. Radanovich.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to
applaud you and the bill you have introduced, H.R. 1567, and
cointroduced with Mr. Smith from Oregon. And, you know, I am
reminded by the chart that was included in our packet of land
east of the 100th meridian, which is roughly the Mississippi
River, actually a little bit to the west of the Mississippi
River, and all the land to the west of that line is--it
includes wilderness--is 98 million acres; east of that line, on
the east, eastern part of the United States, about 4 million.
And, you know, I just want to encourage the easterners to know
that eastern wilderness is just as good as western wilderness,
and it is just as worthy of protection as is the wilderness in
the West. And I am encouraged by the fact that we can take a
look and find some of those areas where we can begin to get
involved to make sure that this country's wilderness heritage
is protected.
It is a big discrepancy, and I think it causes some people
in the west--or, excuse me, the East--to have an undue
influence on the resources of the West. And I look forward to
that being corrected by this bill.
Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's
comments.
We are grateful for our first panel: Joe Skeen, New Mexico,
accompanied by Bob Gish and Bill Redmond. And we will take you
in that order. So, Joe, the time is yours, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOE SKEEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. Skeen. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
Members of the Subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to
talk to you about this bill today.
I want to thank for you holding this hearing on H.R. 1051,
which is a bill that amends the New Mexico Statehood and
Enabling Act of 1910. The entire New Mexico congressional
delegation supports this legislation as well as the Governor
and the State legislature.
Before I proceed with my testimony, I would like to state
for the record that Congressman Steve Schiff was unable to be
here today because of medical reasons and strongly supports
this legislation which he sponsored.
Now I would also like to take this opportunity to introduce
you to you Mr. Bob Gish from the State of New Mexico Investment
Council, who is available to answer questions on this
legislation.
Now, on behalf of the State of New Mexico I am placing into
the record a statement from Phil Archibeck, State investment
officer for the State of New Mexico, which explains the
legislation and provides backup documentation for the
legislation.
I would also like to take this time to point out that an
identical Senate bill, S. 430, has passed the Senate and is now
in our body awaiting action. Further, it is my understanding
that the Department of Interior has informed the Congress it
has no objection to the bill.
Basically the issue behind this bill involves the manner in
which the State of New Mexico invests its money and how it then
disperses the funds for the betterment of its citizens. The
Enabling Act has governed these activities since statehood.
However, as investment patterns changed, it became apparent to
New Mexico that the system no longer was keeping pace with
modern investment strategies and customs. Following the
intensive review, the issue was placed before the voters last
year as an amendment to the New Mexico Constitution. The
amendment passed by a 2 to 1 margin last November. All this
legislation does is amend the New Mexico Statehood and Enabling
Act so that they are in conformity with this new change in the
New Mexico Constitution.
In 1957, Congress amended the Enabling Act to allow State
permanent fund investments in corporate stocks for the first
time. However, that amendment made no provision regarding how
distributions were to be made from returns on the stocks. So in
fact it was ruled that only dividends from the stocks could be
distributed, which had the effect of no significant investments
were made in stocks.
The real impact meant that investments were, in fact,
basically limited to investments that were income-interest-
based. A new formula was prepared by the committee studying
this issue, and in 1996 the voters adopted it. In early 1997,
the State legislature made the needed changes in State law to
reflect the new constitutional provisions, and it is our hope
to get this legislation adopted as soon as possible because the
New Mexico budget year begins on July 1.
Mr. Chairman, it is important that New Mexico permanent--
that the New Mexico permanent fund be managed in a modern and
effective manner. These changes will allow that to happen, and
further it will allow the State to preserve the two permanent
funds the State has for future generations.
In closing, I want to thank you and the Subcommittee for
scheduling this hearing, and I want to assure you that I will
work closely with you to assure the passage of this very
important piece of legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Skeen.
[The statement of Mr. Skeen follows:]
Statement of Hon. Joe Skeen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Mexico
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing
today on H.R. 1051 a bill amending the New Mexico Statehood and
Enabling Act of 1910. The entire New Mexico Congressional
Delegation supports this legislation as well as the Governor
and the State legislature.
Before I proceed with my testimony I would like to state
for the record that Congressman Steve Schiff was unable to be
here today because of medical reasons and strongly supports
this legislation which he cosponsored. I would also like to
take this opportunity to introduce Bob Gish from the State of
New Mexico Investment Council who is available to answer
questions on this legislation.
On behalf of the State of New Mexico I am placing into the
record a statement from Phil Archibeck, State investment
officer for the State of New Mexico, which explains the
legislation and provides backup documentation for the
legislation.
I would also take this time to point out that an identical
Senate Bill (S. 430) has passed the Senate and is now in our
body awaiting action. Further it is my understanding that the
Department of Interior has informed the Congress it has no
objection to the bill.
Basically the issue behind this bill involves the manner in
which the State of New Mexico invests its money and how it then
disperses the funds for the betterment of its citizens. The
Enabling Act has governed these activities since statehood.
However as investment patterns changed it became apparent to
New Mexico that the system no longer was keeping pace with
modern investment strategies. Following an intensive review the
issue was placed before the voters last year as an amendment to
the New Mexico Constitution. The amendment passed by a two to
one margin last November. All this legislation does is amend
the New Mexico Statehood and Enabling Act so that they are in
conformity with this new change in the New Mexico Constitution.
In 1957 Congress amended the Enabling Act to allow State
permanent fund investments in corporate stocks for the first
time. However, that amendment made no provision regarding how
distributions were to be made from returns on the stocks. So in
fact it was ruled that only dividends from the stocks could be
distributed which had the effect that no significant
investments were made in stocks. The real impact meant that
investments were in fact basically limited to investments that
were income interest based. A new formula was prepared by the
committee studying this issue and in 1996 the voters adopted
it. In early 1997 the State legislature made the needed changes
in State law to reflect the new constitutional provisions. It
is our hope to get this legislation adopted as soon as possible
because the New Mexico budget year begins July 1.
Mr. Chairman it is important that the New Mexico permanent
fund be managed in a modern and effective manner. These changes
will allow that to happen and further it will allow the State
to preserve the two permanent funds the State has for future
generations. In closing I want again to thank the Committee for
scheduling this hearing and I want to assure you I will work
closely with you to assure passage of this very important piece
of legislation.
Mr. Hansen. Did you want to say anything about the other
bill?
Mr. Skeen. I strongly support where you are going. And I
think this bill is a way to educate easterners to what's going
on in the west because we have given at the office. It is about
their time to ante up.
Mr. Hansen. I appreciate it.
Mr. Skeen. Other than that, I have very strong feelings
about it.
Mr. Hansen. I appreciate your comments.
Mr. Redmond, it is a pleasure to have you with us today. We
welcome you to the Subcommittee and turn the time to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL REDMOND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. Redmond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the
hearing today on H.R. 1051, a bill to amend the New Mexico
Statehood and Enabling Act of 1910 to protect permanent trust
funds of the State of New Mexico from erosion due to inflation
and to modify the basis on which distributions are made from
those funds. I appreciate you giving me this opportunity to
speak on behalf of the proposed amendment.
This bill was introduced in the House and Senate
simultaneously on March 12th of this year, and it is supported
by the entire New Mexico delegation. The Department of
Interior, under whose purview this legislation falls, also has
no objection to this amendment.
As you are aware, the Federal Government has traditionally
provided a series of benefits to new States as a part of the
admissions process. In the case of 30 States, those benefits
included land grants. New Mexico received slightly over 3
million acres for a variety of purposes when it became a State.
Among those specified uses of this land, as per the Enabling
Act of 1910, were the retirement of territorial debt and
maintenance of hospitals and schools.
Section 2 of the Enabling Act required New Mexico to agree
to all the limitations that accompanied the various grants and
prohibited any State constitutional amendment without the
consent of the U.S. Congress.
Among the limitations included in these provisions were
restrictions on investments and requirements to disburse the
income from the permanent funds. In 1957, the Enabling Act was
amended to delete a requirement that a separate fund be
established for each purpose for which grants were made, and
that all moneys must be invested in safe interest-bearing
securities. This change allowed the State of New Mexico to
invest in corporate stocks where they had been unable to
previously.
However, in 1957, change--the 1957 changes did not specify
how distributions would be handled from the returns. Since
dividends on stocks are generally lower than interest on bonds,
maintenance of the annual payments limited investment in
stocks. The ultimate effect was the diminishment of the real
value of the corpus of the permanent fund.
In 1995, a permanent funds study committee released a
report on the portfolio of the permanent fund and recommended a
series of amendments to the State Constitution to provide for
greater flexibility and broader diversification of the
investments in order to reserve the corpus of the fund against
inflation, and to maintain the income stream for the
beneficiaries.
The new distribution method was approved by 68 percent of
the voters in a State constitutional amendment in the 1996
general election. However, in order for these changes to take
effect, Congress must amend the Enabling Act and consent to the
amendments.
Mr. Chairman, once again, I thank you for holding these
hearings, and for your support on the changes. I look forward
to working with you in the future on this issue.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Redmond.
[The statement of Mr. Redmond follows:]
Statement of Hon. Bill Redmond, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Mexico
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing today on
H.R. 1051, a bill to amend the New Mexico Statehood and
Enabling Act of 1910 to protect permanent trust funds of the
State of New Mexico from erosion due to inflation and to modify
the basis on which distributions are made from those funds. I
appreciate you giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of
this proposed amendment.
This bill was introduced in the House and Senate
simultaneously on March 12 of this year and is supported by the
entire New Mexico delegation. The Department of Interior under
whose purview this legislation falls, also has no objection to
this amendment.
As you are aware, the Federal Government has traditionally
provided a series of benefits to new States as part of the
admissions process. In the case of 30 States, those benefits
included the grant of lands. New Mexico received slightly over
3 million acres for a variety of purposes when it became a
State. Among the specified uses of this land, as per the
Enabling Act of 1910, were the retirement of the territorial
debt, and the maintenance of hospitals and schools.
Section 2 of the Enabling Act required New Mexico to agree
to all the limitations that accompanied the various grants and
prohibited any State constitutional amendment without the
consent of the U.S. Congress.
Among the limitations included in these provisions were
restrictions on investments and requirements to disburse the
income from the permanent funds. In 1957, the Enabling Act was
amended to delete a requirement that a separate fund be
established for each purpose for which grants were made, and
that all moneys must be invested in ``safe interest-bearing
securities.'' This change allowed the State of New Mexico to
invest in corporate stocks where they had been unable to
previously.
However, the 1957 changes did not specify how distribution
would be handled from returns. Since dividends on stocks are
generally lower than interest on bonds, maintenance of annual
payments limited investment in stocks.The ultimate effect was
the diminishment of the real value of the corpus of the
permanent fund.
In 1995, a permanent funds study committee released a
report on the portfolio of the permanent fund and recommended a
series of amendments to the State constitution to provide for
greater flexibility and broader diversification of the
investments in order to preserve the corpus of the fund against
inflation, and to maintain the income stream for the
beneficiaries.
The new distribution method was approved by 68 percent of
the voters as a State constitutional amendment, in the 1996
general election. However, in order for these changes to take
effect Congress must amend the Enabling Act and consent to the
amendments.
Mr. Chairman, once again I thank you for holding these
hearings and for your support of these proposed changes. I look
forward to working with you in the future on this issue.
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Smith, do you have any questions of the
panel?
Mr. Robert Smith. I have some in-depth questions for both
Members of Congress, but I will submit those in writing, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega, any questions?
Mr. Skeen. Better leave while the leaving is good.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions, but
again, to thank Mr. Skeen and his associates from New Mexico
for his testimony.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m. the Subcommitee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3699.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3699.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3699.003