[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARINGS ON H.R. 701 AND H.R. 798
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 701, TO PROVIDE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF IMPACT ASSISTANCE TO STATE
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, TO AMEND THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
ACT OF 1965, THE URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY ACT OF 1978, AND
THE FEDERAL AID IN WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACT TO ESTABLISH A FUND TO MEET
THE OUTDOOR CONSERVATION AND RECREATION NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999''
H.R. 798, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PERMANENT PROTECTION OF THE RESOURCES OF
THE UNITED STATES IN THE YEAR 2000 AND BEYOND
----------
MARCH 9 AND 10, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC
----------
Serial No. 106-14
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
HEARINGS ON H.R. 701 AND H.R. 798
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 701, TO PROVIDE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF IMPACT ASSISTANCE TO STATE
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, TO AMEND THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
ACT OF 1965, THE URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY ACT OF 1978, AND
THE FEDERAL AID IN WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACT TO ESTABLISH A FUND TO MEET
THE OUTDOOR CONSERVATION AND RECREATION NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999''
H.R. 798, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PERMANENT PROTECTION OF THE RESOURCES OF
THE UNITED STATES IN THE YEAR 2000 AND BEYOND
__________
MARCH 9 AND 10, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 106-14
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
ELTON GALLEGLY, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California Samoa
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
KEN CALVERT, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ADAM SMITH, Washington
KEVIN BRADY, Texas WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN,
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado Virgin Islands
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada RON KIND, Wisconsin
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana JAY INSLEE, Washington
GREG WALDEN, Oregon GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania TOM UDALL, New Mexico
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina MARK UDALL, Colorado
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held March 9, 1999....................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho, prepared statment of....................... 106
Dingell, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 7
John, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Louisiana, prepared statement of.................. 5
Maloney, Hon. James, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Connecticut....................................... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 4
Press releases and background information on H.R. 798.... 108
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alaska.................................................. 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Caldwell, Jack, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.......................... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 248
Campana, Sam Kathryn, Mayor, Scottsdale, Arizona,
Representing U.S. Conference of Mayors, Washington, DC..... 53
Prepared statement of.................................... 97
Castro, Bernadette, Commissioner, New York State Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation, Albany, New York..... 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 78
Written answer to questions from the Committee........... 42
Chasis, Sarah, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense
Council, prepared statement of............................. 85
Coleman, Hurley, Jr., Director, Wayne County Division of
Parks, Westland, Michigan.................................. 60
Prepared statement of.................................... 100
Hansen, Paul, Executive Director, Izaak Walton League of
America, Gaithersburg, Maryland............................ 55
Prepared statement of.................................... 98
Additional material submitted by......................... 58
Norquist, Grover, President, Americans for Tax Reform,
Washington, DC............................................. 61
Prepared statement of.................................... 103
Norton, Edward, Vice President of Public Policy, National
Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, DC............ 63
Prepared statement of.................................... 104
Waller, David, Director, Georgia Wildlife Resources Division,
Social Circle, Georgia..................................... 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 81
Communications submitted:
National OCS Coalition, prepared statement of................ 89
Hearing held March 10, 1999...................................... 259
Statement of Members:
Christian-Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress
from the Territory of Virgin Islands, prepared statement of 283
Cubin, Hon. Barbara, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wyoming, prepared statement of.................... 338
Statement of Witnesses:
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, a United States Senator from the State
of California.............................................. 260
Prepared statement of.................................... 262
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., Governor, State of Delaware.......... 313
Prepared statement of.................................... 410
Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia........................................... 266
Prepared statement of.................................... 269
Chasis, Sarah, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense
Council, New York, New York................................ 275
Prepared statement of.................................... 325
Cobb, Hon. David, Mayor, City of Valdez, Alaska.............. 284
Prepared statement of.................................... 379
Cove, Thomas, Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association,
Washington, DC............................................. 290
Prepared statement of.................................... 330
Front, Alan, Senior Vice President, The Trust for Public
Land, San Francisco, California............................ 288
Prepared statement of.................................... 328
Gonzales, Hon. Javier M., Commissioner, Santa Fe County,
representing the National Association of Counties,
Washington, DC............................................. 272
Prepared statement of.................................... 319
Grossi, Ralph, President, American Farmland Trust,
Washington, DC............................................. 305
Prepared statement of.................................... 335
Marlenee, Hon. Ron, Safari Club International, Bozeman,
Montana.................................................... 274
Prepared statement of.................................... 323
McGovern, Hon. James, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts..................................... 263
Prepared statement of.................................... 265
Paap, Kevin, Vice President, Minnesota Farm Bureau,
representing the American Farm Bureau Federation,
Washington, DC............................................. 301
Prepared statement of.................................... 334
Parravano, Pietro, President, Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations, San Francisco, California........ 307
Prepared statement of.................................... 420
Shaffer, Mark L., Vice President, Defenders of Wildlife,
Washington, DC............................................. 303
Prepared statement of.................................... 402
Van Putten, Mark, President/CEO, National Wildlife
Federation, Vienna, Virginia............................... 286
Prepared statement of.................................... 391
Wallop, Senator Malcolm, (ret.), Chairman, Frontiers of
Freedom, prepared statement of............................. 338
Additional material supplied:
Private Property Congressional Vote Index submitted by Safari
Club International......................................... 350
Summary of H.R. 701 and H.R. 798, submitted by Mr. Young..... 346
Text of H.R. 701, submitted by Mr. Young..................... 200
Text of H.R. 798, submitted by Mr. Young..................... 124
Communications submitted:
Report to the OCS Policy Committee from the Coastal Impact
Assistance Working Group, Coastal Impact Assistance,....... 23
Davis, Mark, Executive Director, Coalition to Restore Coastal
Louisiana, prepared statement of........................... 341
Hove, Hank, Mayor, Fairbanks North Star Borough, letter to
Mr. Young, submitted by.................................... 390
Letter from miscellaneous coastal and ocean protection groups
and fishing industry....................................... 390
Letter to environmental groups by Congressmen Young, Dingell,
Tauzin, and John........................................... 376
Moore, Rod, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors
Association, letter to Mr. Young, submitted by............. 409
Paxton, Gary L., Administrator, City and Borough of Sitka,
letter submitted by........................................ 389
H.R. 701, TO PROVIDE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF IMPACT ASSISTANCE TO STATE
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, TO AMEND THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
ACT OF 1965, THE URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY ACT OF 1978, AND
THE FEDERAL AID IN WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACT TO ESTABLISH A FUND TO MEET
THE OUTDOOR CONSERVATION AND RECREATION NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999''
H.R. 798, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PERMANENT PROTECTION OF THE RESOURCES OF
THE UNITED STATES IN THE YEAR 2000 AND BEYOND
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:03 a.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Don Young
[chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Mr. Young. The Committee will come to order.
I have an opening statement. I am sure Mr. Miller and Mr.
John will have opening statements and then, hopefully, we will
get to our witnesses. We have, actually, three panels today.
Unfortunately, some of the people to testify today, because of
this outstanding large snowfall we have, won't be able to be
here. God, I wish they lived in Alaska, they really would
experience something. But those that cannot be here, we will
give them an opportunity a little later on.
The hearing today will be on H.R. 701 and H.R. 798, my bill
and, of course, Mr. Miller's bill. I want to thank you for
coming today for the hearings on the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act and the Permanent Protection of American
Resources known as Resources 2000. I am going to use most of my
time to discuss my bill, CARA, with the anticipation Mr. Miller
plans to do the same with his legislation.
STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF ALASKA
Mr. Young. Last summer, Billy Tauzin, John Dingell, Richard
Baker, Chris John--who is with us--Saxby Chambliss, and I
circulated a discussion draft of the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act. After receiving many comments and making
appropriate changes, we introduced the bipartisan CARA bill in
the 105th Congress as H.R. 4717. We continued to work with that
draft as the baseline for a reintroduction in this Congress.
On February 10, 1999, we reintroduced CARA with the 106th
Congress as H.R. 701. You may ask, why H.R. 701? Mr. Shuster,
who is the chairman of another committee, had a bill named H.R.
700 after a flight. It was delayed so, being discretion is the
better part of valor, it was a Northwest flight, so I gave him
the H.R. 700 number. We are joined by more than 30 original
cosponsors and they have now grown to nearly 60 cosponsors.
What is particularly rewarding is that this bill is bipartisan.
Our nearly 60 sponsors are evenly distributed between
Republicans and Democrats and this is a sign of the
bipartisanship in this legislation and the intent of this
legislation.
Not only do the supporters range in ideology, but we are
widely dispersed in geography. CARA has congressional
supporters from Alaska to Rhode Island, and from California to
Florida. Cosponsors range from urban members like Congressman
Charlie Rangel of Manhattan and Congressman Towns of Brooklyn
to members from very rural districts, like Congressman Collin
Peterson of northern Minnesota and Congressman Watkins of
southeastern Oklahoma.
What brings us together? I believe the answer is twofold.
First, this bill proposes to take revenue from Federal offshore
oil and gas production and reinvest in our coastal communities
while also funding valuable conservation programs in all 50
States and territories. This revenue comes from our Nation's
nonrenewable resources and should be responsibly reinvested
into renewable resources which benefit all Americans. Onshore
host States share in revenue derived from Federal production
within their States. However, there is no direct revenue
sharing for offshore Federal production. This bill corrects
this inequity, while providing for conservation programs in all
States and territories.
Second, we provide for conservation and recreation
opportunities in all 50 States and territories. Whether you are
an urban or rural resident, this bill will benefit you. CARA
provides for inner-city students to play basketball after
school or a park to study in. CARA also allows rural sportsmen
the opportunity to commune with wildlife in their natural
settings. No matter where you live, the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act will provide you with recreational
opportunities. Too often these needs go unmet because of a lack
of funding. Our bill works to correct that problem by utilizing
funding which ought to be reinvested for these purposes.
I have mentioned before that this bill is a work-in-
progress. And I want to stress that. The gentleman from
California, Mr. Miller, and I discussed this. We will be
discussing his bill as well as my bill. This is a two-day
hearing, certainly an aggressive endeavor which will look at
both bills comprehensively. It is only the first hearing. We do
not have a mark-up scheduled and do not anticipate holding one
until late spring. In the meantime, I hope to continue to work
with all interested members and groups while continuing our
centrist approach to pass this important initiative.
I would like to take a moment to clarify two areas of the
legislation which seem to be the focus of much attention. These
areas are incentives for additional oil and gas development and
private property concerns. While we have made changes to
address each of these concerns, groups on each side continue to
withhold their support. That is fine, as we do not need a quid
pro quo from these groups to validate our efforts. However, we
hope that they will work with us in a manner to help provide
funding for national conservation programs and our coastal
communities.
The allegation that this bill contains incentives for new
oil and gas production is simply false. Throughout our lengthy
process, we have asked for comments, specifically to address
the perception that this bill contains drilling incentives.
When we began this process, the environmental community asked
that we include all Federal offshore revenue, even though the
MMS Policy Committee report, which we based Title I upon,
included revenues only from new production. The advantage of
including only new revenue was to lessen many of the budgetary
implications. However, our friends in the environmental
community thought this would prescribe an incentive for coastal
States and communities to increase OCS development. To remove
this perception, our bill always included all OCS revenues, no
new incentives.
On a parallel note, there has also been a fear that the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act will unravel moratoria in
some areas of the Federal OCS. For me, this bill is a revenue
reinvestment measure, not legislation to provide incentives or
disturb current moratoria. So, again, at the request of the
environmental community, we happily included language which
would preclude areas in current moratoria from both revenue
sharing and as a factor in the distribution formula.
Also, many thought that our eligible uses for funding
coastal impact assistance was too broad. To address that
concern, we have limited the eligible uses, within Title I, to
five specifically contained within the bill.
The other area of controversy associated with this bill has
been with the property rights groups. To be the focus of such
criticism from individuals I have worked with for decades has
been troubling me personally and somewhat confusing. Let me
explain exactly what CARA does regarding property rights. CARA
provides annual and dedicated funding for payment in lieu of
taxes, PILT, and Refuge Revenue Sharing. CARA provides funding
for conservation in all 50 States and 5 territories. CARA also
allows for Federal acquisition within boundaries of areas
established by an Act of Congress. CARA only allows for Federal
acquisition with willing sellers. Condemnation authority is
removed for the purposes within this bill. CARA does not
provide a $1.5 billion for land acquisition. Our bill provides
near the historical average of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund appropriation, $300 million. Frankly, other proposals do
not have these protections. And we continue to ask for
constructive comments from members and groups interested in
private property rights.
Again, this hearing is only the beginning of these bills'
legislative lives. We continue to solicit comments from all
interested individuals and groups. A very real issue with this
legislation is the budgetary implications. Regardless of our
ideology, that fight needs to be our unifying force. Should we
make this lasting investment in our coastal communities and for
national conservation? I personally think we should make that
investment.
We currently face a unique budgetary climate here in
Congress and we are looking reinvest funds which should have
been going to the purposes within the CARA for decades.
Recreation and livability are going to be buzzwords of the
future. CARA is our opportunity for action. I hope this hearing
provides a catalyst to continue this progress to pass
conservation legislation and create a lasting heritage for
American conservation.
And I yield to the gentleman from California.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Miller. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding
and, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing. In
fact, for holding both days of this hearing, to give a very
diverse group of witnesses an opportunity to be heard on these
two bills. I believe that today's hearing is an historic step
toward reasserting a legacy of resource protection and
improvement that has been largely ignored on a bipartisan basis
for too many years. Restoring that commitment to use the
exhaustible resources of this country to provide permanent
protection to public lands, marine and coastal resources,
wildlife, historic preservation, and urban recreation is a gift
this Committee and this Congress can truly provide to the
Nation on the eve of the new century.
It is with that goal that I introduce H.R. 798, the
Resources 2000 bill. Last month, together with 50 cosponsors
and the support of several dozen major organizations, we
introduced that legislation. You and Congressman Tauzin and
Congressman John and others share a similar objective with your
legislation. There are different approaches in our bills, but
the major purpose is quite similar. While these hearings,
naturally, will help clarify the differences between our two
bills, I hope the hearings serve a more important purpose, to
build a national constituency for the passage of a negotiated
package that achieves our common and urgent goals.
Let us not allow this debate to descend into sniping on one
another's bills or motives. We can either have a partisan
debate for a few months or permanent protection of these public
lands and wildlife resources forever. If we succeed, there will
be plenty of credit to go around.
I would note that perhaps, contrary to popular thought, we
have proven that this Committee can enact major legislation
when working in a bipartisan and reasonable fashion, as we did
in the last Congress with the refuges and the parks bills. The
great national parks and the public lands system is, for many
Americans, the greatest achievement of the Federal Government,
was born at the beginning of the current century under
Republican President Theodore Roosevelt. The environmental
movement was born in mid-century by both Democratic and
Republican administrations and Congresses that passed
legislation ranging from the Endangered Species Act to the
Coastal Zone Management Act to the National Environmental
Policy Act.
Now, at the end of this century, Congress has an
opportunity to address other urgent needs. All across America,
we see parks closing, recreational facilities deteriorating,
open space disappearing, historic structures crumbling, and
fisheries vanishing. These losses have a tangible impact on
every American. We need to invest in the future of America's
public resources.
We have taken the first step with the introduction of these
two bills. The President has proposed his own public lands
initiative. We take another important step with these hearings.
We can and we must continue to move forward together if we are
to succeed in enacting this sweeping but overdue commitment
during the 106th Congress. I have pledged my full cooperation
to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the cosponsors of your legislation
and to the many organizations that have taken the time, the
trouble, and the expenditure of resources to be with us today
and tomorrow.
I must say that many people never believed that this kind
of hearing would come to pass in this Committee with you and I
sitting alongside of one another, talking about a common goal
and a common interest. I would tell them not to fret. We still
bring very diverse views and ideologies about this subject
matter.
[Laughter.]
And you bring the gavel, of course, Mr. Chairman, which we
all recognize.
[Laughter.]
But in some ways, maybe, the fact that this hearing is
taking place in the manner in which it is is a welcome sign in
terms of the opportunities for the passage of comprehensive and
historic legislation to deal with the most urgent problem in
every region of this country. And, again, Mr. Chairman, I thank
you very, very much for calling these hearings.
Mr. Young. Are there any other opening statements? If not,
I would like to have my first panel take Chair. I see my good
friend John Dingell, the chairman. I still call him my
chairman. We did more legislation in this arena than many times
in the past and we hoped to do in the future. Mr. John Dingell.
And Saxby Chambliss unfortunately is stuck in the snow
somewhere. And is James Maloney here? Is Jim here? Mr. John?
Mr. John. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind. If you
would yield. I have a statement that I would like to enter into
the record as to my support of this hearing and about the two
bills.
Mr. Young. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. John follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS JOHN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF LOUISIANA
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for demonstrating your
commitment to move forward with legislation aimed at
conserving, enhancing and restoring America's precious natural
resources by holding two days of hearings on H.R. 701, ``The
Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999,'' and H.R. 798, the
``Resources 2000 Act.'' In particular, I want to commend your
decision to make these hearings bipartisan by including
witnesses requested by our Ranking Member, Mr. Miller, for I
believe that Democrats and Republicans alike share the core
objective of both bills: reinvesting revenues from non-
renewable resources into assets of lasting value to our nation.
As one of the principle sponsors of H.R. 701, I am eager to
hear testimony from the many witnesses who have taken time out
of their schedules to appear before the House Resources
Committee. I believe the diversity of the participants and the
contrasting viewpoints they represent will provide this
Committee with valuable insight into the needs, concerns and
objectives that must be met to ensure that the 106th Congress
passes legislation guaranteeing future generations of Americans
the opportunity to enjoy the commercial, social, recreational
and aesthetic benefits of our lands, waters and wildlife in the
21st century.
For the past year, Mr. Chairman, you and I have worked with
Congressman Billy Tauzin and Congressman John Dingell to craft
a bipartisan bill that will create a lasting legacy of
stewardship and conservation of our natural resources. I am
proud of the effort that has brought us to this point in the
process since few people a year ago put this issue on the top
of their agenda for 1999. Remarkably, today we find legislative
proposals with bipartisan support in the House and Senate, and
the ``Lands Legacy Initiative'' from the Administration. I hope
we can build upon this momentum today and tomorrow with these
hearings, so that outstanding areas of disagreement can be
resolved and consensus reached on a proposal that we can
expeditiously move towards mark-up in the coming months.
My primary interest and involvement in H.R. 701 stems from
a great need within my home state of Louisiana to reverse the
alarming rate of coastal erosion and wetlands loss that now
jeopardizes communities, our economy, wildlife and fisheries
habitat, and a unique way of life that is supported by south
Louisiana's coastal ecosystem. Having witnessed first-hand the
catastrophic loss of barrier islands and the degradation of
fresh water marshes due to saltwater intrusion, I know the
needs within my District alone are great.
However, while the impacts of Louisiana's disappearing
coast are being felt the hardest by the residents of
Louisiana's coastal zone, the value of coastal Louisiana is not
limited to my constituents. Over 25 percent of the nation's
coastal wetlands and 40 percent of all salt marshes in the
lower 48 states are in Louisiana. Moreover, Louisiana's
commercial fisheries provide 25-35 percent of the seafood catch
in the lower 48 states. Louisiana's ecosystem is a national
treasure that provides economic, environmental and recreational
benefits to our entire nation, but it requires immediate and
substantial Federal assistance if future generations of
Americans are going to enjoy these benefits.
Louisiana is not alone in its coastal needs. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently
estimated that, nationwide during the next 20 years, coastal
counties' cumulative populations will soar from 80 million to
127 million. I strongly support establishing a coastal impact
assistance fund that provides resources to all coastal states
and territories so that current strains on our coastline such
as offshore oil and gas development and future strains caused
by population demographics are accounted for in our Federal
budget priorities. History has often shown that the cost of
inaction is far greater than the cost of action.
From this perspective, I joined with my fellow sponsors of
H.R. 701 to create a legislative proposal that would provide a
comprehensive game plan for meeting our conservation objectives
into the next century. ``The Conservation and Reinvestment Act
of 1999'' (CARA '99) will ensure that all 50 states and
territories--be they coastal, inland, upland, island or
arctic--have permanent access to Federal resources for meeting
their long-term environmental goals. I truly believe that this
Congress will have fallen short of its responsibility if we do
not pass legislation that encompasses the objectives set-forth
in the three titles of H.R. 701: (1) coastal protection,
restoration and impact assistance; (2) Federal and state parks
and recreation funding; and (3) wildlife conservation and
education.
If there is one misconception that I hope will be cleared
up over the next two days, it is that using revenues derived
from Federal OCS production constitutes an incentive for new
oil and gas drilling. The sponsors of H.R. 701 and H.R. 798
have gone to great lengths to assure people that these bills
are about revenue sharing, not oil and gas incentives. The
Federal Government has used the proceeds from oil and gas
royalties to fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
for over 30 years and I have yet to meet an oil executive or
Federal Government official who suggested that the LWCF had any
bearing on their decision to authorize or drill new leases. The
fact is, revenues from Federal OCS leases will continue to come
into the Federal Treasury with or without H.R. 701 and H.R.
798--the only difference is that without congressional
legislation, these funds will not be dedicated to meet our
nation's conservation needs.
I realize that H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 take somewhat
different approaches in identifying and prioritizing
conservation initiatives, but I am convinced that our Chairman
and Ranking Member can use the Committee process to forge
consensus. Both bills deserve the scrutiny, commentary and
constructive criticism that will arise from these hearings and
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today and
tomorrow. In particular, I want to acknowledge and thank two of
the witnesses who have agreed to appear before us.
First, I want to welcome the Louisiana Secretary of Natural
Resources, Mr. Jack C. Caldwell. Secretary Caldwell has been a
champion of coastal impact assistance for Louisiana and all
coastal states and I know that he can share with the Committee
a wealth of knowledge about this issue. In addition, as a
member of the Outer Continental Shelf Policy Committee which
provides advice to the Secretary of the Interior through the
Minerals Management Service, I particularly look forward to his
discussion of the report prepared by the Coastal Impact
Assistance Working Group on October 29, 1997 which forms the
basis of Title I of H.R. 701. I have been asked many times by
Members of Congress about the allocation levels and
distribution formula for H.R. 701 and I believe Secretary
Caldwell's testimony will provide Committee members with
critical insight into these matters.
I would also like to acknowledge Mr. Mark S. Davis, the
Executive Director of the Coalition to Restore Coastal
Louisiana. Mr. Davis will be testifying tomorrow about the
magnitude of coastal loss in Louisiana and will share with the
Committee his expertise on coastal restoration efforts and the
significance of Federal intervention to combat the challenges
facing coastal states. I have known Mr. Davis since my days as
a State Representative in the Louisiana Legislature and I
greatly appreciate him making the journey to Washington to
testify before the House Resources Committee.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for
calling these important hearings. It is my intention to work
with you and Ranking Member Miller to move legislation through
this Committee so that the full House of Representatives can
consider a bill by the August recess. An investment in
America's natural resources today will yield unquantifiable
benefits in the future and I believe today's hearings are right
beginning for attaining this worthwhile goal.
Mr. Young. And that goes for any member that would like to
submit a written statement.
Mr. Miller. Yes. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I have some
letters of support that I would like to put into the record.
Mr. Young. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Young. Mr. Dingell, you are the first one up. I am
sorry. The other members apparently got hung up in these
snowstorms and I am glad to see you made it here. So you have
got the floor for as long as you want it.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I learned a long time
ago, when I was a young lawyer, I should curtail my talking
when I am in a friendly forum and I don't intend to breach that
very desirable rule.
First, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and I want to
thank Mr. Miller and Mr. John and the others who have worked so
hard on this. And I want to remind all and sundry that you and
I have a long friendship which goes back through the enactment
of an awful lot of legislation, which you now guard in this
Committee and which, very frankly, Mr. Chairman, makes me feel
good. And I want to tell you how grateful I am for a chance to
work with you again on this and also with my good friend
Congressman Miller and Mr. John and the others who were
interested in this legislation.
This is a piece of legislation which is a part of a process
in which, if we all do our jobs right, is going to result in
some landmark legislation which will protect the natural
heritage of this country. The Committee has invited many
witnesses to speak on a number of issues and needs which arise
from H.R. 701, your bill and mine, and H.R. 798, the Miller
bill. And I will, therefore, keep my remarks brief and address
as much as I can the issues that I find in these two pieces of
legislation.
Thirty-five years ago, as you recall, Mr. Chairman, in good
part with your leadership, the Congress created a land and
water conservation fund. That has created an astonishing record
of accomplishment. Better than $10 billion has been spent to
help conserve 7 million acres of land in 40,000 projects. The
country has reason to be grateful to you and to us for what we
did on that. We preserved many areas within our Federal land
systems and provided crucial funding to States to ensure that
State acquisitions continued to meet our resource conservation
needs.
More than 60 years ago, the Congress started the Pittman
Robertson program, which contributed mightily to the States
wildlife conservation programs. It was under this model that my
old dad worked to establish the Dingell-Johnson program nearly
50 years ago, later to be amended for additional conservation
purposes by two good friends of yours and mine, Senators Wallop
and Breaux, both of whom, incidentally, are playing a
significant role in the development of this legislation. H.R.
701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, is based on the
legacy of accomplishment the Federal Government has achieved in
finding workable partnerships with the States and with local
governments to solve tough problems related to wildlife
diversity, sustainable growth, environmental protect, and, very
frankly, the enjoyment of our natural resources by the people
of this country.
During the past few years, there have been a number of
worthy efforts by a coalition of organizations which call
themselves Teaming with Wildlife. These outstanding people are
dedicated to the idea that Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-
Johnson programs need to be expanded so that the fish and
wildlife species not currently receiving biological attention
may begin to receive it. It was their push for a dedicated
funding source that intrigued me and I believe you also, Mr.
Chairman, to try and find a funding mechanism by which this
could pass the Congress. By dedicating 10 percent of all the
Outer Continental Shelf revenues to meet unmet wildlife needs,
State fish and wildlife agencies would begin to be able to
count on about $300 million a year to protect more species and
more habitat not currently receiving the protection that they
need under the traditional approach of managing and protecting
game resources.
For land and water needs, the Land and Water Conservation
Fund has been enormously successful. During the life of the
program, close to $13 billion in authorized funds have remained
unappropriated. This is a serious problem and it has
significantly impaired the success of that program. So by
dedicating 23 percent of all Outer Continental Shelf revenues
for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, State and Federal
side, Congress can take the lead in closing that gap and
ensuring that we really move forward in this area.
Mr. Chairman, I note that H.R. 701 is a fine piece of
legislation and that any member of this body should be proud to
support it. There are other good ideas, however, that have been
brought to the table, by our friend and colleague Mr. Miller
and by the President and by the Vice President in the
administration. There has been and will be much debate
concerning the use of Outer Continental Shelf funds for impact
aid to coastal States. The Committee is going to hear testimony
today and tomorrow and at other times which will make a strong
case for renewed Federal commitment to coastal areas. Likewise,
Mr. Miller has offered competing ideas for assured funding for
coastal and marine resource conservation; farm, ranch, and open
space protection; Federal and Indian land restoration; and,
quite frankly, for historical preservation.
I likewise wish to offer a word of praise to the
administration, both for what it has done and what it hasn't
done during the legislative process. First, the President and
the Vice President came forward with a series of credible
proposals. Second, and most important, the President has
dedicated himself to working with the Congress to achieve
permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Just as important, however, to this legislative process is the
fact that the administration has not laid out a series of
demands. Perhaps they are on the way, but for now it has given
the Congress a set of principles to give us room to craft good
legislation.
Why is this legislation important? First of all, Mr.
Chairman, I don't have to tell you. I think everybody is going
to get plenty of answers today, including testimony from my
good friend, the director of parks for Wayne County Michigan,
Mr. Hurley Coleman. A few weeks ago in my office, I spent about
an hour with Hurley as well as with Barry Tindall from the
National Recreation and Park Association and from others who
understand the tremendous benefits to our urban, suburban,
exurban and rural residents that they would receive under this
legislation. We concluded that, in order to make this happen,
two things are necessary: a lot of cooperation in the Congress,
a high volume of grassroots support from as many organizations
as possible throughout the Nation. Working together, I know we
can make this happen.
And I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, and the Ranking
Member, Mr. Miller, for bringing us to this point. This is a
fine example of the kind of cooperation that the Congress can
show. And, Mr. Chairman, and, Mr. Miller, I want you to know
that your leadership in this matter is going to make it
possible for us to work together, to come together on a bill
which will be in the broad, general, and overall public
interest of this country. It is not hard to do it and I am
satisfied that you are the two who can bring this about. I look
forward to working with you and being helpful in whatever way I
can.
And I just want to say as a personal matter, I am so
pleased to work again with my old friend Mr. Young who used to
work with me a long time ago in the Subcommittee on Fisheries
and Wildlife Conservation over in Merchant Marine Fisheries in
the old days when we used to write good legislation. As a
matter of fact, right in this very room, as you will remember,
Mr. Chairman, and the consequences were always good from the
standpoint of the public. And a lot of that stands as a
monument to what you and I and a lot of other good people did.
I am satisfied we have the same opportunity here and I am
satisfied we have the people on this Committee who will do it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Young. Thank you, John, and thanks for those kind words
that we go back a long ways and we have accomplished a great
deal. I hope we can accomplish more. Mr. Maloney, you are now
at the table so if you would like to make your presentation,
then we will have questions from any of the people who would
like to ask questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES MALONEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Mr. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Young and
Ranking Member Miller, members of the Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify before you this morning. I have
written testimony for the record, which I would like to submit.
And, Mr. Chairman, if I might, I would like to summarize.
Mr. Young. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Maloney. Very good. Thank you.
I represent a 27-town district in Connecticut, a
combination of mid-sized cities and many suburban communities.
It is, in fact, the battlefront on the open space war. Every
single town that I represent currently is engaged in an open
space issue of major concern. Part of that is because
Connecticut ranks dead last in Federal open space. The State of
Connecticut has one national park, consisting of 53 acres and
has a total of 12,000 of federally owned land. That includes
everything, including the Federal prison. All of that Federal
land totals less than one-quarter of 1 percent of all of the
land in the State of Connecticut.
The open space issue is one that is of great concern. For
years and years, all of the cities and towns along the
coastline outside of the New York area were known as the Gold
Coast. People lived there, prospered well, commuted to the
city. The Gold Coast has now become the congested coast and it
is having a very adverse affect, both on people's quality of
life and on the environment. A little further to the north,
which is my district, we see a huge boom in house construction.
We are happy with that. We are delighted that the economy is
doing well. But the people who live in those towns now and the
new people who will be living there want to make sure that they
maintain a quality of life. Central to that is the preservation
of open space.
Congressman Miller has submitted H.R. 798, which I think is
an excellent piece of legislation and I know that there are
other proposals that are on the table for consideration. The
common goal is to address this issue.
In Connecticut and, perhaps, in other communities, we face
another pressure which is the deregulation of many of the
utility services means that utility companies are putting on
the market large tracts of open space. In my home town, the
city of Danbury has the largest lake in the State of
Connecticut. And in Connecticut everything is to scale, so it
is 14 miles by 1 mile, but it is the largest lake in the State
of Connecticut. And all of that lake, that entire lake, is
going to be sold as part of electrical deregulation. Well, if
it is going to be sold, fine, but we need to make sure that
that largest lake is preserved and that we continue to enjoy
the environmental benefits that that lake has given to us.
So let me just conclude by saying that this open space
legislation is critically important to my communities. It is
critically important to the State in which I reside and to, I
know, many, many States all around the country. The central
thought I would leave you with is last year we preserved the
Highway Trust Fund. We did the right thing in my opinion by
preserving the Highway Trust Fund. We made the Highway Trust
Fund do what it was supposed to do. This year we are working in
a similar direction on social security. We are trying to make
sure that social security is preserved for its purpose. The
Land and Water Conservation Fund deserves equal treatment.
For 25 years, there has been a commitment of the Federal
Government that the resources that go into the Land and Water
Conservation Fund get used for Land and Water Conservation
purposes. That has not been happening. Ladies and gentlemen, we
have a great opportunity in this session of the Congress to
make sure that that happens. I encourage you in doing so. I
pledge you my support any way I can be of help to do that. And
I commend the Committee's attention to this very, very
important issue.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Maloney follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES H. MALONEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Thank you Chairman Young, Ranking Member Miller and
Committee members for allowing me to offer testimony on the
issue of open space.
The two bills we have come to discuss today, H.R. 798 and
H.R. 701 are important steps towards preserving our environment
for future generations. Both bills take the important step of
restoring the Land and Water Conservation fund. I commend both
Congressman Young and Congressman Miller for taking this step.
Resources 2000 (H.R. 798), the bill proposed by Congressman
Miller, includes provisions for preserving our nation's open
spaces. These provisions are essential to protecting the nature
and heritage of our country, and ensuring a healthy environment
to host future economic growth.
My state of Connecticut is a perfect example of the need
for funding directed at open space preservation.
Connecticut ranks LAST in federally owned open spaces. We
have only 1 national park, Weir Farm, which covers a mere 53
acres, about one thousandth of a percent of Connecticut's total
3 million acres. In total, Federal land holdings in Connecticut
total around 12,000 acres, one quarter of one percent of our
state's total acreage.
Opportunities abound for Open space preservation. In my
district alone there are six possible projects that would
utilize the open space funds suggested in Congressman Miller's
Resources 2000 bill.
Candlewood Lake: The future of this resource is brought
into question by the divestiture by Connecticut Power and
Light. The possibility exists that the lake will be sold. Open
space funding could be used to purchase the lake and
surrounding land or acquire appropriate conservation easements
and ensure its accessibility and use for future generations.
Ansonia/Birmingham Utilities Property: Some of the last 80
acres of open space in Ansonia will, like Candlewood lake, be
for sale as a result of utility company divestiture.
Trout Brook/Bridgeport Hydraulic property: This resource
was rescued from becoming a housing development and purchased
by the state of Connecticut, Nature Conservancy, and other
groups interested in protecting the environment. However, they
still need around $3 million to complete the project, a perfect
example of an under-funded, local effort to preserve open
spaces.
Naugatuck River: As the State updates 7 sewage treatment
plants along the Naugatuck, the once polluted river becomes a
valuable natural resource, and a prime piece of real estate.
River authorities are working with localities to purchase land
along the Naugatuck, creating a new greenway. Time is of the
essence as the land grows more valuable once the river is
clean. Open space money could be used in this situation to help
localities along the Naugatuck coordinate and fund parks and
recreational areas alongside the river.
Meriden Flood Control: The Army Corps of Engineers project
to create flood relief for the residents of Meriden also
presents an opportunity to preserve urban open space. Part of
the draft plan includes ``daylighting'' the Harbor brook, an
environmentally preferable arrangement to the current
underground path the brook now takes. ``Daylighting'' the brook
will also create a scenic urban park in Meriden, a win-win
situation.
Ridgefield/Bennett's Farm: Over 600 acres including
wetlands could become open space using Federal funding. Right
now the price of this property is set at around $13 million, as
the owners are currently planning a housing community and
conference center. Only a few years back the same property was
purchased for around $8 million, an example of the time
sensitive nature of our dwindling supply of open space.
Each of these examples in my district highlights the many
aspects of Open Space needs in this country. There are so many
communities taking the initiative to preserve their open space,
but they lack the resources to take such progressive actions.
In conclusion, I think it is evident from the examples in
my district that Americans across the nation desire and need
funding for open spaces in their communities. This issue
requires Federal participation so that our country as a whole
has environmental resources to offer future generations.
As the Committee prepares to act on these bills, I hope you
will take into consideration the vast number of needs for open
spaces in our country. Thank you for your consideration of this
matter.
Mr. Young. Thank you for your testimony. John, I just have
one question for you. This is the beginning and I am going to
ask you--and I hope, because you are the sponsor of H.R. 701
that, as we go through this process, you not only just testify
today, that we continue to have your oar in the water. Because
without it, it is going to be very difficult to achieve the
goal which I am seeking to do. So that is the only thing, are
you willing to go to bat and to work on legislation? I am not
locking you in, necessarily, to a fixed bill, but the goal here
is, I think, what all of are seeking is going to take a lot of
heavy lifting. Because, otherwise this is not going anywhere.
We had a hearing in a meeting the other day with one of the
appropriators. And you would think I had him by the I don't
know what, but he was sure squealing.
[Laughter.]
And, you know, because he is losing part of his authority
to appropriate money. But they haven't done what they should
have done to begin with, so it is going to take a lot of heavy
lifting. I just want to make sure you are on board with me on
this one.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I know that you and this
Committee have the ability to do that. I am, as you know very
well, sponsor of that legislation, very proud of it. I think we
have done an outstanding job in terms of meeting the concerns
of everybody and I think, as far I am concerned, we could pass
that bill just as it is and wouldn't complain. But the
legislative process is going to require a certain amount of
give-and-take.
I have got to say, in your leadership in this matter, Mr.
Chairman, you have demonstrated some extraordinary
bipartisanship and it is a great example. I know you and I are
not known as bipartisans, but when we get right down to it,
sometimes we have done some extraordinary work in that area and
I want to say Mr. Miller has come a good way in working with
us. And we did a few things like this last year and in the
previous Congress, as you will remember, and they were good for
the country and they were good for the people and I think all
three of us are proud of what we did there. So I see no reason
that the process, with you two working on it, is not going to
move forward. And I certainly look forward in my small way,
outside this Committee, trying to be as helpful as I can in
what it is you are doing.
Mr. Young. Thank you, John. The gentleman from California.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. And I have no question. Again, I
want to echo what you said, Mr. Chairman and Chairman Dingell,
to thank you for your pledge of involvement.
Chairman Young and I met some weeks ago, quite a while ago,
and talked about this and I think we fully appreciate that this
is going to be about legislating, which means an awful lot of
people are going to have to be involved and Congressman Maloney
has been involved in this before the bill was written. And we
need that kind of involvement. It is very clear that there is
very diverse views on this. The devil is in the detail, because
people do have different approaches and different views about
what should and should not be done. But that is the art of
legislation is to try to sort those things out and I think the
track record of the parties involved here is pretty good, but,
clearly, your sustained interest and involvement is important
to this. And I thank both of you for your testimony.
Mr. Young. Any other questions from any of the members? Any
comments? Helen.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do want to
say for the record that I believe that this chairman has gone
all out for his sportsmen. He has really worked very, very hard
for them and it is obvious in this bill. But I do have to say
that rarely would I oppose anything my chairman would do. But
this bill is one that I have to oppose because I believe that
we are moving away from the legacy of Ronald Reagan and all of
those who have gone before us in the fight for private property
and the fight for the rights of States and local units of
government to sovereignly manage their own units and to carry
out the people's trust, who elected them.
I do want to say that, in looking over the witness list, I
am disappointed that it is not more balanced. And while we are
holding two days of hearings, I would like to officially ask
for another day of hearings to be held to at least include
those witnesses who were able to be heard in 1988 when this
bill came up and was soundly defeated. I do want to say that I
think everyone should be heard and I understand that there is
going to be a hearing in Louisiana on this. I would also like
to ask if we could have a hearing in the West on this
particular bill, maybe in California or in Idaho.
As I look this bill over, I find that the PILT money, while
PILT provisions are in the bill, nevertheless there is already
PILT authority and we are only funding PILT at 50 percent. This
bill does nothing to mandate the appropriators to fund PILT,
nor could it do that. And the condemnation authority certainly
is in the bill, condemnation of private property. The only
thing that isn't in the bill is, under this bill, monies
generated would not go to pay for private property that has
been condemned; it would only go to pay for private property
that has been transferred by a willing buyer or a willing
seller.
And I have to ask the chairman that, if a private landowner
is faced with the choice of suffering with regulations enacted
by the Federal agencies under congressionally approved statutes
like this one, does this really constitute a willing seller? I
don't think so, Mr. Chairman. And I think that this bill that
was soundly defeated and you worked to help defeat it in 1988
is one that we should take a long and careful look at.
In the name of the sportsmen, I think there are many ways
that we can help the sportsmen. One would be weighing in on
legislation to correct the decision out of New Jersey that
enforces or implements product liability on gun manufacturers,
because that ultimately will affect our hunters.
But I would like to ask Mr. Dingell, who I have great
respect for, you know, Michigan will receive about $45,477,000
in one year from this, but I have to ask you, sir, how much oil
and gas leasing really takes place in the Great Lakes?
Mr. Dingell. We won't allow any gas leasing in the Great
Lakes because of the unique and precious character of them, but
there will be very large gas leasing and oil leasing in
Michigan. Michigan is a rather large producer of both natural
gas and oil.
Mrs. Chenoweth. But right now there is virtually none,
right?
Mr. Dingell. We don't do it out in the lakes, themselves.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Or is there any offshore drilling or oil or
gas production off of----
Mr. Dingell. Not in the lakes. Remember the lakes, although
there are the largest reservoir of fresh water and one of the
most precious in the world, are still rather small. They are
confined. And the interchange in water in the Great Lakes
occurs very, very slowly. The two lakes that have the greatest
interchange are Erie and Ontario and I think the water changes
in them in about 20 years. So if we had a major oil spill in
the Great Lakes, we would have big problems. The clean up of it
would not be anything that could be done in any acceptable
fashion.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So if there are proposals for directional
drilling, would you support that?
Mr. Dingell. I don't have any problems with directional
drilling if you are going to drill from offshore out under the
lake, that is not something that causes me any particular
difficulty. It is setting up the rig and having a spill that
goes into the lakes.
We have just achieved, after years and years of massive
problems, a clean up of Erie, which was going to be a dead sea.
We have got it now to the point where Erie is one of the finest
walleye and muskie fishing lakes in the world. We have salmon
in there. And they are enormous national treasures. Every one
of those salmon brings to the State of Michigan $70 in tourist
revenues. So, I mean, these are great things and our people
want to protect them.
And I have supported offshore drilling and have usually
opposed constraints on offshore drilling because I view that as
being an unwise energy policy in the United States. That tends
to differ me from some of my colleagues and some of the
environmental organizations, but I think those things can be
done safely. And I think the risk is unacceptable inside the
Great Lakes and our people think so. You can't find anybody in
the Great Lakes, in the United States or Canada, that wants
drilling inside the Great Lakes by offshore platforms.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Chairman, I see that my time is up and
I thank Mr. Dingell for his comments. I just simply want to say
that if there was offshore drilling and revenue generated, well
then that would justify Michigan receiving the $45.5 million
per year. And I also want to say that the salmon that is now in
Lake Michigan actually came from the Pacific Northwest.
Mr. Dingell. That is true, but we do have Atlantic salmon
in there.
Mr. Young. Specifically, from Alaska if you really want to
know where I think it is.
[Laughter.]
And it is an irritation to me that they hold the world's
record now for the largest silver salmon caught. It is not in
Alaska, but it is Alaska DNA.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Dingell. I can't quarrel with anybody from Alaska about
what a great place that is and what great fishing the salmon
are out there.
Mr. Young. Yes. I would just like to respond for a moment.
This is a hearing and the condemnation of the bill I can
understand. But we hopefully will work together and can relieve
some of the anxiety of the lady's concern about this
legislation. If we cannot, then we will still go forth, because
I do believe that there is an opportunity to reinvest. This is
not about who gets what or where it goes, but reinvest in the
fish and wildlife of this great Nation of ours.
And I don't do that just for our sportsmen. I will just
digress little bit. Now you have heard me say this, the
gentlelady has before, if you want to retain our freedoms, if
you want to retain a society that has some sanity, you have to
have the availability to hunt and to fish. If you lose that
availability, then you lose what remaining sanity is left in
this great Nation. Because we face urban tyranny. I listen to
Maloney talk about his urban sprawl. That creates urban
tyranny.
Now how we solve that problem is really what these hearings
are all about because we cannot continue to have this lack of
access to those lands and access to fish and wildlife. If we
lose that, we lose the freedoms which I think are so crucial to
this Nation. This is what my interest is about. This is why I
am pushing this bill. This is a chance to go into the year 2000
with an opportunity to provide every man, woman, and child the
chance to participate in what I think is our legacy, and that
is the ability to hunt and fish.
Now, with that, anybody else? Mr. John.
Mr. John. Yes. I don't necessarily have a question, Mr.
Chairman, but I do have a couple of comments. First let me pile
on to the accolades of the chairman for holding this meeting,
this hearing, for the next two days in a true spirit of
bipartisanship. We sit here with two bills that ultimately go
after the same goal in somewhat different directions, but the
willingness of the chairman and the Ranking Member, Mr. Miller,
to sit down and have both bills put on the table and talked
about is a great tribute to their willingness to put together a
piece of legislation.
This bill is going to become, in reality, one of the most
comprehensive, wide-sweeping, environmental pieces of
legislation in many, many years. It has been said so many
times. This piece of legislation is all about finding a revenue
source for reinvestment and conservation. This bill is not
about oil and gas drilling. It simply is not. If you think
about it in its purest form, what does this bill do? It takes a
revenue stream that is presently collected from activities off
coastline and reinvests it back into our coastal marshes and
into our estuaries; back into conservation, wildlife and other
important programs.
So, as we move through these hearings, I want to reiterate
that this bill is about making a commitment to reinvest some
portion of revenues--from a non-renewable natural resource--
back into our estuaries and our environment; the kind of thing
that all of us on this Committee wants to do.
Why am I involved? I mean, I think it is pretty obvious.
Thirty-five miles a year of my district get washed away in the
Gulf of Mexico. So that is why I am involved. As a young boy, I
used to hunt a lot in the marshes of Louisiana and where I used
to fish is now two or three miles out in the Gulf of Mexico. So
that is why I am involved. We have been trying to deal with
this issue for many, many years. I know that Senator Johnston--
former Senator Johnston of Louisiana--and other people had
tried to put together legislation to come up with a funding
stream to not only protect our coastline, but also to preserve
and protect our wildlife and our fisheries of this great
Nation. And this issue, I think, is so much more broad than a
lot of the issues that we are dealing with. I think it is going
to become a paramount piece of legislation.
As we look at H.R. 701 and H.R. 798, there are some good
ideas in both of the bills. For example, H.R. 798 includes
funding for the operation and maintenance of our national
parks; this is a good idea and we ought to explore this idea
further. That is what this hearing is all about.
I am honored to be sitting at the table with the chairman,
the Ranking Member, and also the dean of the delegation, Mr.
Dingell, who has offered his staff and has worked very, very
hard to try to put this together and make it a reality. So I am
looking forward to the next couple of days and I appreciate the
chairman putting these hearings together.
Mr. Young. If there are no other comments, I would like to
thank the two gentlemen for being with us today. And we have
open eyes and open ears and most of the time open hearts. I
have to check that out, but we will see what happens. So thank
you very much, John. Thank you, Mr. Maloney.
The next panel will be Mr. Jack Caldwell, secretary of the
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana; Ms. Bernadette Castro, Commissioner, New York State
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Albany, New York;
Mr. David Waller, Director, Georgia Wildlife Resources
Division, Social Circle, Georgia--social circle?. Ms. Sarah
Chasis is stuck in snow. So we will try to fit her in sometime
tomorrow if possible, if we can.
Mr. Caldwell, you are up first. And I do thank you. And if
we can--just a moment. You are up first and have at it.
STATEMENT OF JACK CALDWELL, SECRETARY, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA
Mr. Caldwell. Mister Chairman, honorable members of the
Committee, I very much appreciate this opportunity to testify
on the greatest conservation bills of this century. Not since
Theodore Roosevelt has the conservation effort moved so
strongly onto the national stage.
As secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources, I serve on the Outer Continental Shelf Policy
Advisory Committee, comprised of Federal and State officials,
industry representatives, and other interested OCS parties. And
our function is to give advice to the Secretary of the Interior
through the Mineral Management Service. And my testimony this
morning will cover the background leading up the concepts that
are today incorporated into Title I of H.R. 701.
As you know, for many years, as Congressman John pointed
out, the issue of assistance to coastal impact States has been
debated in Congress and, so far, the only legislation that has
been adopted was the 8(g) amendment to the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act in 1986. And, under this bill, Louisiana's
share has, through the years, been about $1 billion out of the
$80 billion that has been produced through the years.
And, by 1993, the Outer Continental Shelf Policy Committee
developed a position paper which called for a sharing of a
portion of revenues among all the coastal States, the Great
Lakes, and the territories. It was based on a finding that,
although the benefits of the OCS program was shared nationally,
a disproportionate share of the environmental, economic, and
social costs were local. So, consequently, the committee
appointed a working group on which I had the honor to serve,
along with representatives from Alaska, Oregon, California,
Texas, and North Carolina, to come up with a specific plan.
This group worked diligently for almost a year and the
fundamental principle that the group worked on was the one just
mentioned by you this morning and that is the idea of
reinvestment of nonrenewable oil and gas resources into
renewable and sustainable resources in the coastal region. Now,
because the impacts of OCS operations on coastal States is
difficult to separate out and quantify and because all of the
coastal States are subject to similar stresses from storms, sea
level rise, overdevelopment, and pollution, we included all of
the coastal States and the Great Lakes, but came up with a
formula that weighted the fund distribution toward the impact
States which were sustaining the larger share of the adverse
impacts of OCS operations.
So acting on this principle, the Committee came up with the
basic concepts--this was back in 1997--that are presently
incorporated in the bill. And that is that 27 percent of the
revenues should be shared. That it should be weighted on a 50
percent proximity, 25 percent population, and 25 percent
coastal. That the funds should be stable and not subject to
annual appropriation. And that it should be administered by the
States under oversight from the Secretary of the Interior,
relying on the audit system for enforcement.
Now this is my testimony this morning regarding this
background and I welcome any questions from the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Caldwell may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mr. Young. Mr. Caldwell, you just did a remarkable thing.
You stayed within your time and you never read anything. So I
want to congratulate you.
[Laughter.]
That is remarkably well-done and well-presented. I just
want to congratulate you.
Mr. Caldwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Young. Ms. Castro, you are next.
STATEMENT OF BERNADETTE CASTRO, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE
PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION, ALBANY, NEW YORK
Ms. Castro. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I am
Bernadette Castro, commissioner of the New York State Office of
Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. I also serve on
the legislative committee for the National Association of State
Park Directors and I am a board member of NASORLO, which is the
national group that actually administered this program for the
30 years when it was active with the States from 1965 to 1995.
I want to thank you Chairman Young for your leadership on
this issue. It is a vital issue. It one that we feel has to
reinstate the promise that was made in 1964, the promise that
all States would benefit, the promise that States would share
equally with the Federal needs. And, indeed, that promise was
completely broken in 1995. From 1995 to present, the States
have received zero funding from the stateside portion of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund.
It is a wonderful, wonderful fund, if it really was a fund.
It is a word that was used in 1964 and it leads people to
believe that don't understand the issue that there is this
money, this $900 million a year, that is deposited somewhere
for use in land and water. And, indeed, that is not the case.
So there is a lot of misknowledge by the public at large,
misunderstanding, and lack of knowledge. So I am going to sort
of sidestep my official testimony and I ask that my written
testimony be accepted as part of the record, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Young. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Castro. Thank you very much.
You have heard about all of the wonderful things that this
has done at the national level, the figures on acreage and
parks. I guess what I need to do is to just focus on my State,
if you will, as stateside part of this funding is critical. And
I think the States, indeed, know best how to spend this money.
If you look at the diversion just here, Mr. Chairman, Alaska,
California, New York, Louisiana, Connecticut. It would be
impossible for any of us to know how the other States should be
spending the stateside money. It would be less likely that the
Federal Government, with all due respect, even the National
Park Service, would know best how to administer this money.
It is critical, of course, that it remain, as we would
call, a block grant. It is critical that when this programming
goes through, that the States, each of us, with our very
different needs, have the capability to direct this funding.
In New York State, we have two what we call flagship parks
under my jurisdiction. The Adirondacks and the Catskills are
not under my jurisdiction. They are under the jurisdiction of
the Department of Environmental Conservation.
But Commissioner Cahill, indeed, wishes he could be here
today, as does Secretary of State Treadwell who runs the
Coastal Management Program, as does Theodore Roosevelt IV,
great-grandson of Teddy Roosevelt, who was here in Washington
and who is out of the country or would be here today. He fully,
fully supports this effort.
But in New York State, I had two flagship parks that are
worldwide famous. One, Niagara Falls, one of the great wonders
of the world. The other, Jones Beach State Park, the largest
public bathing facility in the world. Millions of dollars have
come to both of these flagship parks over the years, to the
Land and Water Conservation Fund. From everything from serious
infrastructure work to things such as boardwalks and
recreational facilities.
It would be impossible for New York State over the years to
have brought those projects along, both Robert Moses projects,
along without the help of this Federal matching grant program.
And I think that is very important for everyone to remember. We
are leveraging funds here. Not just local funds, indeed about
60 percent of everything New York got in that 30-year period
went to municipalities, through a matching grant program.
But we are also leading the way, in New York, by leveraging
private money. There are private corporations that would love
to invest in parks, but they want to do it where they know they
are not the only game in town. So when a municipality or the
city of Syracuse or the city of Buffalo goes for funding under
this Federal program, part of their match could be a giant
corporation. It could be a Pepsicola or a Coca-Cola.
Saturn retailers have put in parks, have put in playgrounds
within my parks. Ford Motor Company is giving us $100,000 for a
nature center at Jones Beach. And the list goes on and on. But
municipalities could approach their local banks and say, wait a
minute, there is Federal match money out there.
In New York State, we are very lucky to have Governor
George E. Pataki who is such a champion of this cause. He has
given us environmental protection fund money in his budget
every year. That is a matching program. He saw to it and worked
hard to pass our Clean Air, Clean Water Bond Act, again, a
matching program. But I can tell you that there are 800
projects in New York State--am I out of time already? Is that
what that means? We are in trouble. Okay. Eight hundred
projects that we couldn't fund. Eight hundred projects on the
shelf, ready to go, if you give us back this program. Thank you
very much and I would be happy to take any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Castro may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mr. Tauzin. [presiding] Ms. Castro, we appreciate very much
your testimony as well as the testimony of my dear friend from
Louisiana. Louisiana is not used to snow, Jack. I just had a
real tough time getting in to hear you this morning.
[Laughter.]
We are now pleased to welcome Mr. David Waller, the
director of Georgia Wildlife Resources Division, Social Circle
in Georgia. Mr. Waller, welcome and we will appreciate your
testimony. Again, recognize the time limits. We apologize for
that.
STATEMENT OF DAVID WALLER, DIRECTOR, GEORGIA WILDLIFE RESOURCES
DIVISION, SOCIAL CIRCLE, GEORGIA
Mr. Waller. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have submitted
testimony and so I will just hit the high points from that. My
name is David Waller and I am director of the Georgia Wildlife
Resources Division and vice president of the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. I really appreciate
the opportunity to appear before you today and would like to
use this opportunity to convey the International's strong
support of H.R. 701.
We believe this bill is the most sweeping wildlife funding
bill in this half of the century and will go a long way towards
conserving our Nation's fish and wildlife and providing much-
in-demand conservation education and wildlife-associated
recreation. We appreciate Mr. Young's leadership and that of
Congressmen Dingell, Tauzin, and John in sponsoring this
landmark legislation. The International would also like to
recognize Congressman Miller for addressing some of the same
needs in H.R. 798.
There is a compelling need to fully fund State wildlife
conservation efforts in time to prevent species from becoming
endangered. Many species in this country are declining and
heading rapidly towards endangered species lists. And we have
the opportunity now to act in a non-regulatory, incentive-based
manner while there is still time and at much less cost to
conserve our Nation's wildlife legacy. Dedicated, reliable, and
adequate funding would not only allow States to conserve
species and preclude the social and economic impacts associated
with listing species, it would also generate significant new
economic opportunities for local communities.
A wildlife-rich outdoor experience is vital to communities;
it is vital to States' nature-based tourism; and vital to
related outdoor industries. Wildlife watchers spent over $29
billion in State and local economies, generating more than one
million jobs. This bill provides funding for State
conservation, recreation, and education efforts which makes
good economic sense.
States are the front-line managers of fish and wildlife in
this country and have broad authority for fish and wildlife
within their borders, including most Federal lands. Because of
a consistent, dedicated source of funds, we have successfully
restored many game species like the white-tailed deer and the
wild turkey, the striped bass, pronghorn antelope, and on and on.
All of these are wonderful success stories. We are ready to do
the same thing now for some of the non-game species such as the
Baltimore oriole, the American goldfinch, box turtles, and many
other declining species that are not yet endangered. The needs
of State wildlife agencies to attend to these declining species
exceeds $1 billion, but even half that amount would go a long
way toward producing significant, on-the-ground results.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, for the past seven years, we
have built up a national coalition of over 3,000 organizations
and businesses that we call the Teaming with Wildlife
Coalition. We believe Title III of H.R. 701 fulfills the basic
goals of Teaming with Wildlife, but with a different funding
source.
We strongly support H.R. 701 for the following reasons. It
provides permanent and consistent funding, which is important.
It is administered through the Pittman-Robertson Act, which is
tried and proven. It allows States to determine their
priorities, their conservation priorities. And it brings equity
to wildlife conservation funding, giving all Americans the
opportunity to join sportsmen in paying for conservation.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to these comments, the
International respectfully urges you to raise the minimum level
for a State from one-half of 1 percent to 1 percent to address
the needs of some of the smaller States that have some of the
greatest needs, including Hawaii and some Northeastern and Mid-
Atlantic States.
Let me now briefly mention some things on H.R. 798, the
Resources 2000 Act. Again, the International is pleased that
Title VII of H.R. 798 provides funding for State-level wildlife
conservation. We are also encouraged by the spirit of the
cooperation between Chairman Young and Congressman Miller, that
they have pledged to moving forward together toward a strong
bipartisan solution that can pass Congress this year. We are
very pleased with that.
Some of the concerns are, in H.R. 798, are the elaborate
planning requirements; the term ``native fish and wildlife,''
which could be problematic; the fact that conservation,
education, and wildlife-associated recreation needs are not
addressed; and a six-year phase-in from $100 million to $350
million. Let us not wait six more years to address these
critical conservation needs.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, State wildlife agencies across
the country stand ready to work hand-in-hand to assure a future
for America's wildlife and help millions of people enjoy and
appreciate wildlife from their backyards to the back woods.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waller may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, Mr. Waller. And we regret
that Ms. Sarah Chasis, senior attorney, Natural Resources
Defense Council, could not be with us today, I believe.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Chasis may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mr. Tauzin. So this completes the panel. The Chair
recognizes himself briefly for a round of questions and we will
ask all members to abide by the five-minute rule.
First of all, Mr. Caldwell, in your statement, you cite, of
course, the 1993 policy committee report which, by the way, I
have in my hand and I would ask unanimous consent be made a
part of the record today.
Without objection, then, it will be so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.017
Mr. Tauzin. And you decided to explain why we should share
OCS revenue with all 30 coastal States and the 5 territories,
rather than the 6 producing States. Can you summarize for us
the good reasons why the committee came up with this idea?
Mr. Caldwell. The primary reason is that all coastal
States, producing and non-producing, are under severe stress
today. Half of the population of the country lives in the
coastal regions today and all coastal regions have been
suffering severe storm damage in recent years, pollution
damage, have been destroying and harming the estuaries,
fisheries are under stress, everywhere. And we felt that to
attempt to separate out and separately quantify the adverse
impacts from offshore drilling would generate more controversy
and would be basically impracticable. So we felt it was better
to include all the coastal States and adopt a weighting formula
in order to take care of the impact States.
Mr. Tauzin. Also, Mr. Caldwell, you mentioned, and I want
to refer to it too, that the policy committee was interestingly
made up of industry representatives and environmental community
representatives, State government representatives, pretty broad
ranging. Would you comment on the importance of that and the
meaning in terms of their recommendations to us?
Mr. Caldwell. Yes, from Alaska, the chairman was from
Alaska, Mr. Jerome Selby, the mayor of Kodiak, served as
chairman. From Oregon, we had Mr. Eldon Hout, who works for the
State government in the Environmental Department of Oregon.
From California, we had Mr. Chabot, who is very active in
environmental matters in San Francisco. From Texas, we had Mr.
Paul Kelly, who represented the oil industry. And you had
myself. I am secretary of natural resources. And from North
Carolina, we also had a State official in that State's
environmental department.
Mr. Tauzin. So we had a pretty range of contributors.
Mr. Caldwell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tauzin. Let me ask you the question that keeps coming
to us all the time. Is this bill likely to incentivize oil and
gas development where it otherwise would not occur? Has that
happened in Louisiana with OCS coming in?
Mr. Caldwell. No, sir. Louisiana has had 8,000 wells
drilled offshore in the last 50 years and I don't think that
there is any chance at all that Louisiana would change its
views no matter what happened.
Mr. Tauzin. Ms. Castro, you also commented about the
importance of this bill for all the good things that it does.
Are you concerned that it is going to incentivize drilling that
might not otherwise occur?
Ms. Castro. No, I am not. Not with the language that I
think that Chairman Young has put in there. And I think that
the no new incentives is very critical to the success of this
legislation and I am confident that the language will take care
of that.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Waller, you mentioned the importance of
this Act, particularly as the States struggle to preserve
species and wildlife habitats and what have you. One of the
visions of Title III is, indeed, to conserve species and to
help generate numbers of species before they ever reach a
status that they might have to be listed under ESA as
threatened or endangered. Do you see this Act contributing to
that vision? And how?
Mr. Waller. Well, there is no question we want a preventive
maintenance program to keep species from becoming endangered.
And this certainly provides the funding that would allow that
to happen. The States' biggest need right now is funding for
our non-game programs. And when I say non-game, anything we do
for wildlife conservation in the field affects game and non-
game. So I don't want to get hung up with this non-game and
game scenario. But we have the expertise on staff, we know what
needs to be done, we just need the resources to make it happen
with.
Mr. Tauzin. All of you commented about the importance of
permanent funding in this effort. Why is that so critical?
Mr. Waller. We have very successful wildlife programs. The
most successful wildlife program in the world, all the States
do. And it is simply because we had a dedicated funding source
in the form of the Pittman-Robertson Act. It has been in place
for six years. It is a wonderful model. And we have done great
things restoring game species. And we need additional funds to
broaden our agencies to manage these other species that aren't
being addressed.
Mr. Tauzin. My time has expired. The Chair will now not
only recognize the chairman back to the Chair, but also
recognize the Ranking Minority Member Mr. Miller with, again,
you have already mentioned, Mr. Waller, our sincere thanks for
his efforts in his own version of this legislation. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Tauzin.
Just a couple of questions because we have quite a few
members here. I don't see it in your testimony and I don't know
if you know it off the top of your head, Ms. Castro, here. You
said you had about 700 projects off the shelf that are ready to
go because you would be able to put together the funding source
for those. Do you know what part of that is attributable to
historic preservation or not? How that breaks down? Or, if you
don't, if you could supply it for the Committee, I would
appreciate it.
Ms. Castro. I will definitely supply it for you. And I must
say, as you have brought up historic preservation, I ran out of
time. I am the State historic preservation officer and I think
it is really an important element that we not forget to fund
historic preservation. When the Historic Preservation Fund was
created, it was created with a funding stream of $150 million
that, indeed, was coming from Land and Water. So, certainly, in
the Governor's program, the Environmental Protection Fund,
there is a percentage which goes to historic preservation. And
the 800 projects that are out there, I don't want to give you
an inaccurate percentage, but I will get it to you.
Mr. Miller. That would be helpful. And Mr. Tauzin asked and
Mr. Waller answered the question on one of the things both
bills do is try to provide permanent funding. I assume that,
one, that allows you to develop a schedule in terms of
priorities, because, obviously, some things are more urgent
than others. And also the question of scheduling the ability to
raise matching funds and private funds and the rest of that if
you know kind of what is coming on line over the next five
years or what have you, as opposed to the sort of hit-and-miss,
you know, annual decision either sometimes we provide money and
sometimes we don't.
And I know, in our area in California, that very often, you
know, we have raised a substantial effort in the private
sector, but there are those gaps and those gaps just remain
because, like you say, people want to make sure that other
people have the same interest and involvement in these
projects, but you don't have any ability to close them and get
on with the next one.
Ms. Castro. That is right. That is exactly right. And I was
handed a correction by one of our senior staff members from
Albany. The 800 projects, that 800 number, does not include
historic preservation projects.
Mr. Miller. Does not include. Okay.
Ms. Castro. We have additional historic preservation
projects ready to roll that are also on the shelf and I will
get that number to you.
[The information follows:]
Bernadette Castro,
New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation,
April 19, 1999.
Hon. Don Young,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Chairman Young.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the House Resources
Committee on March 9, 1999. I very much appreciate the leadership that
you and the other members of the Committee have demonstrated to re-
establishing the Land and Water Conservation Fund state side program,
As you know this program is extremely important to all Americans
interested in outdoor recreation that is close to home and can be
accessed on a daily basis.
During my testimony questions were raised relative to our New York
Historic Preservation and Heritage Areas System grant programs. Mr.
Miller specifically asked that I provide some additional information on
this subject and this I am delighted to do.
For Outer Continental Shelf revenues to be authorized for use in
State-administered historic preservation projects within the context of
legislation that would permanently fund the program, is a commendable
suggestion. As the Historic Preservation Officer for New York State I
have been frustrated by our inability to fund all the worthwhile
historic preservation projects for which application is made annually
in New York State. To this end, I strongly recommend that a provision
be added to the Conservation and Reinvestment Act for Outer Continental
Shelf revenues to be used for State-administered historic preservation
projects. This additional funding source would help us conserve those
projects listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Since 1995, the Environmental Protection Fund, and more recently,
the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act have provided state funding for
historic preservation with heritage area projects. In that time, we
have received a total of 691 applications for such projects, requesting
almost $101 million; that figure represents $319 million worth of total
projects cost. Unfortunately, we were able to fund only 200 of these
projects. This means, despite a vigorous, fully-funded and highly-
regarded state grants program, approximately 60 percent of these worthy
projects remain unfunded.
Historic preservation projects are important in preserving our
heritage and provide a key to securing both economic resurgence and
quality of life for our communities. The tourism industry, the revival
of neighborhoods and an enhanced, distinctive sense of place all stand
to benefit from permanent funding to the Historic Preservation Fund.
Historic preservation is an economic development program that
strengthens communities. The tourism industry is New York's second
largest sector of our state's economy and heritage tourism is its
fastest growing segment. This is very good news indeed for increased
employment and environmentally-friendly economic growth throughout New
York. Essential to the success of this trend, however, is continued
encouragement and support for investment by State and local governments
and the not-for-profit sector in new or improved attractions, be they
parks or historic sites and structures, and in protecting what we
already have. This is the public purpose that vitalizes New York's
historic preservation grants, historic sites and heritage areas
programs, and we need all the help we can get.
My colleague, the Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer, has
detailed this tellingly:
States and localities leverage the Federal program with added
incentives to increase public benefit. Each $1 appropriated to the
States generates an investment of $55 by State and local governments
and the private sector, States and localities know that:
every million dollars spent on rehabilitating historic
sites creates 29.8 new jobs (15.6 in construction and 14.2 in
the professions and ancillary fields) and generates $779,800 in
household income;
that same million dollars creates 3.4 more jobs and
adds $53,000 more to household incomes that a million dollars
spent on new construction;
many companies, especially those employing high paid
knowledge workers, prefer to locate in communities with
historic character and interest;
preservation pays dividends to homeowners, since
property values rise faster in historic districts than
elsewhere; and
historic attractions form the basis of America's
burgeoning heritage tourism industry.
Here in New York we continue to make it known that full state-side
funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund is essential to
preserve our important and valuable natural resources. What an added
benefit it would be if permanent funding could benefit our rich
cultural heritage as well!
Most sincerely,
Bernadette Castro,
Commissioner
Mr. Miller. Thank you, that would be helpful.
Ms. Castro. Right.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Waller, thank you for your testimony and I
have read and will continue to read the concerns you raise,
because I think they are very legitimate. Let me just ask you
on this question of game, non-game, native, wildlife and all
that. If I read your concerns correctly, you have concerns with
how we do it in our legislation. But you do agree with the
general theory that it can't just be concentrated on what
people historically think is a game species. That really, as
you said, when you do one thing out there in the habitat, it
affects both. But there is this need for broader protection of
species or creation of habitat for those species. Is that a
fair statement?
Mr. Waller. Yes, sir, there is a huge need for that. And
that is what we are all about. We want to be comprehensive
wildlife managers where we can address all the wildlife needs
out there. And that is where we fall way short on our funding.
And these proposals provide that for us.
Mr. Miller. So you see that as a resource problem.
Mr. Waller. Yes, sir.
Mr. Miller. All right. Well, we will work on those
concerns. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Caldwell, also,
thank you.
Mr. Young. [presiding] The gentlelady, I believe.
Mrs. Chenoweth. How do you mean that, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Young. From Idaho. Yes. I mean, Barbara--Helen's going
first. Yes. Okay.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to
associate myself in large part with the comments from Ms.
Castro. They are very, very well-taken. And the fact is that we
promised States money out of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund and then we whacked it off. And we broke a promise there.
I really feel the resolution should come in refunding and
keeping our promise to the American people. I have been working
with Yvonne Farrell who is our director of the Idaho Parks and
Recreation Department, a very, very capable lady. Looks very
much like you and you sound like her.
Ms. Castro. Yes, she is. I know her quite well. Thank you
for the compliment.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So I really do identify with your problems
and the concerns that you have. But I do believe that this bill
is totally, totally overreaching in terms of allowing a
partnership or mandating a partnership by Federal statute with
the States and the local units of government.
And, you know, a very recent study by Dr. Samuel Sailey of
the Reason and Public Policy Institute helps put this whole
issue into perspective. He stated that less than 5 percent of
the United States land base has actually been developed. And it
is developed in terms of urbanization. Niney-five percent of
our land base is still open spaces. And so my concern is, in
the name of fish and wildlife and saving the species, what are
we doing to our land base and our productive basis in this
country?
I think we need to keep our promises, but we need to do it
in a way that will assure the States that they still have their
sovereignty. The parks departments can operate in as sovereign
a manner as humanly possible and take care of their own States.
I do want to ask Mr. Caldwell, doesn't the State of
Louisiana, won't they be receiving about $361,874,000 a year
from this? The highest amount of money that will be coming into
any State will be coming into Louisiana?
Mr. Caldwell. Yes and I would be delighted to address that.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. And were there--to receive it. I am too.
And were there any members on your commission from Texas? You
mentioned one from Alaska, because----
Mr. Caldwell. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. [continuing] Texas has--you know, I thought
so, because Texas comes in with $204 million.
Mr. Caldwell. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And you already mentioned Alaska. One of
the interesting things, Mr. Caldwell, is that your State,
Louisiana, has about 1.6 percent Federal ownership. And Georgia
has about 4.4, 4.5 percent Federal ownership. New York has 1.3
percent Federal ownership. Which means everything in addition
to that is a productive base for you to generate income. Idaho
has 62 percent in Federal ownership.
So I hope you understand why I am fighting this, because,
first of all, I didn't come to Congress to see more land taken
over and private property rights abused, which I think could
happen in this bill. And, secondly, the federalization of our
land base really does affect our sovereign ability to govern as
a State and to produce. America grew to be the Nation that we
did because of our ability to produce from our land base. And I
think that, with just 5 percent of our land being involved in
urbanization, I think this bill is a huge solution looking for
a problem.
I do want to say, with regards to Mr. Waller's comments
about non-game species, I tried in Boise, Idaho, to sell a
house one time that some little squirrels had moved into the
eaves and I had to go through--I shouldn't say it on the
record--but it was literal hell trying to get my home sold
because a non-game species had taken up homemaking in my eaves
in my house.
Once this bill is passed and we give the status to non-game
species, we are virtually increasing the Endangered Species Act
that will affect real estate development, it will affect the
ability of willing buyers, willing sellers to sell and to
really utilize the marketplace freely. And it will, ultimately,
affect States and local units of government and their tax base.
I want us to think really carefully about this. When we
look at the definitions of what wildlife is in the bill on page
40 and wildlife-associated recreation, my gosh, you know, we
are asking to have duck blinds and trails and all kinds of
things mandated by the Federal Government. We are entirely
overreaching in this. I hope you will take a look at this
again. Thank you very much.
Mr. Young. Any of the panel like to respond? David.
Mr. Waller. I would, Mr. Chairman. The neat thing about
this bill, it gives the States the prerogative to make the
decisions on how the funds are spent. For instance, western
States most likely wouldn't spend any money for land
acquisition, but some of the eastern States, like Georgia,
might. We have less than 8 percent of the land in Georgia under
any kind of government ownership, including Federal Government,
state government, and all government ownership. So that could
be a priority in Georgia, to acquire some much-needed lands for
hunting and fishing and other outdoor-related, wildlife-related
activity.
But, in the West, that is totally their choice and that is
the nice thing about this bill. And, again, some of our non-
game species are declining in numbers. And what we would want
to do is to go out and census those species and find out what
the problems are and to solve those problems before they reach
the Endangered Species list. Because when they reach the
Endangered Species list, it kicks in all kinds of negative
implications to landowners, to us in government that works with
wildlife conservation. So we want to avoid that. And that is
our whole emphasis is managing wildlife to keep them off that
list.
And right now, we have good funding for a State wildlife
agency to work on game species and I think we have done a very
good job. There are huge numbers of success stories across the
country where we have restored in Georgia the wild turkey and
deer and out West antelope and elk and those kinds of things.
And what we want to do, what we need, is additional funds to
manage some of the species that we haven't had funding for in
the past. And that is what this is all about.
Ms. Castro. Yes, I would like to respond. Over the 30-year
period, Congressman, when New York received its money, three-
quarters of the money received over the 30-year period, went to
recreation projects. And I just wanted to speak on behalf, just
for one second, the need for development money for parks and
rehabilitation money. That is critical. I mean, an urban
swimming pool. I can tell you, to rehab one urban swimming
pool, you are looking at a minimum of $1 million, just for new
filters. This is not just a coat of paint. So I want to just
remind all of us that a great deal of this money will go for
other than acquisition and money that is sorely needed and,
again, matching funds. It is a partnership, but for a very good
reason.
Mr. Young. The gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. John. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it and Mr.
Secretary, I am going to definitely give you an opportunity to
answer the gentlelady from Idaho's question.
But let me quickly begin--I have got a host of questions. I
want to get through them very rapidly. We only have five
minutes. I know that you have given that presentation often as
a member of the MMS's OCS Policy Committee. You had some
visuals that showed the need and the impact in Louisiana. Have
you brought those here today.
Mr. Caldwell. Yes, sir.
Mr. John. Okay. I would like for you, if you have just one
minute, to share them with the Committee and discuss what has
happened in our State. This will be somewhat unique to
Louisiana, however, it is also prevalent in a lot of the other
coastal States for somewhat different reasons. But these are
the kinds of issues that we are tackling. If you could just
spend a little time to explain your charts to the Committee.
Mr. Caldwell. I want to show you what I call my poster
child. The town itself is 24 miles from the Gulf Canal, runs
from the town to the Gulf. You see the land that has eroded in
that short period of time. It amounts to 10 square miles. This
is one we can quantify that is a direct result of OCS
operations. This is just a portion. The total impact on
Louisiana is shown by this other map in which we have lost, in
the last 50 years, 1,000 square miles, which is marked in red,
shown in red on the map. We anticipate that, in the next 50
years, we are going to lose another 1,000 square miles, as
shown in yellow. That is an area the size of the State of
Delaware. We believe that, with the funding provided by this
bill, we can prevent 90 percent of that projected loss.
Mr. Tauzin. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. John. One question and then I will yield. Although the
magnitude is quite evident in Louisiana, is this a unique
situation to Louisiana or does it apply to other States on the
East Coast, West Coast?
Mr. Caldwell. No, sir, on the East Coast, there is
substantial loss occurring in the estuaries. There is
degradation in the Chesapeake Bay program, for example, the
Florida Everglades, in California, in the bays around San
Francisco, deterioration is going on all over the country and
this bill will address that.
Mr. John. I will yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. Tauzin. Just so that I might ask unanimous consent to
introduce into the record, in connection with this testimony, a
video entitled The Sounds of Silence which we have produced
regarding the 35-square-mile annual loss of land in Louisiana
and a letter from one of the broadcasters in Louisiana who saw
it, saying, I had no idea of the magnitude of the problem. We
don't realize it even in Louisiana, it is so enormous.
Mr. John. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman asked
unanimous consent.
Mr. Young. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information will be kept on file at the Committee
office in the Longworth House Office Building.]
Mr. John. Thank you. Next question. There has been a lot of
concern raised about the distribution formula in H.R. 701. Mr.
Secretary, where did the formula come from? As a member of the
OCS policy committee, and this kind of talks right into the
gentlelady from Idaho's question and concern about the amount
of money that Louisiana is getting, I have a twofold question;
first of all, where did the formula come from? And, secondly,
why was it tied to the proximity of the production of a
platform?
Mr. Caldwell. Well, let me answer the last question first.
Mr. John. Okay.
Mr. Caldwell. The reason it is tied to proximity is because
the closer you are to the well, the more onshore impact that
there is. Ninety percent of the production is offshore of
Louisiana, but, under this provision, we are only getting 8
percent. But we think that is enough----
Mr. John. Would you restate the percentage again?
Mr. Caldwell. Eight percent of the 90 percent goes to
Louisiana.
Mr. John. Ninety percent of the production takes place off
Louisiana?
Mr. Caldwell. Yes. Ninety percent of offshore production is
off of the Louisiana coast.
Mr. John. Okay.
Mr. Caldwell. So we think that is fair enough.
Mr. John. Okay. I have a couple of other real quick
questions. We are running out of time. Does Louisiana plan on
using Title I money to buy up private property?
Mr. Caldwell. No.
Mr. John. That is a concern that I hear often from private
property groups.
Mr. Caldwell. No. My department has no expropriation
rights. In fact, we don't even buy property from willing
sellers. We don't have the money. If they don't donate land
rights to us, we don't do a restoration project. So, you know,
property rights are not an issue at all in Louisiana.
Mr. John. Okay. That is all I have. Thank you Secretary
Caldwell.
Mr. Young. Gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Sherwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be
able to work with you and the Committee on a bill that will
reinvest the funding stream generated by the depletion of a
non-renewable resource into our habitat and fish and wildlife.
I understand very well that fish and wildlife habitat in wild
and semi-wild areas, how important they are to our future and
our national well-being.
But you have got to remember that I represent Pennsylvania.
And, while we have the largest population designated as rural
in the country and that we have our most forested acres at any
time since 1840, we have great problems that came as a result
of an industrial heritage. While we are talking about the money
now that comes from our present use of oil, I have to live with
the problems every day that were generated by the scarring of
the land from the mining of coal to supply the energy needs of
the Northeast in years past, when there weren't any panels like
this that were interested in what happened with the land after
we raped it.
And so I am very interested in this, but I would like to
say that my district represents a whole lot of the watershed of
the Chesapeake. And I appreciate you mentioning, Mr. Caldwell,
that estuary and how important it is. And we are spending money
every day in the State of Pennsylvania to try and keep the
water quality of the Chesapeake up and the silt down and all
the problems that we all face.
But this bill, it worries me a little bit, Mr. Young and
members of the panel, that this bill will not address
Pennsylvania's problems very well and it may make it harder for
us to access our Federal mine reclamation money. So, while I
want to work very enthusiastically with it, those things are on
my mind.
Mr. Young. I thank the gentleman and I can assure you, as
you go through the bill and see we can be helpful, we will be
so because we don't want you to lose that reclamation money.
You are absolutely correct. But this is not a quid pro quo;
this is a new monies that were being spent outside on other
programs other than the reclamation money and all the other
things that we shouldn't have been doing. But I thank the
gentleman.
Any--the gentlelady. I apologize, you were talking when----
Mrs. Cubin. I know. It was my fault, Mr. Chairman. I would
like to yield my time to Congresswoman Chenoweth.
Mr. Young. Without objection, so ordered.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I thank the chairman and the gentlelady. As
Mr. Caldwell aptly pointed out, clearly there are legitimate
concerns and certainly Louisiana has legitimate concerns, as
does New York and all the other States. But, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Caldwell, we should address these legitimate concerns through
existing programs like many that are already in place, through
the appropriations process and not through off-budget
entitlements. We are taking away the power that the Congress
does have to hold the purse strings in trust for the people of
this country and it should be done through the appropriations
process.
If we were to put a map up there of Idaho, I can tell you
that thousands of square miles would be in red because of the
distress of our forests and our communities dwindling. And, you
know, I would be the last to go even propose a program like
this because I believe that we should take our solution through
existing appropriations procedures. So that is one of the main
reasons why I am not supporting this bill and would like to
call your attention to that.
I do want to ask Mr. Weller, also, to carefully and with a
critical eye, review pages 25 through 27 of the existing bill
because the States will not be free to make their own
decisions. Neither will local units of government. Local units
of government who wish to go around the State on various
programs, can go around their own governors and form alliances
with the Federal Government. That is very alarming. I would
like it, sir, if you would look at those pages and I would like
to talk to you about it in the future. Okay?
Mr. Waller. I would be delighted to talk with you about it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. I yield back that balance of my
time.
Mr. Young. The gentleman----
Mrs. Cubin. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Young. Thank you. Then, Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
panel's input on this. Having served on the city council and
used Land and Water Conservation Funds for golf course,
swimming pool, other activities in Idaho, it is very important
and I would like to make sure that we maintain that fund or
reestablish that fund because recreation in all communities is
very vital.
Mr. Caldwell, you mentioned that you would like to see this
not subject to appropriation. That it would be a dedicated
fund. It has been my experience either in a legislative body or
in Congress that dedicated funds generally lose accountability.
Are you concerned about that?
Mr. Caldwell. No, sir. Not under the proposal. The reason
for the dedicated fund is we know that the average coastal
restoration project takes three years, so you are on a
continual roll. And, particularly with respect to onshore
infrastructure, there has got to a bonding source to rebuild
the infrastructure. So those are the two primary reasons for
the dedication. Plus the fact that Louisiana is a small State
and I think if we came up here with our hat in our hand every
year, we would go home pretty empty. And that is the practical
answer to that. Whereas this time, we think we have built a
coalition that can really get it done. That is on the dedicated
funding. What was the other question?
Mr. Simpson. You mentioned that you have built a coalition.
And I guess what I am trying to establish in my mind, are we
building a coalition of coastal States--some coastal States,
some non-coastal States--that are going to have access to this
fund so that we can build enough support to pass it, that has
actually nothing to do with mitigating the offshore drilling
impacts on the coast? Just so that we can have enough funding
in this to fund those States?
In other words, what I am saying is, you mentioned that all
States are under great stress, just not the six that are
producing the oil. All States are under great stress whether
they are coastal States or non-coastal States. So why haven't
we included all 50 States? Why just the coastal States?
So, I guess my question is, is this to address the unique
concerns of the coastal States and we are just using this
offshore drilling money as a funding source, not really having
any relevance to the impact caused by the drilling?
Mr. Caldwell. No, sir. My testimony this morning was
limited to Title I, but the coalition, the three titles are
built on the fundamental principle that we have advocated,
which is the reinvestment of nonrenewable resources into
renewable resources. That is why we have always supported
designating the environmental projects into which you can make
capital investments. That is the idea behind the whole bill and
that is where the strength comes from. The coalition is not
just about votes; it is about people who believe in this
reinvestment principle. That is the basic underlying idea for
all 50 States to share in. That is the rationale.
Mr. Simpson. Well, I agree with you in reinvesting. I think
that is a good idea. I am not from a coastal State. I still
believe in that principle. Your coalition seems to have left me
out, even though I agree with that principle. I am curious why
the Great Lakes States were included. And I love the Great
Lakes States, don't get me wrong. I am curious why they were
included. Great Salt Lake is probably closer to having
something similar to a coast than many of the Great Lake
States.
Mr. Caldwell. Yes. That proposal was made to include Great
Salt Lake. But the Great Lakes, of course, are subject to these
same stresses. That is the idea, that all of the coastal
regions have similar severe stresses that are degrading our
coast at an alarming rate. And this is where half the
population lives and, plus, they have immeasurable values that
can be corralled by this reinvestment process and rebuilding
our estuaries, rebuilding the fisheries, rebuilding the
wildlife habitat, rebuilding our marshlands. The Louisiana
marshlands are worth at least $10,000 an acre, even though they
serve no purpose except to feed the little critters.
Mr. Simpson. But I guess, back to the basics. We are trying
to separate--and I guess it is best to do this--this money is
not just being reinvested to mitigate the costs caused by
offshore drilling?
Mr. Caldwell. Oh, no, sir.
Mr. Simpson. It is to be used for the unique problems that
the coastal States have. Is that a correct statement?
Mr. Caldwell. Yes, sir. All of it is environmental, capital
type, investment, the vast majority of it. There might be some
exceptions. But that is the thrust of the legislation and I
hope it will stay that way.
Mr. Simpson. I appreciate your comments.
Mr. Young. The gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the Chair. Just for a second, to point
out that the gentleman says that we are talking only about
Title I. Title II and Title III share with all 50 States, don't
they, in PILT funding and urban recreation and renewal and all
these, land acquisitions for parks and recreation? Isn't that
shared with all 50 States under the bill?
Mr. Caldwell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tauzin. All right. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Young. Are there any other questions of this panel?
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Young. The gentleman from California.
Mr. Miller. This in response to the point raised by Mr.
Simpson. I think that there are two approaches here on the
question of how much of the total pot is shared and in what
manner. Clearly the coastal States, my own State of California
and others, have argued over the years of an adverse impact
from the development of the OCS and over the years we have
tried to deal with that and this bill does that also. The other
one, clearly, is the notion that the Federal leases belong to
all of the people of all of the Nation. And that was the
tradeoff in why Land and Water Conservation was there.
I think both of these bills are trying to figure out how
you address both of those problems. Because you can argue that
there is clearly less coastal impact, absent something going
terribly wrong as happened in Santa Barbara during the 1970s.
But, in California, then there is, where you had to make
changes to the coastline in Louisiana for barge canals and all
of the coastal activity, there is a much larger industry there
than offshore California.
So trying to balance the needs for those States to do that,
but also make sure that we recognize this is a national asset,
this pool, and that is why stateside, so many local communities
have participated in that. And eventually, I guess, you know,
this bill will come down about formulas and how those formulas
are developed because, as the gentleman pointed out.
You know, you have different visions of how big the
Chesapeake watershed is, depending upon where you live, just as
in California, some people think of San Francisco Bay as San
Francisco Bay, but we now know it runs almost to the Oregon
border in terms of the impacts that happen in that bay. That
all of the communities are looking for ways for mitigation, for
protection, for creation of different kinds of assets. So,
eventually, I think, while these two bills in intent are very
much on track, the formulas are different and that is obviously
going to be the question coming from all over the country.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. I do want to say that, for
Idaho, under Title I, there is absolutely zero funds for
impacts and I am not asking for any. My seatmate was right.
Title II, involving land acquisition, it would be funded at in
excess of $6 million. Title III, involving non-game species, it
would be funded at in excess of $5 million. So more Federal
presence in land acquisition, non-game species is not what we
want in Idaho. We want our forests fixed.
Mr. Young. Mr. Tauzin.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentleman. I simply want to point
out that may be true, but in the cost to the States, most of
the Federal mineral development is offshore. In many of the
interior States, the Federal mineral development is inshore. On
the inshore Federal mineral development, your States and others
would receive 50 percent of the revenue. If we were to get 50
percent of the revenues from the Federal lands offshore that
goes to the States, we would be the richest Arab nation east of
the Mississippi River.
[Laughter.]
It doesn't even come close to that in this bill. We are
talking about 8 percent, I think, where we produce 90 percent
of the funding. So the 50 percent----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Tauzin. I don't have the time.
Mrs. Chenoweth. For the record?
Mr. Tauzin. If I could complete, then I will yield back.
The 50 percent interior sharing is indeed meant to compensate
States, as I understand it, because of the fact of these
interior mineral developments on Federal land does have the
impact on the State, on its citizenry, on the infrastructure.
The development of offshore properties across the coastal
States have enormous impacts. Mr. Caldwell just point one out
where I have lost scores of, thousands, hundreds of miles of
land in my district. I am going to represent fish pretty soon.
I will have to move to your State just to have a district.
The point I am making is that the law has always treated
the coastal States will all of these impacts relatively
unfairly. That it literally left the----
Mr. Miller. If I can reclaim a little bit of my time on
that. We also have developed over the years funds that have put
in, you know, $.5 billion at a minimum into some of these
coastal States to mitigate that impact. But we will get the
formulas eventually----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Would the gentleman yield? Would the
gentleman yield, please?
Mr. Miller. At my own peril, yes.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Miller. I do want to say
that, in Idaho, because of the Federal policies, we are not
able to generate any revenues from mining because mining has
been shut down. We are not able to generate PILT funds because
logging has been shut down. We are not able to generate funds
from recreation because roads have been closed. We have a
serious problem out there in the Western States and now we are
faced with more land acquisition from private property----
Mr. Miller. Well, the wonderful thing about this bill is
this requires none of that to happen for you to share in the
benefits.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And we don't even have such things as
spotted owl funds; not that we would ask for it, but it would
help our counties. Thank you.
Mr. Young. I want to thank the panel. I can assure you that
we do appreciate your testimony and we will be pursuing this.
As you can see, there is some difference of opinion, but I
think we all have our eye on the goal and that is reinvestment
into fish and wildlife; rehabilitation of the lands that are
needed for fish and wildlife; and the protection of private
property rights. I do believe this does much better than
existing law and the existing action of the Appropriations
Committee.
I cannot believe my good lady friend is supporting the
Appropriations Committee that has done such a dastardly job, I
mean, over the years, of trying to solve problems. And I am
crushed that the 13 Czars who sit over there on those
committees and decide how things should be split up and where
it should go. And that is why I am supporting the dedicated--
yes.
Mr. Miller. The notion that somehow the appropriations
process is the check on accountability----
[Laughter.]
It doesn't look that way to the other 400 members of
Congress. Let me just say that.
Mr. Simpson. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I could just respond to
that, I will tell you that at least there is some check that is
elected, rather than no check that is clear.
Mr. Miller. Well, we can work that out. But these guys are
just--they are good highway robbers.
Mr. Young. I want to thank the panel for sitting there very
patiently.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Simpson. As long as it is a personal check.
Mr. Young. Yes. And thank you for your testimony and please
feel free to keep in communication with this Committee as we go
through this process. Thank you very much.
The next panel--the votes have been canceled because of the
snow. It is a snow day. So we will go ahead with panel three.
Ms. Sam Kathryn Campana, mayor of Scottsdale, Arizona; Mr. Paul
Hansen; Mr. Hurley Coleman; Mr. Grover Norquist; and Mr. Edward
Norton. If there is enough room for all of you up there, if you
are all there. Who are we missing? Ms. Campana is here. Mr.
Hansen is here. Mr. Coleman is here. Mr. Norquist. Mr.
Norquist. Mr. Norton. Mr. Norton, whoever you are, if you would
get down to the end of the table there.
I welcome the panel and Ms. Campana. How do I pronounce
that?
Ms. Campana. Campana.
Mr. Young. Campana. All right. You are first. From Arizona.
STATEMENT OF SAM KATHRYN CAMPANA, MAYOR, SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA,
REPRESENTING U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, WASHINGTON, DC
Mayor Campana. That is right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Members of the Committee, and it is on behalf of 1,100 cities
represented by the U.S. Conference of Mayors that I am here
today and I want to thank you for this opportunity to appear.
Mr. Young. Would you move the mike closer please? This is a
bad room sometimes. Thank you.
Mayor Campana. Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to
appear today--although I must say I left 85 degree weather back
in Scottsdale, so it is tempered a bit by that fact--to present
testimony supporting the increased funding for the Land and
Water Conservation Fund and for the Urban Parks and Recreation
Recovery Program, UPARR.
For far too long, we believe the Federal Government has not
fulfilled the commitment it made over 30 years ago when it
created the Land and Water Conservation Fund program to ensure
that all Americans would have access to nearby parks and
recreation resources. So we applaud the leadership of you, Mr.
Chairman, in forging this bipartisan bill that would restore
funding to the statewide program of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and UPARR. We also applaud the Ranking
Minority Member, Congressman George Miller, for his passionate
leadership on this issue for many years and the proposals that
he has made in this legislation.
The benefits of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and
UPARR can deliver to local communities and neighborhoods many
assets. The urban parks, recreation areas, and open space are
critical to the vitality of the Nation's cities and the
citizens we serve. Urban sprawl is threatening our natural open
space. The demand for parks has skyrocketed and the backlog of
necessary maintenance and repairs continue to grow. The Land
and Water Conservation Fund and UPARR will help provide for the
park down the street where parents play ball with their sons
and daughters, where toddlers explore a playground, and where
the neighborhood soccer team practices, where our teenagers go
to just blow off steam, and where seniors can walk along these
park paths.
In my hometown of Scottsdale, Arizona, there are several
examples of the direct community benefit resulting from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund. Remember Arizona is a
conservative, Western State and, as I travel through
Scottsdale, I don't have to go far without encountering these
community amenities. For example, the Land and Water
Conservation Fund provided funding for the park where
Scottsdale's first community swimming pool is located. Since
then, Chestnut neighborhood park, Eldorado Park's lake,
Jackrabbit Park, Scottsdale Bikeways, Chapparal Tennis Court
lighting, and Vista Del Camino spray pads were funded in part
through Land and Water Conservation funds.
Scottsdale received 20 Land and Water Conservation Fund
grants from 1965 through 1984, totaling $2.1 million, but these
funds were leveraged into $4.4 million. In Arizona alone, $46
million worth of Land and Water Conservation Funds accounted
for $92 million of projects since the inception of the fund.
And those are only small examples of many worthy projects
throughout the country that have been supported by these funds.
But, without question, the greatest current concern of the
Scottsdale community is the preservation of thousands of acres
of pristine Sonoran Desert and mountains that are undeveloped
and lie within Scottsdale city limits. As a matter of fact, our
citizens were so committed to preserving this land that in
1995, they took the unprecedented step of approving by a wide
margin, of .2 percent sales tax increase to preserve over
16,000 acres of the scenic McDowell Mountains and Sonoran
Desert.
Three years later, 80 percent of the proposed area has been
preserved, using $132 million in voter-approved sales tax
dollars. In November, the Scottsdale community overwhelmingly
approved another measure to expand the current preserve by
19,000 acres. Clearly, the preservation of this unique open
space, with desert, mountains, Saguaro cactus, and wildlife, is
a natural resource that Scottsdale citizens want to leave as a
legacy for future generations. As a matter of fact, one-third
of Scottsdale land mass, 60 of the 185 square miles, will be
held forever in perpetuity.
So we urge you to revitalize Land and Water Conservation
Fund and the UPARR programs so that these Federal dollars can
be matched with millions in local dollars. When the Nation's
mayors gathered for our 66th annual conference of mayors last
June in Reno, we unanimously passed a resolution in support of
the funding of the Land and Water Conservation and UPARR
programs. While we strongly support funding for the statewide
program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund that are called
for under H.R. 701 and H.R. 798, we also encourage Congress to
allow cities to apply directly for these funds, rather than
just relying on the States to pass them through. In addition,
we would ask you to allow UPARR funds to be used for land
acquisition and maintenance of local parks and recreation
programs.
In closing, I want to pass along a theory to which local
officials subscribe. Former U.S. Conference of Mayors President
and Knoxville Mayor Victor Ashe is fond of saying that our most
important park is not Yellowstone, but the one that is down the
street that serves our children every day. The importance of
our parks and open spaces cannot be underestimated.
The State and local assistance of Land and Water
Conservation Fund and UPARR are two resources we should pursue
and utilize so all Americans can continue to enjoy the Nation's
wonderful natural resources and the outdoors. So, again, on
behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, we thank you for your
interest in this revitalization and offer any assistance that
we can provide as you draft this important legislation. Thank
you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mayor Campana may be found at
the end of the hearing.]
Mr. Tauzin. [presiding] Thank you very much, Mayor Campana.
And now we are pleased to welcome Mr. Paul Hansen, executive
director of the Izaak Walton League of America in Gaithersburg,
Maryland. Mr. Hansen.
STATEMENT OF PAUL HANSEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, IZAAK WALTON
LEAGUE OF AMERICA, GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee, I am Paul Hansen, executive director of the Izaak
Walton League. I am here today with the League's conservation
director, Jim Mosher, and I appreciate the opportunity to
present the views of the Izaak Walton League on these
legislative proposals, which we believe offer a truly historic
opportunity to significantly advance conservation of important
natural resources. The Izaak Walton League is now in its 77th
year. We have 50,000 members working nationwide and 325
chapters. It is our members who set our conservation policy and
it is on their behalf that I provide these comments.
It is our view that this is an especially critical and
auspicious time to secure a reliable and overdue financial
commitment to our Nation's natural resources. These legislative
proposals demonstrate exactly the kind of leadership,
determination, and cooperation necessary to accomplish this
task. I would like to share with you my wish and that of all of
our members that we see parties work together to achieve this
goal--a major victory for natural resources--in this session of
the Congress. We are deeply committed to working with you and
others to that end.
We have a special stake in this debate. The Land and Water
Conservation Fund was a project of the Izaak Walton League of
America 35 years ago. Our conservation director Joe Penfold
first conceived of the fund and wrote much of the original
legislation as part of the outdoor recreation resources review
committee. Our members fought for the fund hard then and
continue to fight for it today.
We have, however, over the years, been very distressed to
watch as the original promise of this program was robbed, year
after year, in the appropriations process. We have watched in
dismay how $13 billion of important land conservation efforts
have gone unmet while these funds were diverted for unintended
purposes. I cannot overstate the importance to our members of
full and permanent funding for this program. If we are to take
advantage of this historic opportunity, I think we need to all
put our cards on the table and do it soon and come to terms on
a bill we can all agree to because, as we all know, our great
hurdle will be with the appropriators.
We certainly understand the concern of western States
regarding Federal land acquisition, especially where some
States already have large portions of their acreage in Federal
ownership. However, we are concerned about the provision in
section 202 of H.R. 701 requiring that two-thirds of the funds
for Federal acquisitions be spent east of the 100th meridian.
We think that this provision creates an unwise and, we think,
unnecessary restriction that could well result in lost
opportunities to conserve important and critical western big
game habitat and other resources.
The Payment in Lieu of Taxes provision in Title II should
alleviate many of the concerns relating to the financial impact
of Federal land ownership in these States. And we should
acknowledge these public lands provide an economic resource to
the States, a significant one, and to the local communities as
well. They contribute to quality of life that draws visitors
from around the country who support many local economies,
whether for hunting and fishing or other forms of outdoor
recreation.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund also provides for
important State conservation and outdoor recreation needs. And,
as you know, funding for this portion of the fund has been
neglected in recent years. These stateside programs can provide
resources that States and localities need to help control and
mitigate urban sprawl, an important limiting factor in hunter
access.
For the record, it is fair to say that, given a choice
between the funding levels provided for in H.R. 701 and H.R.
798, we would predictably choose the latter, which provides
more funding for both Federal and State sides of the program.
Our States do have the lion's share of responsibility to
provide for the needs of wildlife under their stewardship.
Indeed, they have a legal obligation to do so. With a few
notable exceptions, the States are not meeting this
responsibility. Twenty States currently contribute no general
or dedicated funds to their fish and wildlife agencies and 21
other States provide less than 20 percent of the budgets. These
agencies are entirely supported by hunters and anglers, through
license fees and through the existing Federal aid programs.
Of course, the end result of this is that non-game species
are not adequately supported and we need to see that these
programs will be targeted to non-game species. The State
matching provisions should provide incentive for States to do
better in their job of managing fish and wildlife.
We feel that the proposed 90-10 Federal-State initial
matching ratio misses an opportunity. We would encourage a
matching requirement on the order of 25 percent at the onset,
in order to challenge States to do their fair share, consistent
with the existing formulas in Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-
Johnson. We don't want this to be a Federal giveaway; we want
it to be a partnership for wildlife and land acquisition with
the States. It is equally important that State matching funds
be made available.
Last, given the realities of budget constraints, we want to
reiterate our opposition to seeking any budget offset that may
be necessary from other important programs in Function 300, the
Natural Resources Environment account. Robbing Peter to pay
Paul is not an acceptable solution.
Finally, last October, Chairman Young and myself and
others, Representative Miller, you were there as well, were in
the Oval Office for the signing of the historic Act, for the
National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, which
passed in this chamber with only one dissenting vote. We think
we have an opportunity to repeat history with the legislation
proposed here today and we would like to challenge all parties
to try to set aside politics, organizational and personal
agendas, and to work together on this important initiative. We
have a unique and fragile window of opportunity to accomplish
an historic conservation measure. If we do it boldly, not
shrinking from the size of the task or the magnitude of the
financial need and if we do it right, not trading one valued
resource for another, then we can do it now and in a way that
will allow us to celebrate together.
Finally, we are concerned about possible incentives for
increased oil and gas development that might be created by this
bill. We hear the concerns of some of our coastal colleagues.
We are certainly reassured by statements by both bills'
sponsors that were willing to continue cooperative efforts to
resolve these concerns and we would like to encourage you in
that direction.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
[Additional material submitted by Mr. Hansen follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.019
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentleman very much.
The Chair and I are pleased to welcome Mr. Hurley Coleman,
Jr., the director of Wayne County Division of Parks of
Westland, Michigan, for his statement. Mr. Coleman.
STATEMENT OF HURLEY COLEMAN, JR., DIRECTOR, WAYNE COUNTY
DIVISION OF PARKS, WESTLAND, MICHIGAN
Mr. Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to Chairman
Young, to Representative Miller, and to all of the members of
the Committee. I am very happy to be here. I appreciate the
support that I have received even this day and comments from
Congressman Dingell who is a good friend. And I hope my anxiety
doesn't show through here because I am really, really nervous
and I will have spent all this time stuttering and won't make
my points.
I am sitting here with about absolutely thousands of local
park and recreation agency leaders who are invisible by their
presence, physically, but are certainly supportive of the
position that you are taking. I think that this Committee and
this issue has energized public parks and recreation in a way
that I haven't seen in the 23 years I have been involved in
this field. I am sort of like the psalmist who mused while the
fire burned inside and the fire is excitement that I feel that
is generated because of these two bills, because they speak so
closely to what is really happening on the local front, at
home.
Three years ago in Wayne County, which is the sixth largest
county in the country, there is a city called Detroit. You may
have heard of it. It is a very large city. It has an older park
there, Chandler Park, and next to it is one of the oldest
housing developments in the country. And in this park, the
condition of the park had deteriorated significantly and all
those inherent problems with an old park, but it created the
perfect haven for things like gang activities and drugs and
strip dancing and one of the highest lists of police calls in
the whole community.
Wayne County wanted to dedicate some funding to parks and
recreation division because we are one of the oldest county
park systems in the country. In our efforts, I had met with the
city director, Ernest Burkeen, and talked about needs and it
turned out that there is a significant need for a swimming
facility in that part of town. Wayne County didn't have any
park facilities in the city. We went to community meetings and
met with a lot of individuals to determine if this was the
right way to go.
It turns out that there was enough support throughout all
of Wayne County to pass a piece of legislation in Wayne County
to support parks and we invested in a multi-million dollar
family aquatic center. We built a pool and opened it up and the
first season, police calls were reduced by 85 percent. We saw
an absolute culture of activity change in that park and in the
neighborhood and in the vicinity that surrounded it.
And what this points out is not unique in Wayne County, but
communities across the country have similar stories. We are all
competing for local funding. We are competing against police
and fire and health care. And crime prevention--these terms--
crime prevention and alternatives to anti-social behavior--have
now become a part of the lexicon of everyone that is looking
for funding. At one time that was what parks and recreation
folks talked about all the time but now everybody is saying it.
We do know that the most aggressive solution to negative anti-
social elements in a park is the family picnic and that there
are no geographic or economic boundaries to the things that
people consider important recreation, which is why this moment
is so important.
One of the reasons I am so excited is because I think this
is one of the most historic moments of a discussion that could
ever occur because the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the
Urban Park And Recreation Recovery Act are examples of what can
happen if the will, the political will, the process, and public
involvement work together to make things happen. Because it is
funding that is outside of the normal budget process that
really makes things happen. And the reason that it is so
important to occur here is because the Federal Government is so
important to local service delivery.
If the Federal Government can work with us on a local
level, it would decrease the pressure on the Federal system to
create new Federal open spaces for recreation and open space.
It would provide the most efficient use of national dollars by
placing the delivery responsibility close to the needs. It will
assist in the Federal Government; it will assist us in
responding to two important issues: crime prevention and health
care. And there is a natural connection between enhanced local
recreation opportunities and crime reduction, along with the
promotion of good health care habits.
I have submitted testimony that covers a lot of details and
I hope that that will be included in the proceedings here
because I knew I would be too nervous to remember everything.
But as someone who has dedicated their career to improving the
quality of life in a major metropolitan area, I consider this
to be one of the most important moments in our Nation's history
for us and recreation. It has been a long time since so much
energy has been focused on improving the lot of Americans at
home and I am trusting that you and the other members are going
to make the decisions that will match the significance of this
moment. I am trusting that you are going to support full
funding of these important items and make a decision for
tomorrow, today. I sit here hoping that I will have an
opportunity to answer questions because I knew I wasn't going
to be able to say everything. Thanks again for allowing me this
opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Coleman may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Coleman. I want to hear you when
you are not nervous. That was a very excellent presentation.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Coleman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Tauzin. And now we are pleased to welcome--just
arrived--Mr. Grover Norquist, the president of the Americans
for Tax Reform, Washington, DC. Mr. Norquist.
STATEMENT OF GROVER NORQUIST, PRESIDENT, AMERICANS FOR TAX
REFORM, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Norquist. Hi. Thank you. Sorry. Came across town with
all the nice snow. I have submitted written testimony. I would
just like to say a few words as to why, on behalf of Americans
for Tax Reform, we oppose this legislation. Obviously it costs
money and it gets the government doing new things that it
either hasn't done in the past or hasn't done so much in the
past.
But Americans for Tax Reform does the no-tax increase
pledge. We ask candidates for office to commit opposition to
higher taxes. And the answer is that, both at the Federal and
at the State level, the Federal Government already takes more
money and more resources from American families than families
should be required to pay and more than the government needs
for the legitimate functions of the government. So we have 209
members of the House, 41 members of the Senate, and 1,120 State
legislators who sign that pledge. I think, both in terms of tax
revenue being taken from the American people and spent by
Washington and State capitals, we are spending more than can be
credibly asked.
The same is true of State and government ownership of land.
There is not an argument for more land. The government may want
to surrender some of the land that it controls or owns now,
particularly in the West, which for too long this city and this
government has treated as if it was a colony in the way that it
has dealt with not allowing people out West to own land the way
people in the East do. I grew up in Massachusetts. We didn't
have to get permission from Washington to use or privately own
land in Massachusetts the way people do in Alaska and Nevada
and other States.
So the idea of putting more taxpayer dollars into taking
land out of private ownership, private stewardship into the
hands of the government is exactly the opposite of what we do
when we invite people from Poland and Czechoslovakia or the
Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic and the former Soviet
Union and they ask for advice on how one should run their
economy. The first thing we do is we tell them you shouldn't
have the government running steel mills and owning land and
doing things, because historically it doesn't work. And this
something the Poles and the Rumanians have learned over time.
And the government does not do a good job as a steward of
land. It does not do as good a job as private individuals do.
P.J. O'Rourke made the observation if you don't understand
this, go visit a public restroom and a private restroom. They
are different institutions and they are treated differently
based on who owns them and who is or isn't responsible for
them.
I don't see an argument for Federal ownership of land
outside of the military and national parks. We ought to be
moving in the opposite direction from government ownership to
private ownership and private stewardship in order to better
protect both the economy of our rural areas, but also the
environment of our rural areas. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Norquist may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Norquist. And, finally on this
panel, Mr. Edward Norton, the vice president of public policy
for the National Trust for Historic Preservation here in
Washington, DC. Mr. Norton.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD NORTON, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC POLICY,
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Norton. Thank you very much. My name is Edward Norton.
I am the vice president for public policy at the National Trust
for Historic Preservation. The mission of the National Trust is
protecting the irreplaceable. And I am here today to speak for
the historic resources in America.
I should begin by saying that I share my colleague's
enthusiasm--my colleagues to my right's--enthusiasm for this
hearing today.
[Laughter.]
I wish to thank both the Chairman and Congressman Miller
for introducing their legislation and for providing this
hearing today.
If I could use what I think is an appropriate metaphor, I
hope that, at the end of this process, we will have truly
landmark legislation in which Congress provides full and
permanent funding for protecting both our natural and our
historic resources. I have worked on these issues now for
almost 20 years, both as an advocate for the natural
environment and the built environment. And, like my colleagues,
I agree that we have a very special window of opportunity here
that we should seize.
I am really here today on behalf of the National Trust and
the historic preservation community to make special plea for
the historic preservation funds. The National Trust, of course,
supports full and permanent funding for the Land and Water
Fund. We recognize the importance of protecting open space;
providing parks both national parks, State parks, and local
parks for recreation, wildlife protection, watershed
protection, and a number of other benefits.
But we are here to say that that historic environment and
the built environment is just as important as the natural
environment. And to make our case that the Historic
Preservation Fund be included in any bill, full and permanent
funding for the Historic Preservation Fund be included in any
bill that comes through this Committee.
The Historic Preservation Fund, which was established under
the National Historic Preservation Act, provides a very
critical funding mechanism for protecting our historic
resources. It is the keystone of the partnership created by the
National Historic Preservation Act between the Federal
Government, State government, State and local government, and
also the private sector. It is really a program that is the
model of federalism. It achieves its benefits with very little
regulation, no land acquisition, and with a very heavy reliance
on the private sector. It is really a model, as I said, of the
relationship between the Federal Government, State and local
governments, and the private sectors.
It leverages hundreds of millions of dollars from State
governments and the private sector. And, most important, you
can see the benefits and you can experience the benefits of
historic preservation programs in almost every community in the
United States, in every one of your districts and the great
landmarks that have been saved, the buildings and historic
districts that have been preserved, and in the communities that
have been revitalized. And you can see the need and the
opportunity to continue this work and the benefits that it will
provide.
When I was preparing my testimony, I happened to look again
at a book called With Heritage So Rich. It was written in 1966,
sponsored by the United States Conference for Mayors and the
book is now out of print. Actually, the National Trust is going
to try to have this reprinted and if we do we will give it to
each one of you, because I really think, as it did then, it
sounds a clarion call for the importance of historic
preservation and what it can do to revitalize our communities.
This book was written at a time when the urban renewal and
the interstate highway system was having a very devastating
impact on many of our stable communities in cities and towns
both large and small across the United States. And it talked
about the importance of reversing those trends. If you read the
paper today and heard in some of the testimony this morning the
threat of so-called sprawl and disinvestment in our cities,
towns, and neighborhoods and our historic landscape. The
Historic Preservation Fund really is a modest but very highly
efficient Federal program for investing and reinvesting in our
existing communities. It provides monies for the reuse of
existing housing, commercial, and transportation
infrastructure.
I really believe that if you look at the very modest levels
of authorization for the Historic Preservation Fund, $150
million a year, and the benefits that it confers, that it at
least stands in equal importance to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. And it is a fund and the use of that monies
that has been undervalued, underappreciated, and, I would
submit, underfunded. And we urge the Committee to look at this
very carefully and to provide for full and permanent funding
for the Historic Preservation Fund in this legislation. Thank
you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Norton may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, sir. That completes the
panel. The Chair recognizes himself briefly and all members for
five minutes.
Let me first ask you, Mayor Campana, I know you would like
to have funding directly to the cities. One of the concerns
that is constantly raised here, however, is that this allows
for all sorts of new State acquisitions of land, particularly
in States where there is an awful high percentage of State-
owned property already. I was a former State legislator. I
recall, often, how the State had, in our State, the process of
providing 50-50 matches for Land and Water Conservation Fund
purchases. Doesn't that process, by and of itself, serve as a
barrier to inappropriate funding for acquisitions of land in a
State? Isn't it pretty tough to get the State to agree on those
kinds of thing and put up the money, Ms. Campana?
Mayor Campana. We haven't found that to be true, Mr.
Chairman. As a matter of fact, again, I will underscore that we
are this conservative Western State and our governor most
recently created the Arizona Preserve Initiative that is going
to set aside matching funds and we intend to take advantage of
that. These are not government programs; these are citizen-
voted-on mandates that are happening, I think, all over the
countryside. And we see it at the local level over and over
again. That is why the mayors think it is so important.
Mr. Tauzin. So there is a process where the local folks
through their legislature, through the process of providing
funds either decide it is appropriate or inappropriate to add
to any land or water acquisitions. Is that correct?
Mayor Campana. I believe so.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Hansen, you obviously are concerned,
literally, for, I think, permanent funding for many of the
goals of your organization. Aren't you concerned that the
legislation you have chosen to support does not contain
permanent funding while the one you have not chosen to support
does?
Mr. Hansen. Well, we are certainly not here to pick
winners. As I emphasized, we do want to really encourage both
approaches. I was speaking more directly to the approach by
which the funds are obtained when I gave a little more of a
high-sign to Mr. Miller's----
Mr. Tauzin. But permanent funding is important to you, is
it not?
Mr. Hansen. Permanent funding is very important.
Mr. Tauzin. In fact, Mr. Coleman, how important is
permanent funding for the extraordinary circumstances you
described to us of the deterioration of parks and recreation
systems?
Mr. Coleman. As a matter of fact, that probably rings very
loudly on the local level, primarily because we always have
this battle of trying to figure out what we are going to be
able to do with the little funds we get in our normal fiscal
processes. It is only when there is a revenue potential outside
of the normal budgeting process that we can really look at
making improvements and that takes some time to develop and
plan to look forward to. In the State of Michigan, we have
developed a trust fund for our statewide funding and it is set
aside and dedicated for that purpose and I think that
restoration to a trust fund type of situation is really
important.
Mr. Tauzin. Let me turn to Mr. Norquist. Does the Americans
for Tax Reform oppose all entitlement spending in America?
Mr. Norquist. Well, we would certainly argue that we
shouldn't be getting in the business of adding additional ones.
I was pleased that Congress voted to reform welfare and move
decisions out to the States and that ended a certain
entitlement----
Mr. Tauzin. The point I am making is, some of them are not
so bad, are they? I mean, some of them make sense. Why not
conservation programs, particularly for coastal States that are
losing so much as we are in Louisiana? Why is that such a bad
idea to make sure there is a source of funding on a permanent
basis to make sure you can begin addressing what are macro
conditions out there?
Mr. Norquist. I understand that sometimes people in
Washington look at it from the standpoint of permanent funding.
I represent taxpayers. This is a permanent cost you are talking
about. There are two sides to this. If somebody is going to be
handing out money to other people, they first have to take it
by force from other people. And the idea that we have permanent
funding means we have a permanent hand in people's pockets. And
that is the objection.
I mean, I am not sure that we want all of the permanent
trusts or spending programs that we have today. Certainly we
are finally getting out from under the damage that was done by
the welfare programs by this city, out from under the damage
that was done by the agriculture programs that were run by this
city. I think we should be looking to get less spending and
less control and less resources flowing through the political
process and more in the hands of individuals who create the
wealth and who own it.
Mr. Tauzin. Well, I am not going to win you over on this, I
know. But let me point out a couple of things. One, it is not a
fund for 34 States. All 50 States and all 5 territories share.
The National Governors Association has, in fact, endorsed it on
that basis.
Mr. Norquist. The National Governors Association is a
government-funded, taxpayer-funded, lobby that we wish was not
using taxpayer funds to lobby for these sorts of things.
Mr. Tauzin. I understand. I also want to point out that the
private property right protections in this bill go beyond
current law. That current law allows for expropriation,
condemnation authority. Now that is eliminated in this bill. It
allows for condemnation authority for adjacent properties to
inholdings. That is eliminated. It is only acquisitions within
inholdings that are permitted from willing sellers.
And, most importantly, I want to point out, you mention
that it would hurt the tax base. This bill actually provides
for full funding to the local communities, whereas it, the PILT
program, has been funded at 60 percent. So that actually the
tax base is enhanced in here. I understand you don't like the
money spent because the money has to come from someone, but the
tax base is actually reestablished in the bill.
And, finally--and I will let you comment and we will end
it--that this also provides for a great deal of State-based
programming, as opposed to Federal-based programming, which I
know has, again, it is just the same dollars, but the point I
am making is that it does fit the conservative mold of having
the decisions being made on the local level rather than so much
on the Federal level. Those are simple points I want to make,
recognizing I am not going to win you over in spite of that.
And you can respond and then I will yield.
Mr. Norquist. Yes. From the taxpayers' perspective, this is
a particularly horrid bill. It gets the government in the
business of owning more resources and more land, rather than
less. If we were talking to people from Poland, we would be
giving them the opposite advice, not telling them to move
towards greater State ownership and State control both of the
means of production and of land.
I did fill out the form that was sent to me. Here. The
Americans for Tax Reform does not receive any government money
and I think the people who are arguing for spending more
government money might want to be up on the table as to whether
or not they are getting government money now. The Americans for
Tax Reform is particularly concerned that in this town we have
whole institutions that take taxpayer money, Federal, State,
and local, and then come and lobby with that taxpayer money to
argue for more taxpayer money. That is why the taxpayers have
been losing for so long and it has been so expensive for
taxpayers.
But, as you know, you talk about property rights being
guaranteed, we can have the property rights groups from around
the country bring to you examples of people who have found
their voluntary sale of property to the government to be less
than voluntary because of harassment from bureaucracies and
from various agencies that would do justice to some other
country in another time, rather than American principles.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank you. I don't have any quarrel with
that. In fact, I respect your position a great deal in some of
those respects. I would only point out I would rather ride on a
Federal highway system in America than the one in Poland.
[Laughter.]
I yield to my friend from California, Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. I thank the gentleman for yielding and, Mr.
Hansen, if I might--just because obviously one of the purposes
of this hearing is to try to find out what changes or
amendments that need to be thought about to the text of both of
these bills--and back to the issue of game, non-game, native
species, what have you, what is your position now? Because I
think your testimony is a little different than a previous
letter we had on how to make sure that this range of habitat
needs and species protection is taken care of.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Miller, Mr. Chairman, the Izaak
Walton League has been quite consistent in that we realize, as
Mr. Waller and others have pointed out to you, that non-game is
the overwhelming need for the State agencies. Game species are
currently supported by license fees, by the Pittman-Robertson
fund, and non-game, there are maybe $10 million out of $100
million need that is funded in any fashion. So we believe that
these funds need to be primarily applied to non-game.
Mr. Miller. Okay. That is helpful because the previous
witness and I am just trying to--because, obviously, this is an
area we have discussed among ourselves and discussed with many
of the organizations to try to figure out how you do this
properly.
Mr. Hansen. Right. We have indicated our acceptance of
having this be a subaccount of the PR fund because the PR fund
has been around now for 60 years. It is functioning. It is
functioning well. It has been highly successful. And so we
think that it would just be----
Mr. Miller. Okay. Well, we obviously would like to continue
this discussion after the hearing about how this is done with
you and others about this.
Mr. Coleman, I want to thank you for your testimony. You
know, one of the early supporters of UPARR, obviously, has been
law enforcement that has just, you know, demanded of cities and
others that they have a sort of an additional arrow in their
quiver, if you will, in dealing with young people, in dealing
with the problem that so many parents are concerned about what
happens to children, you know, in the late afternoon. My
generation grew up with recreational programs and young kids
today don't necessarily have that available to them.
And that kind of support, really universal from the cities
and others about UPARR, I think, is very important to this
legislation. And I think the case you cite in Detroit on the
large and small scale can be cited elsewhere where the
opportunity to change the dynamics of that neighborhood, of
that facility, of making it into a first-class facility changes
people's behavior throughout the neighborhood. It becomes
really an engine for change. So thank you very much for your
support and for your testimony.
And Ms. Campana, I want to thank you also on behalf of the
Conference of Mayors. I think, you know, you make a very
important point here. I would say, contrary to what Mr.
Norquist suggests, people are voting all of the time with their
pocketbooks about these issues with bond issues for parks,
whether they are local parks or whether they are regional or
State facilities; the setting aside of open space is rather
dramatic in this country and is growing at a significant rate.
This was a fund that was, in fact, under our democratic
process, it was promised to this Nation to protect these and
provide for the acquisition and development of these resources.
If there is a faulting of this democratic process, it is that
the Congress went back on its promise when the OCS development
was put in place in 1964. So I want to thank you also for your
testimony.
Finally, before my time runs, I just want to say, Mr.
Norquist, your comment here about Federal ownership of land and
stewardships of land is fairly contrary to the record. In fact,
we are a model worldwide for what we have been able to do in
this country with the foresight and the development of these
lands and the protection of these lands. In fact, we have a
list much longer than we will ever be able to satisfy from
emerging democracies all over the world who look at our
national park system, who look at our wilderness systems, who
look at our regional systems, and are now coming to us to say
how can we develop and how can we provide this kind of
protection elsewhere in the world?
Actually, Mr. Norton, I read the other day you are leaving
to go off to China, right? To try and help develop a park
system, or a park, I guess, not a----
Mr. Norton. Park system.
Mr. Miller. Park system there. And this is coming from all
over the world, because they have recognized a number of
things. Not only is this about good resource management, these
also have become huge engines of economic activity as the
population becomes more mobile, has the ability to travel, and
all the rest of it, that these, in fact, are now major
contributors to the GNP, if you will, of those nations. And it
is about good stewardship. And I think, you know, very, very
proud of what this Nation has done with the history of the
stewardship of these Federal resources and also the partnership
in helping States and localities develop their resources. Thank
you.
Mrs. Cubin. [presiding] Mrs. Chenoweth. You are recognized
for five minutes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I do want to
make some comments with regards to the previous chairman's
select comments about the condemnation of private property.
Actually the bill, I am sorry to say, does not extend authority
for protection of private property rights beyond existing law
because, actually, it does acknowledge the fact that nothing in
this Act shall be construed to limit any right to compensation
that exists under the Constitution or any other laws. It
doesn't do anything to reign in the rules and regulations under
which the agencies are imposing a de facto condemnation without
paying landowners under the wetlands provisions, under
provisions drafted in the form of rules and regulations under
the Endangered Species Act, and many other Federal programs.
In fact, the bill does state that no monies available--this
is on page 21 of the bill--it says, you know, you can't condemn
unless, I mean, you can go through the Constitution to condemn.
But it also states that no monies available--under this
paragraph for Federal purposes--shall be used for condemnation
of any interest and property. So what we are doing here, you
have got to understand, is we are allowing for condemnation,
but we just don't allow for payment to the landowners. We are
only allowing payment to a willing seller, under coerced
conditions. And I think that is very, very sad.
In addition, the chairman, previous chairman-select, had
mentioned that this bill's only purpose is to pay inholdings.
It goes far beyond that. There is a little two letter in their,
beyond the word inholdings, it says, ``or any other Federal
program authorized by Congress.''
And, finally, the PILT payments. The fund will be
controlled wholly at the discretion of the Secretary of
Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture. So I am less than
sanguine about what this bill will do for PILT.
I do want to ask Ms. Campana. You are from a State that has
only 3.5 percent private property, I think, or some very small
number. Isn't there a need to look at funding for the State
component of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, instead of
involving a piece of legislation that may impose more
restrictions on your ability to govern in your States and in
your cities?
Mayor Campana. Actually, about 16 percent of Arizona is
held in private hands and the rest of it is public, including
even Indian reservations along with national, State, local
parks. And possibly compelling was your argument about 95
percent of the land is undeveloped, only 5 percent developed.
But in a community like Scottsdale, where if none of my
citizens are around, I will confess to you, that 10,000 people
moved to Scottsdale last year. One hundred thousand people to
the valley. So the open space that is next to the people who
were there before is critically important and preservation of
these historic lands and landscapes, they are overwhelmingly
supporting these by 65 percent, 70 percent, the most recent
election that we had was 75 percent of the people are
supporting these.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Let me ask the gentlelady. How are your
counties funded? I know that in some of your counties--and I
stand corrected on that percentage--but some of your counties
have only 3.3 percent private ownership. How do these counties
fund their schools and their roads?
Mayor Campana. Our counties, Ms. Chairman and Congresswoman
Chenoweth--and I am an Idaho girl by the way--some of them
don't even have home rule. As a matter of fact, we don't have
county home rule. So this really is a State and local issue,
which is why, again, representing the U.S. Conference of
Mayors, I would like to ask for consideration that these be
able to be applied for at the local level.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I agree with you there. I do want to ask
Grover Norquist--sometimes I think we are falling through the
looking glass backwards with proposals such as this. I know
that you are very involved in what this Congress is talking
about in truth in budgeting. We talk about truth in budgeting
and trust funds and many other things. I would like you to
elaborate as to whether this bill comports in its funding
mechanism with our concern about truth in budgeting.
Mr. Norquist. Well, short answer is no. I think that the
challenge here, though, is we are creating additional
entitlements, we are spending other people's money. I mean,
everybody seems to be all excited about all the wonderful
things they are going to do with money they take from other
people. Then we are told everybody at the local level is
willing to spend this money. Well, fine, then spend it at the
local level, but somehow we are going to get the Federal
Government to take it all because everybody at the local level
is so excited about doing this so we are going to make them do
it.
Somehow, the argument that everybody wants to do it so the
first thing we have to do is make them do it strikes me that
perhaps the first part was disingenuous or perhaps they are
doing something that everybody is going to do anyway on this.
I mean, this question of spending these quantities of money
to take land out of private stewardship and put it in the hands
of the Federal Government and, again, if Mr. Miller was here,
we could have people from California and the rest of the
property rights movement around the country give examples of
how Federal ownership of land is not the same thing as good
stewardship of land. There seems to be this religious belief
that if you put something in the hands of the government, they
will take care of it.
For too long, this city did that to poor people and did an
awful lot of damage to poor people with their welfare state,
claiming they were helping people all the time while they were
destroying families, destroying neighborhoods, and killing
people's futures. Just because the government does it, doesn't
mean it happens or it works well.
Mr. Miller may make the case that we are less destructive
of our Federal lands than other countries. That is probably
true. I wouldn't doubt that. But when you put stuff in the
government's hands, nobody is in charge of it, at the same time
that everybody is in charge of it.
You also end up, we are going to put this--I mean, you are
talking about certain individuals are going to making these
decisions, the opportunity for corruption and buying property.
A business school professor once said there are two ways to get
rich: sell something to the government or buy something from
the government. And this is an opportunity for a lot of people
who make political contributions to get very rich. This is
written to create political corruption.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Cubin. Mr. John, the chairman yields you five minutes.
Mr. John. Thank you very much, Mrs. Cubin. First, a couple
of comments and observations for Mr. Coleman. Of all the
testimony that we have heard today, yours had the most profound
and realistic impact when you talked about the park over in the
city of Detroit, about how it is in a real sense, a
representation of why we are here today.
In your 23 years working these issues, can you maybe give
us a synopsis of where the funding has come from; has it been a
funding stream that you could count on to develop parks and
havens for helping kids and giving them, the children of
America, a little place to play, rather than to get in trouble?
Would you share with the Committee your experience with parks
and the funding streams to construct them.
Mr. Coleman. Thank you to the Chair and to the Congressman,
the one important thing that has to be remembered, especially
in the urban areas, is that most of the park systems were
initiated because an individual or some individuals donated
park lands for the communities to be preserved and used as open
space. From that, the communities then took the responsibility
of maintaining them. The development of those facilities and
the expansion of those facilities came as a result of
specialized programs of development through grants, in the most
part in most communities, through grants that came from Federal
Government or came from the State government programs or it
came from the private sector.
The dollars that are dedicated to operate are very finite
because most of the public agencies are general fund. The
service level never decreases, but the opportunity for
resources from the general fund is always limited. And, over
the years, even as the Land and Water Conservation fund and
UPARR were developed, in the initial development of them, it
was really exciting to know that there would be a pool of
resources that we could apply for, we would have to come up and
match those grants, and then use them to make improvements in
restoration and acquisition.
Over the years, those funds dwindled because the dollars
dedicated to the Land and Water Conservation Fund and UPARR
dwindled to almost nothing. This is the most aggressive
opportunity that we have seen at least in the last 10 or 15
years to try to put some dollars aside. The last time I think
was about maybe seven years ago that I saw an opportunity for
UPARR to be funded. It was funded at $5 million for the entire
country. Five million dollars for over 50,000 agencies to apply
for to match their dollars, match with local dollars. Now that
is minuscule.
I think, as one of the other panelists indicated, all over
the country local issues are being passed because the local
citizens realize the importance of parks and recreation. And,
in our case, there was a millage passed for the first time in
the history of Wayne County to support parks and recreation.
And Wayne County's funding had been deteriorating forever. So
that deterioration on the local level can only be supplemented
when there is a source outside of the local funding source to
provide for those special projects' renovation, restoration,
and acquisition.
Mr. John. Right. Thank you very much. And, Mayor Campana, I
would just like to also comment on your presence here today
which I think has been very eye-opening. One of the differences
between the two bills is the operation and maintenance money in
H.R. 798 which is provided for national parks. Do you believe
that the operations and maintenance funding should become a
part of House legislation or should funding be provided for
acquisitions, as is provided for in both of those bills.
Mayor Campana. Operation and maintenance is critical, I
think. I, again, don't want to have to pick and choose between
these bills and hope that there will be a consensus reached
that will address all of this.
Mr. John. Right.
Mayor Campana. But it would be critical for us for
operation and maintenance. Again, in some of these western
States where there is a large amount of open space available,
but there really aren't the funds set aside for maintenance or
enhancement, you know, or renovation as was talked about back
East. So I do think that is critical.
Mr. John. Okay. Thank you very much.
And finally, Mr. Norquist, do you believe that monies which
are collected for a specific purpose should be used for that
specific purpose?
Mr. Norquist. It depends what the purpose is. That is not a
yes or no question.
Mr. John. Do you believe in trust funds?
Mr. Norquist. I believe they exist, yes. I have seen them.
[Laughter.]
Mr. John. I believe that too. That is an easy one.
Mr. Norquist. When you talk about raising money for a
specific purpose, this is a challenge----
Mr. John. If I may continue. I want to make clear that we
are not talking about raising any additional monies. These are
monies that are already being collected as Federal offshore oil
and gas royalties. This is not money coming out of individual
taxpayers' dollars that you were speaking of earlier. This is
from original revenues that are going to be redistributed into
a trust fund for a specific purpose. Go ahead.
Mr. Norquist. Well, and if it wasn't done that, it would be
used to pay down the national debt or to save social security
as President Clinton wants. So this money is coming from
somewhere and taxpayer monies will fill in the void somewhere.
When you tax oil production, that is not free money, that
raises the cost of oil to every American consumer. So when you
raise the price to consumers, either through regulatory burdens
or through tax burdens, consumers and individuals eventually
pay that. This is not free money somehow. This doesn't come
from nowhere. It comes out of the pockets of the American
people at one level or another.
I think there is a real challenge because politically we
see this in State, local, Federal Government. Politicians say
let us spend money over here and let us allocate money for this
particular item, rather than any sort of effort to prioritize
between them or whether or not----
Mr. John. But don't you think that, by setting up
particular trust funds, as in the transportation trust fund as
we did last year, i.e. the social security trust fund that we
are talking about now. We are prioritizing. A prime example is
the social security trust fund that we all want to preserve.
Don't you think that a trust fund signals to the taxpayers and
the people that we represent that these are our priorities, and
that is why we set these things up? Today this Federal offshore
money, $4 billion of it, goes into the National Treasury and is
spent on a myriad of things that you and I would not agree
with, including some wasteful Federal programs.
What we are attempting to do here is to identify a need--
and everyone here and, I believe, in America, recognizes
conservation as a need. You say you represent taxpayers. I
represent 4 million taxpayers in Louisiana that all are in
support of this piece of legislation because of the damage
being done to our State. Don't you think that sets a priority
of spending in a way that is consistent with the wants and the
needs of the taxpayer?
Mr. Norquist. Well, if people wanted to do something, they
do need the Federal Government to come in with money to do it.
They can do it on their own. This land is not not there. It
exists. It is just privately owned. People are talking about
having the government buy it, but what is going to happen is,
instead of having land privately owned, the State or the Feds
are going to by it. There is not more land. The same amount of
land. It is just a question of who is in control and this city
has a history of wanting to move that control out of the hands
of towns and communities and individuals and into the hands of
States and Federal Governments.
I think that is a mistake. I think private people take care
of land than the government does. I mean, if your goal is to
help take care of land.
Mr. John. Well, and, again, an underlying fact in this
piece of legislation is that there must be a willing seller and
a willing buyer before that transaction takes place.
One final question----
Mr. Norquist. I made the point that that isn't always the
case. And Mr. Tauzin suggested it wasn't necessary to have the
property rights people come in to walk through that, but we can
if you are not aware of cases where taxpayers have been coerced
into selling, their property taken away and diminished by
Federal regulations, not voluntary.
Mr. John. There is no person in Congress more supportive of
the rights of property owners than myself. And I respectfully
disagree with your contention in this particular case. And, of
course, that is what this hearing is all about.
One final observation, just to try to see where you are
coming from. Recently the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
FEMA, stated that it was going to get involved in some coastal
projects because they felt that they could save taxpayers
dollars by being more proactive in support of coastal
restoration. When a hurricane hits Federal taxpayer's dollars
are provided for disaster assistance. By getting involved in
some of these coastal projects, that they could maybe prevent
or actually save dollars by reducing the amount of damage
inflicted. Do you think that it is a good stewardship of the
taxpayers' dollars to be doing things like this?
Mr. Norquist. I am not an expert at what FEMA is talking
about doing, so I don't know.
Mr. John. Well, the fact is by funding coastal restoration
projects and making sure that we preserve barrier islands that
shield coastal communities from being flooded or dismantled by
a hurricane we actually are saving taxpayers' dollars. And that
is the point that I am trying to get across, that these are the
kinds of projects that we are looking at in H.R. 701.
Mr. Norquist. Okay. I am not an expert on that. I would
defer to some of the people who have lived through it. I know
FEMA has a checkered history on how it has treated people and
that it is a question of whether you want the Federal
Government running an insurance program in the first place, or
at least running it the way they do now.
Mr. John. Thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. [presiding] The gentleman's time has expired. I
thank the gentleman. Let me thank the panel, unless the
gentlelady has additional time. Let me just wrap by a couple of
observations. One, I think the gentleman from Louisiana is
trying to make the point, and I want Mr. Hansen to comment on
this, that there is some connection between the money being
derived and its purpose, as we collect highway taxes to build
highways.
If the money that is being derived is income from Federal
lands, isn't it a good purpose to use some of that money to, in
fact, prevent the loss of lands and Federal lands or to enhance
through maintenance and proper spending, the quality of that
land? As long as it is owned by all the people, why have it
deteriorate and go to waste and lose 35 square miles a year in
Louisiana if, in fact, the money coming from production of
Federal lands might be used to preserve and protect that land
from further loss and degradation? Isn't maintenance,
therefore, Mr. Hansen, a key ingredient of this formula?
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Chairman, I think we would all agree that
maintenance is a key component of how we want to see our public
lands treated. I think there are certainly some concerns that
this program not take the place of existing programs. That this
be an additional program.
Mr. Tauzin. Yes.
Mr. Hansen. Certainly, the basic premise of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund in both of these bills is that we take
the depletion of a non-renewable resource and we take part of
the revenue from that to use to support renewable resources.
Mr. Tauzin. Isn't it much like income from a rental
property being used to refurbish the rental property so it can
be maintained in its income capacity or in its current state?
Isn't that the kind of analogy we are talking about here? These
are Federal lands producing Federal money and the concept is to
turn this Federal money back into preserving and protecting
these lands. In fact, to make sure that the purpose for which
these lands were acquired in the first place is maintained,
that they do what they were supposed to do, enhance the quality
of natural life on this property.
Mr. Hansen. Exactly. We are keeping some seed for next
year.
Mr. Tauzin. And the final thought, Grover--again, I know I
am not going to convince you----
Mr. Norquist. You are talking about buying more land not
taking--I mean, the Federal Government doesn't take very good
care of the land it does own.
Mr. Tauzin. Well, but let me make the final point, Grover,
and I will let you respond.
Mr. Norquist. And you guys want to use other people's money
to buy more of it.
Mr. Tauzin. Yes. I happen to agree with you, you know, as
an advocate for property rights when Federal regulations take
away a person's right to use his property, that that is a
taking under the Fifth Amendment. You know of our efforts to
make that the law of our land in legislative language rather
than requiring everybody to go to court on an individual basis
and win that civil right. It is a civil right. We think there
ought to be procedures and processes for people to protect
their civil rights in the ownership of private property.
But such being the case, the argument we have always made
is that if someone has some property that the Federal
Government has said is so important for the national interest,
it is a beautiful wildlife preservation area, that, rather then
allowing you to destroy it, we are going to have rules and
regulations that say you can't. We are going to keep it for
that purpose.
Wouldn't it be much better to have a fund where the
government can acquire it rather than simply tell people you
can own it and pay taxes on it, but we are not going to let you
use it? Wouldn't it be better to have a system whereby that
person, having been deprived of their property, in fact, can
simply surrender the title and be compensated as in an
acquisition, rather than the current state of the law?
What I am saying is, I know the perfect. Perfect would be
that, in those kinds of circumstances, that person should have
a right to seek compensation for the damages those regulations
did to the use of his property. But is, absent a perfect world
where we can win those battles, wouldn't it be better to have a
world where at least people could be compensated as in an
acquisition for property whose right they only have left is to
pay taxes on it?
Mr. Norquist.
Mr. Norquist. Well, we have in the United States some 30 to
40 percent of the land in the country owned or controlled by
government now. The land that is just timber land or grazing
land and other land could be sold off to have the revenues to
allow people to buy some land that was perceived as important
to the government that they haven't stolen or confiscated yet.
I mean, there is a whole bunch out West. When you fly over the
West, it is empty out there. And there is an awful lot of land
that the Federal Government owns or controls that would be
under much better stewardship in private hands. Sell that off
and use those resources.
Unfortunately, some people, for ideological reasons, the
same people who thought that the steel mills in Poland should
be run by the government, think that land should be owned by
the government. And that is just wrong. Historically it is
wrong; economically it is wrong. And there has been an effort
to go after and denude the rural areas of people and economic
activity. There are a lot of people who don't like rural areas
and this is part of that drive, to drive people off those lands
and, as Al Gore wants, into cities.
Mr. Tauzin. Well, if we could win a land swap agreement in
this bill and we could win that on the floor, I suppose that
might a worthwhile venture. My point, however, is that,
recognizing the political realities of what can be
accomplished, it seems to me that if the Federal Government is
going to have an enormous cost one day because Homer has to get
relocated and FEMA has to spend enormous sums out there to
relocate hundreds of thousands of Cajuns who won't be able to
live any more in South Louisiana because all of the land has
eroded away. If we can spend, if you will, a penny now to save
it instead of the dollar later that it is going to cost us to
go through all of this process, that is good government, wise
use of the penny. Particularly if it is derived from the land
itself.
And, secondly, if, in the process of preserving this land,
we can tell those landowners for whom we literally have already
taken their rights of use away, at least you can get
compensated in a government purchase. It seems to me there are
some benefits there that we have to weigh in the balance of
where we are today.
I know that is no perfect answer. I know Ms. Chenoweth has
gotten excited enough to want to join us here and I want to
yield to her now, at this time. Mrs. Chenoweth.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Well, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to
comment about your Cajuns. I am sympathetic about your Cajuns
not having any more land because it is being eroded away, but I
think the point that Mr. Grover Norquist and I am making is the
fact that these same Cajuns or Native Americans or people who
come to America because of the hopes and dreams of being able
to own private property, they are not going to be able to live
on the land because we have eroded away the land that they
could purchase under private property agreements.
And I think, yes, in Louisiana, we need to take care of how
your State has suffered because of the public benefit, as we do
in Idaho. I would like to see map of Michigan, though, and see
how many red spots appear on the map of Michigan because of the
impact of this same program. So I don't think it would exist to
near the degree. But we don't want to erode private property
rights nor our private property land base.
Mr. Tauzin. Well, I don't argue with the gentlelady. In
fact, I see this legislation as advancing in significant areas
the cause of private property. But we can, as I said, we will
debate these things as we move along.
Let me thank you on behalf of the chairman, who had to run
early. This continues, as you know, tomorrow so that we will
keep up the process of public hearings until the Committee is
prepared to act. But I can assure the gentlelady and others,
these concerns are taken seriously. We will continue to work on
the legislation to correct it. With that, the Chair declares
this hearing adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:53 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
H.R. 701 Testimony Submitted through March 30, 1999, will be held in
the Committee files at 1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Chizewski, Nicholas A.Bisbee, AZ
Nageak, Benjamin P.Mayor
Barrow, AK
Brabec, Dennis J.
People for the USA
Asbury, Donna L.
Project Wild
Thornton, Gordon
Thornton Dairy and Sheep Ranch
Baruch, Mary Ann
Mimbees, NM
Keeler, Judy
New Mexico State People For the USA
Vogler, Nancy
Lawson's Landing
Allen, W. Ron
National Congress of American Indians
Beard, Daniel
National Audubon Society
Rodgers, Julie
Eureka, CA
Torcaso, Roy
Wheaton, MD
Lamson, Susan
National Rifle Association
Scenic America Board
Washington, D.C.
Speakes Jr., Leland
The Foundation for North American Wild Sheep
Baughman, John
Director
Wyoming Game and Fish Department
Geringer, Jim
Governor
State of Wyoming
Schlecht, Eric V.
National Taxpayers Union
Davis, Mark
Committee to Restore Coastal Louisiana
McCollough, Mark
Maine Chapter of the Wildlife Society
Wichers, Donna
COGEMA Resources, Inc.
Franklin, Thomas M. and Thompson, Edith R.
Maryland's Team Wildlife
Miller, James
The Wildlife Society
Special Committee on Fisheries
Alaska State Legislature
Mumma, John
Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Mumma, John
Colorado River Fish and Wildlife Council
Kitzhaber, John
Governor
State of Oregon
Williams, Nora
County Commissioner
Monroe County, Florida
Case, David J.
DJ Case & Associates
Kimball, John
Utah Department of Natural Resources
Peterson, Everett
Roseburg, OR
Johnson, Dave
Missouri Breaks Chapter, National Audubon Society
Perry, Gerald L. and Gayle L.
Tuscon, AZ
Baicich, Paul J.
The American Birding Association
Dann, Donald
Bird Conservation Network
Roell, Michael J.
Harrisburg, MO
Faulkner, Paul J.
Idaho Falls, ID
Weeks, W. William
The Nature Conservancy
Bennett, Carolyn
Evansville, IN
Winegrad, Gerald
American Bird Conservancy
Blythe, Dick
Indiana Grand Kankakee Marsh Restoration Project
Kropp, Marian
Boise Parks and Recreation
Meiklejohn, Brad A.
The Conservation Fund
------
STATEMENT OF BERNADETTE CASTRO, COMMISSIONER AND STATE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION OFFICER, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION AND
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Thank you Chairman Young and Members of the Committee for
this opportunity to testify before you on the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act and the Resources 2000 Act. My name is
Bernadette Castro and I am the Commissioner of New York State
Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.
I speak to you today not only as the Commissioner of New
York State Parks, but also as a member of the Board of
Directors of the National Association of State Outdoor
Recreation Liaison Officers, as co-chair of the Legislative
Committee of the National Association of State Park Directors
and as co-chair of Governor George E. Pataki's Empire State
Task Force for Land and Water Conservation Funding.
I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership to re-
establish the Land and Water Conservation Fund ``state side''
program through the introduction of this legislation, H.R. 701,
that will benefit urban, suburban and rural areas throughout
the country. My compliments to your Ranking Minority Member,
Mr. Miller from California for his commitment to working with
you on this important issue.
My testimony today will focus on the provisions of your
bill that would re-establish the Land and Water Conservation
Fund ``state side'' program.
As you know, in 1964 Congress created the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) to preserve, develop and ensure that
all Americans had access to quality outdoor recreation and to
strengthen the health and quality of life in our communities.
It was a simple idea: a ``pay as you go'' program using
revenues from resource use, primarily from Outer Continental
Shelf oil and gas receipts that were to be used to support the
creation of national and community parks, forests, wildlife
refuges and open spaces.
Since its inception, LWCF has been responsible for the
creation of nearly seven million acres of parkland, water
resources, open space and the development of more than 37,000
state, municipal and local parks and recreation projects; 1,100
projects were undertaken in New York and resulted in 65,000
acres being acquired for recreational use. From playgrounds and
ball fields, scenic trails and nature preserves, LWCF has been
the key to providing places for all Americans to recreate,
relax and get outdoors.
Let me give you some examples of how ``state side'' money
has been used in New York.
Over the years we have applied millions in LWCF state side
funding to projects at Niagara Falls Reservation (State Park).
Without this funding this oldest continuously operated state
park in the nation, which sees nearly 7 million visitors
annually would not be the treasure that it is today. These
projects included the development and construction of a new
visitor/information center, reconstruction of walkways,
renovation of electric service and creative landscaping which
interprets the system of Great Lakes.
At Jones Beach State Park, the largest public bathing
facility in the world, we have invested millions in Land and
Water Conservation Funds. Together this funding has restored
this jewel to its historic splendor. Each year, 8 million
visitors from around the world, enjoy this recreational
resource on the Atlantic Ocean. Projects at this facility
included total reconstruction of the 2-mile Jones Beach
Boardwalk, restoration of the East End and West End Bath Houses
(swimming pools and related facilities) and improvements to our
parking areas and sewage treatment facilities.
In our urban areas we supported an application for a very
special park, ``A Playground for All Children.'' LWCF funding
($400,000) made it possible for the Flushing Meadow, Queens
community to construct a playground for all children; for those
that have physical challenges, as well as for other children to
enjoy. It has served as a creative facility that was undertaken
well before the era of the Americans With Disabilities Act. It
included interpretive trails, playground apparatus, a sports
and game area, a water wheel, sports courts, a ``rolling'' hill
and sports track.
Working with Onondaga County, we directed LWCF funding to
the Bumet Park Zoo in the city of Syracuse; $1.1 million
dollars was applied to bring this aging facility up to modern
standards for the public to enjoy in a park setting. LWCF
funding helped complete this $12 million dollar project.
As you can see, state side funding has supported a variety
of projects that appeal to the diversity of our population.
Governor Pataki has been a leader in the effort to renew
``state side'' funding. Last year, the Governor called for the
creation of the Empire State Task Force on Land and Water
Conservation Funding to educate the public on the importance of
state side funding, what it has accomplished and what it could
accomplish in the future and to support those efforts in
Congress to re-establish this Federal funding source. On
January 20, 1999, the Governor, through the Task Force, hosted
over 400 leaders of parks and openspace advocacy groups in
Albany for a summit to educate and advance reinstating ``state
side'' assistance. Governor Pataki has also contacted many
Members of Congress in the past to express his commitment to
this vital program and what it means to New York State. The
membership of the Task Force is diversified and includes
Laurance S. Rockefeller as honorary Chairman, John P. Cahill,
Commissioner of NYS Department of Environmental Conservation as
my co-chair, NY Secretary of State Alexander F. Treadwell who
is responsible for New York's Coastal Zone Management program,
Theodore Roosevelt IV, Mark Rockefeller son of Nelson, several
municipal organizations including the NY Conference of Mayors
and Association of Counties, The Conservation Council
representing sportsmen, and a variety of enviromnental
organizations from the National Audubon Society NY Office to
the Nature Conservancy, Open Space Institute and Trust for
Public Land, just to name a few.
It is critical that a stable source of funds for the LWCF
be established. As you know, LWCF has been critically
underfunded at approximately one-third of its annually
authorized level of $900 million, with no funding provided to
the state-side matching grant program in recent years.
In New York, Governor George E. Pataki has been a leader in
providing for the creation of recreation and open space lands
and providing support for localities to develop outdoor
recreation facilities. Through the Governor's efforts we have a
fully dedicated Environmental Protection Fund and a Clean
Water/Clean Air Bond Act, each contributing financial support
to localities wishing to expand their openspace and
recreational resources. New York State has done its share to
provide some of the necessary resources for outdoor recreation
and conservation.
However, we can not meet the need for local parks alone.
Since 1995, State Parks has received 1,050 applications for
park projects. Communities have sought to invest over $600
million in recreational facilities. Although most of these
projects are solid, worth while park projects, 800 of them have
yet to be undertaken. Federal support of these projects will
help New York leverage the investments we have made through our
Environmental Protection Fund and Clean Air/Clean Water Bond
Act.
We want to continue to build on success stories in New York
such as restoring the beautiful beaches on Long Island, to
building shaded parks in New York City, to helping revitalize
waterfront areas and small town parks throughout the state. Mr.
Chairman, we applaud your efforts and your commitment to re-
establishing a Federal/state/local partnership by providing
revenues for the revitalization of the ``state-side'' grant-in-
aid Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Let me share with you what I believe should be included in
any legislation that is advanced by the House:
1. The legislation should permanently provide $900 million
dollars annually to support both the Federal and state side of
LWCF without the need for annual appropriations.
2. This funding should be evenly split between the Federal
and state side programs. These two programs complement each
other and any new legislation should assure that they do not
compete with each other for funding, nor should it place new
limitations on the use of the funds that would reduce their
effectiveness.
3. The legislation should provide for full funding for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund state side program and address
important wildlife needs and coastal zone issues.
4. The state side program should fund acquisition,
planning, development and capital rehabilitation. It is worth
noting that the state side program has in the past supported
capital rehabilitation. These types of projects should be
authorized by the plain language of the Act and not left to
interpretation. I note that the Urban Park and Recreation
Recovery Act (UPARR) provides for this type of project and the
Senate version of CARA includes language in this regard that we
believe should be added to the House version.
5. The allocation of all state side funds should be based
on a formula that recognizes the recreational needs of the
state's residents placing emphasis on population and land mass
with a lesser component to be shared equally between all the
states.
6. Projects should be prioritized based on a state
implemented public process. In New York we are proud of these
public processes that we use to review projects and establish
priorities for our openspace program. We look forward to
applying these processes to state side funding and the creation
of our State Action Plan as required by H.R. 701. At this point
I would also offer as an aside, that considering the effort
that will be put into the creation of a state action agenda, at
a minimum, the National Park Service should coordinate with the
state prior to awarding UPARR grants to ensure a cooperative
approach.
7. Any legislation which deals with revenues derived from
the extraction of natural resources on the Outer Continental
Shelf should not create incentives for that extraction. As a
coastal state, New York is very interested in sharing an
equitable portion of outer continental shelf revenues with
other coastal states which will help fully fund the Land and
Water Conservation Fund. Revenue derived from this national
asset should be reinvested into initiatives which provide
benefits for future generations. I congratulate the Chairman in
recognizing this issue and taking steps to address the concerns
that were expressed with last year's bill and I encourage the
sponsors to take those additional steps necessary to eliminate
the issue completely. However as a representative of a coastal
state, I do not believe eliminating the entire program as
proposed in Resources 2000 is the best solution.
8. Most importantly, funding for this program must not come
at the expense of other Federal dollars which are provided in
support of the states.
It is apparent from the outpouring of interest from groups
throughout New York State that there is a great deal of
momentum toward seeing a renewal of state-side funding for the
LWCF and full funding for the entire Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
For one moment, I must make some comments as New York's
State Historic Preservation Officer. While we have been
primarily focused on the use of the Land Water Conservation
Fund for support of Federal land acquisition and the state side
program, in the past Outer Continental Shelf revenues have also
been used to support state activities to enforce the National
Historic Preservation Act. I hope that any successful
legislation will include a component to provide this funding to
the Historic Preservation Fund and to increase funding over
current amounts, so that we may be able to provide grants to
preserve historic treasures which are on the National Register
of Historic Places.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
------
STATEMENT OF DAVID WALLER, DIRECTOR, GEORGIA DIVISION OF WILDLIFE FOR
THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is David Waller, Director
of the Georgia Division of Wildlife and Vice-President of the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. As you
know, all 50 State fish and wildlife agencies are members of
the Association. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you today with the strong support of the Association for H.R.
701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. The Association
sincerely appreciates your efforts and those of Cong. Dingell,
Cong. Tauzin, Cong. John and the other co-sponsors, in bringing
this far-sighted conservation proposal to the table, which will
provide consistent and dedicated funds to the states to
conserve our fish and wildlife resources, provide for the
protection and restoration of our coastal habitats and living
resources, fund land and water conservation activities at all
levels of government, and provide much-in-demand recreational
opportunities for our citizens, thus resulting in economic
growth to our communities. The Association is also encouraged
that Cong. Miller and others have recognized many of these same
needs in introducing H.R. 798, the Resources 2000 Act. We do
have concerns about the focus, legislative construct, and
funding levels in H.R. 798 which I will share later with you in
my testimony. However, we strongly endorse the efforts of you
and Cong. Miller to identify common ground in a bill that can
pass Congress and be enacted into law this year. As you know,
the need for these programs in the states are significant, they
enjoy wide public support, and our children and their children
will thank us for the commitment we make to ensure the
conservation and vitality of America's natural resources.
The Association, founded in 1902, is a quasi-governmental
organization of public agencies charged with the protection and
management of North America's fish and wildlife resources. The
Association's governmental members include the fish and
wildlife agencies of the states, provinces, and Federal
Governments of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. All 50 states are
members. The Association has been a key organization in
promoting sound resource management and strengthening Federal,
state, and private cooperation in protecting and managing fish
and wildlife and their habitats in the public interest.
Mr. Chairman, I know that you are well aware of the
longstanding commitment and priority of the Association to
secure the necessary funds so that the State fish and wildlife
agencies can address the needs of all fish and wildlife species
in their states, including conservation education and wildlife
associated recreation needs. As you know, the states have
principal and broad authorities for the conservation of fish
and resident wildlife within their borders, even on most public
lands. Congress has given the Federal executive branch agencies
(USFWS and NMFS) certain statutory conservation obligations and
responsibilities for migratory birds, anadromous fish and
listed threatened and endangered species, but this
responsibility remains concurrent with State jurisdiction. As
Secretary Babbitt once remarked, States are the front-line
managers of fish and wildlife within their borders.
You are also well aware of the long history and strong
commitment of support for funding state fish and wildlife
programs by the sportsmen and women of this country through
their purchase of hunting and fishing licenses, and
contributions from excise taxes they pay on sporting arms and
ammunition, fishing tackle and other equipment, import duties
on fishing tackle and pleasure boats, and gasoline excise taxes
on outboard motor and small engine fuels. These funds are
apportioned to the States under permanent appropriation in the
form of matching grants under the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937
and the Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux Act of 1950 and 1984,
respectively. These license and excise tax funds are the
principal source of funds for State fish and wildlife programs.
Our successes under this legislation are well known from
restoration of white-tailed deer and pronghorn antelope to wild
turkey and wood duck and striped bass. There have been
corollary benefits to species other than those that are hunted
and fished, from the conservation of habitat, etc. However,
there simply have not been either sufficient or dedicated funds
for the State fish and wildlife agencies to adequately address
the conservation needs of these so-called ``nongame'' species,
which constitute approximately 90 percent (over 2,000 species)
of the vertebrate species in the United States. H.R. 701 will
position the State fish and wildlife agencies to duplicate the
tried and true success of the Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-
Breaux programs with species such as the cerulean warbler,
bluebirds, loggerhead shrike, American goldfinch, bog turtle,
and species of frogs and salamanders that are declining.
Responding to early warning signs of decline in these species
by addressing life needs and habitat requirements through
cooperative non-regulatory programs with private landowners
will not only conserve the species but also help avoid the
social and economic disruption associated with listing species
as threatened or endangered. Most threatened and endangered
species come from this universe of so-called nongame species,
which makes sense if you think about it, because we have not
had adequate funds to address these nongame species needs,
whereas we have had the funds for game and sportfish species
conservation. The more we know about declining species the
quicker we can respond with a broad array of incentive-based,
non-regulatory programs that gives us maximum flexibility in
working with the landowners to allow them to meet both their
land management objectives and fish and wildlife conservation
objectives. This preventative conservation approach just makes
good biological sense and good economic sense.
Seven years ago when the Association made a commitment to
secure funding for comprehensive wildlife programs in the
states, we began to enlist a support coalition that has now
grown to over 3,000 conservation, business and other
organizations. Our ``Teaming With Wildlife'' initiative, as we
called this endeavor, built up tremendous grassroots support
around a funding mechanism patterned after Pittman-Robertson
and Wallop-Breaux that would extend existing excise taxes on
sporting arms, ammunition and fishing equipment to other
outdoor recreational gear at a very modest level. However, this
user-fee approach did not gain the bipartisan political support
in Congress needed for success. There was broad bipartisan
recognition of the need for these funds and the merits of the
proposed state based wildlife conservation, conservation
education and wildlife-associated recreation programs, but not
for the funding mechanism. Through the dedication, creativity
and support of you and your sponsoring colleagues you have
married these needs with those of coastal habitat and living
resource conservation, and a recommitment of Congress to
funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund and Urban Parks
and Recreation Recovery Act, all from a portion of revenues
from gas and oil leases and royalties from the Outer
Continental Shelf. We applaud your far-sightedness and
appreciate your commitment to addressing all of these needs at
the state level.
Before I comment on H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 specifically, let
me summarize again for you the needs in the States for wildlife
conservation, conservation education and wildlife associated
recreation. The Association is currently updating our State-by-
State needs assessment, and more specific information should be
available soon.
Less than 10 percent of state fish and wildlife agency
funding is available for the conservation of 86 percent of our
nation's nongame wildlife species. State agencies have barely
enough funding from established game species funding sources to
support vital conservation programs. While game species budgets
for all 50 states add up to approximately $1 billion annually,
nongame programs, lacking a similar dedicated funding source,
fall short of $100 million. Thirty-two states operate nongame
conservation, recreation, and education programs on less than 5
percent of their fish and wildlife budgets. H.R. 701 will
provide the states with the funds to achieve preventative
conservation through collecting good information (from fish and
wildlife surveys and inventories), implementing appropriate
management and habitat conservation endeavors, and retaining
the State fish and wildlife agencies ability to work with
greater flexibility with private landowners in a non-
regulatory, incentive based manner.
Dwindling fish and wildlife species and habitat
directly affect some of the fastest growing forms of outdoor
recreation. Wildlife viewing is the number one outdoor activity
in the United States and has become a billion-dollar industry.
Hiking participation has rise 93 percent and camping 73 percent
in the past 12 years. Nature-based tourism is escalating at a
higher rate than any other segment of tourism worldwide.
Impressive participation statistics translate into billions
of dollars of economic activity each year:
-- Wildlife watchers spent $29 billion in state and local
economies during 1996, a 39 percent increase over 1991
spending, according to the latest U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service survey.
-- Watchable wildlife recreation supports $22.7 billion in
salary and wages and more than one million jobs.
A documented upswelling of interest in conservation
education programs is both good news and represents a challenge
as state fish and wildlife agencies are hardpressed to keep up
with the public demand for technical assistance for private
landowners, developers and local governments, informational
materials on wildlife, landscaping for wildlife, and requests
on where to view wildlife. Innovative wildlife education
programs enjoy positive responses, but often lack sufficient
funding. Funds under the Conservation and Reinvestment Act will
enable all 50 states to support increased recreation and
education participation. Local communities will benefit from
increased tourism. Nature tourists will extend their stay an
extra day or two if they discover more wildlife watching
opportunities during their visit. Finally, a caring citizenry
is essential to the success of all wildlife conservation
efforts and maintaining the natural systems that support us.
The Association estimates $1 billion or more in additional funding
needs annually for all 50 states for these programs. However, even a
half billion dollars will have a significant positive benefit for 2,000
nongame species, as well as benefit many other species as well. Often
game and nongame species share the same habitat and both benefit from
conservation efforts such as restoring wetlands, stream rehabilitation
or habitat restoration.
Funding state conservation, recreation and education efforts
together makes economic and social sense. To sustain the growth in
nature-based tourism and outdoor recreation requires an investment in
our nation's wildlife and land and water base. Particularly,
opportunities close to urban and rural communities for fishing, hiking,
wildlife viewing and outdoor recreation programs are becoming
increasingly important for families and communities. Enhanced
conservation education efforts will facilitate better-informed citizens
and assure a high quality of life for people and wildlife.
H.R. 701 will provide the appropriate funds to the States to
satisfy these very vital needs.
Mr. Chairman, here are the reasons the Association strongly
supports H.R. 701.
H.R. 701 re-commits the United States to a policy of
dedicating revenues from the exploitation of non-renewable
resources into securing the status of living renewable
resources, conserving land and water resources, and providing
recreational opportunities for our cities and local
communities, through a permanent, indefinite appropriation to
fund state-based programs. We appreciate and support the
language in H.R. 701 which addresses the question of whether
any of these revenues could be a potential incentive to states
to encourage more drilling. Your language, we believe,
appropriately ensures that no incentive is in the bill and that
with regards to drilling in OCS waters, the bill is ``drilling
neutral.''
H.R. 701 builds on the support the states have relied
on for decades from our Nation's hunters and anglers to finance
state fish and wildlife programs by broadening this funding
support to a permanent, indefinite appropriation from a general
revenue source, the leases and royalties on Outer Continental
Shelf gas and oil extraction. We support the use of the very
successful Pittman-Robertson Act as the means of apportioning
the funds to the States under a separate subaccount, to be used
for the purposes of enhanced comprehensive fish and wildlife
conservation, conservation education, and wildlife associated
recreation programs. This is a proven, efficient system.
H.R. 701 positions the States to avoid the economic
and social disruption from listing species as endangered by
taking preventative conservation measures early on to address
life needs and habitat requirements of declining fish and
wildlife species before they reach a level where listing is
necessary to protect them.
H.R. 701 focuses decisions on spending priorities at
the local (not Washington) level, where states and communities
are in the best position to know what those needs and
priorities are. We must facilitate local identification of
issues and problem solving, not top-down prescriptive
solutions.
H.R. 701 allows States to work with private landowners
in a non-regulatory, incentive-based manner to achieve their
land management objectives consistent with good conservation
for fish and wildlife species.
H.R. 701 allows and positions local communities to
take best advantage of robust fish and wildlife populations
through nature-based tourism opportunities (bird watching
tours, hiking tours to natural vistas, etc.) thus providing
local economic support to those communities.
H.R. 701 builds on our citizens' strong sense of
stewardship about their land by making them a part of the
problem solving and implementation of solutions.
Through ensuring the conservation of good habitat for
fish and wildlife, the programs funded by H.R. 701 will ensure
the quality of life for our citizens and future generations,
since we all rely on the same life support systems.
H.R. 701, in addition to wildlife programs, will
provide funds for coastal restoration and enhancement programs,
wetlands restoration, coastal zone management efforts, and
environmental remediation from the impacts of on-shore landing
of OCS gas and oil, through the proper location, placement and
mitigation of pipelines, roads, and other infrastructures
needs.
H.R. 701 restores certainty to the state-side aspect
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund program so that
conservation and recreation projects of highest state and local
priority are satisfied.
Mr. Chairman, the Association strongly encourages you to make one
change in Title III of H.R. 701. In order to appropriately fund
programs where the needs are the greatest, we respectfully request that
the minimum funding level for a state be raised from 1/2 of 1 percent
to 1 percent. This will greatly benefit some of our smaller primarily
mid-Atlantic and northeastern states and Hawaii where pressures on
wildlife and habitat are great and demands for recreation and education
program are high. The apportionment to the other States will be reduced
only very minimally, but the benefit will be great to the fish and
wildlife resources and citizens in the smaller states. We urge your
favorable consideration of that change.
Let me now comment on H.R. 798, the Resources 2000 Act. The
Association is encouraged that H.R. 798 has a title that contains
provisions for funding to the states for State-based enhanced wildlife
conservation. We are also encouraged that H.R. 798 seeks to use certain
OCS revenues under a permanent, indefinite appropriation. Finally, as I
indicated, we are further encouraged that you and Cong. Miller have
both publicly stated your interest and willingness to work together to
find common ground between your proposals to move forward towards
enactment of a bill this year.
However, we do have several serious concerns about some specific
provisions of H.R. 798. First, the OCS source funds in H.R. 798 is
limited to only royalties and revenues from wells in Western and
Central Gulf of Mexico OCS waters that are producing as of January 1,
1999. We understand that this is the bill sponsors' way of ensuring
that this bill is in no way a potential incentive to encourage further
OCS drilling, and even though further (after January 1, 1999) OCS
exploration and drilling will continue both within and outside of these
areas, none of the revenues will go to fund the programs under this
bill, rather, they will be deposited in the Federal treasury. We
believe that the treatment of the incentive question in H.R. 701 is
adequate and appropriate, and the consequence of the H.R. 798 language
would be very self-limiting and guarantee substantial reductions over
time in the amount of money available to fund conservation efforts. We
believe that the price and supply of oil and natural gas is the driving
determinant of new exploration and drilling, which is corroborated in
the recent Congressional Research Service report on OCS Oil and Gas
Leasing and Revenue (IB10005, January 1999).
Our second concern is that the native fish and wildlife
conservation and restoration title in H.R. 798 amends the 1980 Fish and
Wildlife Conservation (Federal nongame) Act, instead of Pittman-
Robertson, and makes $100M-$350M available to the States for native
fish and wildlife conservation, starting with $100M and ramping up over
six years to $350M. The amendments to the 1980 Act replace the existing
``nongame fish and wildlife'' language everywhere with ``native fish
and wildlife,'' and add an additional purpose to preserve biological
diversity by maintaining an assemblage of native fish and wildlife
species. The definition of native fish and wildlife could be very
problematic because it includes only species that currently or
historically occur in an ecosystem, and are not there as a result of
introduction. It also gives the Secretary of the Interior final
decision authority as to what is a native species. It is virtually
impossible to substantiate the origin of many of our indigenous fish
species and this definition could exclude spending money on salmon
restoration, for example. Also, the restoration of the Eastern
peregrine falcon was from a captive-bred source of hybrid North
American-European-African peregrine falcons, which under this
definition in H.R. 798, would not be eligible for funding conservation
activities therefor. It is not at all clear whether a project which
would benefit native species plus other species of uncertain origin
would be eligible for funding. We doubt that ``native'' is a workable
legal definition because there are hundreds of species whose status as
native is uncertain.
Our third concern with this title of H.R. 798 is that, while the
elaborate and rather prescriptive planning requirements in the 1980 Act
may have been appropriate in 1980, most states have already recognized
the need to look comprehensively at the resource base, habitat
availability, land use activities, and user demand in their state, and
have articulated a strategic plan for the fish and wildlife resources
in their state, after due and appropriate public review and
participation. We believe that the states do not need to be
legislatively directed to do more planning, but are ready and prepared
now to spend money on the ground to address conservation needs. Some
have responded to these concerns of ours by suggesting that if the
states already have a plan, it should facilitate quick approval. Our
concerns is that with a fairly elaborate planning process requirement,
if any entity disagrees with the Secretary's approval of the state
plan, there are enough legal hooks to hang litigation on, which could
cause significant delays in getting funds to the State for immediate
on-the-ground conservation activities.
Our fourth concern with this title of H.R. 798 is the availability
of funds, which start at $100 million and are ramped up to $350M over
six years. We know that our needs are much greater than even $350K and
conclude that $100M is simply not adequate to address those needs.
Funding commensurate with the States' significant needs should be
available from the start-up, as we have outlined earlier in this
statement.
Our final concern with this title in H.R. 798 is that the 1980 Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Act does not authorize funding for either
conservation education or wildlife associated recreation. We have
earlier stressed the needs in these two arenas also, and are
disappointed that no funds are made available for those purposes in
H.R. 798.
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude my remarks by reiterating our strong
support for H.R. 701. This could be the most comprehensive piece of
conservation legislation in our lifetime. We sincerely appreciate the
efforts of you and Cong. Dingell, Cong. Tauzin, Cong. John and the
other cosponsors in bringing the legislation to this point, and pledge
the support and effort of the State fish and wildlife agencies in
working with you to enact this legislation this year.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and I
would be pleased to respond to any questions.
______
STATEMENT OF SARAH CHASIS, SENIOR ATTORNEY, DIRECTOR OF WATER AND
COASTAL PROGRAM, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
My name is Sarah Chasis and I am a Senior Attorney with the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Director of its Water and Coastal
Program. I appreciate this opportunity to testify today before the
House Resources Committee on H.R. 701, The Conservation and
Reinvestment Act (``CARA''), a bill introduced by Chairman Young, and
H.R. 798, The Resources 2000 Act, a bill introduced by Congressman
George Miller.
My testimony on behalf of NRDC focuses on the Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) impact assistance Title of H.R. 701, The Living Marine
Resources Title of H.R. 798, and the OCS revenues used to fund all
titles of both bills.
NRDC is a national environmental organization, with over 400,000
members, dedicated to protecting natural resources and ensuring a safe
and healthy environment. NRDC has a long history of involvement with
the protection of ocean and coastal resources and has worked on a
number of coastal and ocean issues, including offshore oil and gas
drilling, coastal zone management and marine fish conservation.
In our view, the overarching goal for the coast and ocean title of
these bills should be protection and restoration of our nation's
fragile, but extremely valuable coastal and marine resources which are
increasingly under pressure from a variety of forces. In achieving that
goal, 5 principles should be closely adhered to:
The legislation should provide no financial benefit to
states from the lifting of current moratorium or from new
leasing or new drilling. This should apply to all titles of the
legislation, not just the coastal or OCS Impact Assistance
Title.
The state or local share of money should not be tied
to the acceptance of new or closer leasing or drilling.
Money that goes to the states and local governments
must be spent on environmentally beneficial projects.
There should be Federal agency oversight of how money
is spent to ensure compliance with Federal environmental laws.
Any offsets should not come from existing
environmental programs.
These same basic principles are set out in the February 2,1999
letter to Chairman Young and other representatives from nineteen of the
nation's major national conservation organizations that is attached to
our testimony. This letter states that: ``Our organizations are
strongly opposed to any financial incentives that promote offshore oil
and gas development,'' identifies incentives included in earlier
versions of the legislation and recommends ways of removing them.
H.R. 701, while containing improvements over last year's bill (H.R.
4717), still falls seriously short when measured against the above
principles. In contrast, H.R. 798 adheres to these principles very
closely. As a result, we support H.R. 798, but must continue to oppose
H.R. 701 unless and until the concerns we have raised are
satisfactorily resolved. We stand ready to work with the members of the
Committee and their staff to do this.
Following is our analysis of the two bills with respect to the
principles enunciated above.
H.R. 701, THE CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT
REVENUE SOURCE
H.R. 701 includes revenues from new leasing and new drilling as a
funding source for all titles of the bill, with one exception. excluded
from revenues for Title I (``Impact Assistance Formula and Payments'')
are revenues from leased tracts in areas under moratorium on January 1,
1999 (unless the lease was issued prior to the establishment of the
moratorium and was in production on January 1, 1999).
While this latter language represents a definite improvement in the
bill, it only affects Title I. In addition, it does not exclude
revenues from new leasing and drilling in sensitive frontier areas not
covered by the moratorium. The bill thus still falls short of meeting
the first principle. The obvious concern is that if the many and varied
beneficiaries of this legislation see that it is in their financial
interest for new leasing and drilling to occur--in order to provide
more funding for the legislation overall and for them in particular--it
will erode support for the existing offshore oil and gas moratorium,
which currently protects the east coast (with the exception of existing
leases off Cape Hatteras), the coast of Florida (with the exception of
existing leases off the Florida Panhandle), the central and northern
California coast (with the exception of existing leases off the central
California coast), Oregon, Washington and Bristol Bay in Alaska. It
will also lead to support for new leasing and drilling on existing
leases off North Carolina, the Florida Panhandle and central
California, as well as in sensitive areas off Alaska--none of which are
currently protected by moratoria and many of which, if not all, are
extremely controversial.
It is crucial to remember that the moratorium only exist because
Congress each year reenacts it as part of the Interior Appropriations
legislation. Presently, a one-year COngressional Outer Continental
Shelf Moratorium Contained in the FY 1999 Department of Interior
appropriations bill precludes the expenditure of funds for new Federal
offshore oil and gas leasing in specific coastal areas until October 1,
of this year (1999).
This Congressional OCS moratorium prevents new leases for offshore
drilling on any unleased tract along the entire U.S. West Coast, the
East Coast, portions of Florida, and Bristol Bay in Alaska. Now in its
seventeenth year, the moratorium must be renewed each year. As recently
as the 104th Congress, the moratorium was removed in the House
Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, and was only narrowly
reinstated after a big fight in the full House Appropriations
Committee, in spite of strong opposition to the measure by then-
chairman Rep. Bob Livingston. There have been previous years in which
the OCS moratorium has survived in the House Appropriations Committee
by a narrow single-vote margin.
Related actions have been taken by two successive presidents, which
supplement, but do not replace, the protection granted by the
Congressional moratorium. These ``Presidential Deferrals'' are
political in nature and are not considered to be as dependable in
providing assured protection over time. In 1991, former president
George Bush announced that he was directing that any further OCS
leasing within the areas protected by Congressional moratorium, except
in Alaska, be deferred until after the year 2002. No formal executive
order was issued by Mr. Bush, and it is considered that any subsequent
president could reverse this decision.
DUring the 1999 ``Year of the Ocean Conference'' in Monterey,
California, President Clinton, accompanied by Vice-President Al Gore
and four Cabinet Secretaries, announced that they were directing the
Minerals Management Service of the Department of Interior to extend the
previous Bush OCS deferrals until the year 2012. No formal Executive
Order has been issued by the Clinton Administration since this
announcement, and it is considered vulnerable to possible policy
reversals by subsequent administrations.
Even for Title I, the improvement is incomplete because revenu from
new leasing and drilling in sensitive frontier areas not covered by the
moratorium would still fund the Title. In addition, it is not clear
from the language whether revenues from drilling on existing leases off
North Carolina, the Florida Panhandle and Central California would be
used to fund Title I. These leases are in moratoria areas but are not
covered by leasing moratoria. Drilling on these leases is an extremely
controversial issue in each of those states.
To address the problem, the legislation should define the term
``Qualified Outer Continental Shelf Revenues'' in the definitions
section (Section 102) to exclude revenues from new leasing and new
drilling after the date of enactment of the legislation, as the
Resources 2000 legislation does. This would remove the financial
incentive to support new leasing or drilling in moratoria and other
sensitive coastal areas.
ALLOCATION OF STATE AND LOCAL SHARES
The legislation ties a state's share of funding under Title I
directly to the amount and proximity of OCS leasing and production off
its coast. This provides a clear financial incentive to states to
accept new leasing and drilling.
Fifty percent of a state's allocable share is dependent on its
being within 200 miles of a leased OCS tract. The more production on
such tracts and the closer in to shore these tracts are, the more money
the state gets. See Section 103 (c)(1) and (2). An improvement in this
section of the bill is the exclusion of moratoria tracts from this
calculation. Thus, even if moratoria tracts are leased or drilled, a
state would not get more money. However, the language is ambiguous with
respect to existing leases/production on tracts in moratoria areas.
These tracts also should be excluded. Moreover, new leasing and
drilling outside moratorium areas, including sensitive frontier areas
off Alaska, would still be factored into the allocation formula, thus
providing a significant incentive for allowing such activities to
proceed.
We believe that the formula for allocating funds under Title I
should not be tied to OCS leasing and production, but instead should
rest on shoreline miles and population alone. Alternatively, if OCS
activity has to be a factor, it should be based on a fixed, flat
percentage based on historic OCS activity, not new activity that occurs
after passage of the legislation. This would acknowledge states that
have suffered OCS impacts to date, without providing an incentive for
new leasing, exploration or production.
Another major concern with the bill concerns the method of
allocating funds to local jurisdictions. Fifty percent of a state's
share goes directly to eligible local political subdivisions. Section
103(E). Eligible political subdivisions are defined to be those that
lie within 200 miles of any leased tract (including tracts in moratoria
areas). Section 102(6). As a consequence, a locality with OCS leasing
off its coast is entitled to share in 50 percent of the state's
allocable share, with its share increasing the closer the leased
tract(s) are, localities with no leasing are not entitled to any part
of the state's allocable share. Obviously, this creates a major
incentive for localities to accept new OCS leasing.
To address this problem the definition of eligible political
subdivision should exclude tracts leased after enactment. Such tracts
should also be omitted from the calculation of how much an eligible
political subdivision receives.
USES OF THE MONEY
It is extremely important that funds distributed to state and local
governments be used to restore and enhance coastal and ocean resources
and not to cause further environmental degradation. For this reason, we
strongly recommend that uses be restricted to:
Amelioration of adverse environmental impacts resulting from
the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of OCS
facilities, above and beyond what is required of permitted
under current law;
Projects and activities, including habitat acquisition, that
project or enhance air quality, water quality, fish and
wildlife, or wetlands in the coastal zone;
Administrative costs the state or local government incurs in
approving or disapproving or permitting OCS development/
production activities under any applicable law including CZMA
or OCLSA; and/or
Repurchase of OCS leases.
The uses of the money authorized in Section 104 of H.R. 701 do not
ensure that further environmental degradat10n do not take place. Their
focus is not on restoring the environment or ensuring activities do not
further degrade the environment. While states may use funds for such
purposes, there is no requirement that they do so. Moreover, states and
localities would be free to use the money for a huge array of purposes,
including promoting more offshore drilling, highway construction and
the like.
We urge that our proposed language be substituted for that in the
bill, or that the approach taken in H.R. 798, discussed below, be
utilized.
OVERSIGHT
To ensure that the Federal dollars are spent responsibly, in an
environmentally sensitive manner that complies with Federal law, it is
important that there be Federal oversight and approval of state plans
for utilization of the funds.
While the legislation requires the states to develop plans for use
of the money and to certify the plans to the Secretary of Interior, the
Secretary is given no authority to review and approve these plans. In
addition, it is the state that determines consistency of local plans
with Federal law, not the Federal Government! Section 105(c). The lack
of Federal oversight combined with the broad uses to which the funds
may be put and the large Federal dollars involved mean that
environmentally damaging projects could well be funded under this
legislation.
OFFSETS
It is essential that OCS impact assistance not be funded at the
expense of existing environmental programs.
H.R. 798, THE RESOURCES 2000 ACT
We strongly support H.R. 798 because it adheres to the principles
we support. It does not provide incentives for new offshore leasing or
drilling. The bill specifically excludes revenues from new leasing and
production as a funding source for the entire bill. See Section 4(4)
definition of qualified OCS revenues.
The bill also does not allocate revenues among states (or local
jurisdictions) based on proximity to leased tracts or production.Title
VI (``Living Marine Resources Conservation, Restoration, and Management
Assistance'') makes financial assistance available to coastal states
based on coastal population and shoreline miles. Section 602(B)(1).
Finally, the bill requires that Title VI money be spent on the
conservation of living marine resources, not on activities that could
contribute to further environmental degradation. It provides
significant new funding ($300 million) specifically for marine
conservation.
We recommend that consideration be given to having some portion of
the money under Title VI go to help fund existing underfunded marine
and coastal conservation programs, such as coastal zone management,
marine sanctuaries, and essential fish habitat protection. A portion of
the funding under this title could be used to assist in achieving the
goals of at least some of these programs; however, it would not appear
to directly fund them. Similarly, we would like the opportunity of
working with Congressman Miller and the Committee on the standards that
apply to the state conservation plans to ensure that these plans are
effective as possible and on ways to encourage states to move from the
planning phase to the implementation phase expeditiously.
We appreciate this opportunity to testify and look forward to
working with the Committee on this important legislation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.027
STATEMENT OF MAYOR SAM KATHRYN CAMPANA, CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA,
AND VICE CHAIR, U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, ARTS, CULTURE, AND
RECREATION COMMITTEE
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, on behalf of the
1,100 cities represented by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, I
want to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you
today to present testimony supporting the increased funding for
the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Urban Parks and
Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR).
For far too long the Federal Government has not fulfilled
the commitment it made over 30 years ago when it created the
Land and Water Conservation Fund program to ensure that all
Americans would have access to nearby park and recreation
resources. We applaud the leadership of you, Mr. Chairman, in
forging a bipartisan bill that would restore funding to the
stateside program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and
the UPARR. We also applaud the Ranking Minority Member,
Congressman George Miller for his passionate leadership on this
issue for many years and for the proposals he had made in his
legislation.
The benefits the Land and Water Conservation Fund and UPARR
can deliver to local communities and neighborhoods across this
great nation are endless. Urban parks, recreation areas, and
open space are critical to the vitality of our nation's cities
and the citizens we serve. Urban sprawl is threatening our
natural open space, the demand for parks has skyrocketed, and
the backlog of necessary maintenance and repairs continue to
grow. The Land and Water Conservation Fund and UPARR will help
provide for the park down the street where parents play ball
with their sons and daughters, where toddlers explore a
playground, where the neighborhood soccer team practices, where
teenagers can go just to blow off steam, and where seniors can
walk along the park paths.
In my hometown of Scottsdale, Arizona, several examples of
the direct community benefit resulting from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund exist. As I travel through Scottsdale, I
don't have to go to far without encountering these community
amenities. For example, the Land and Water Conservation Fund
provided funding for the park where Scottsdale's first
community swimming pool is located. Since then Chestnut Park
neighborhood park, Eldorado Park's Lake, Jackrabbit Park,
Scottsdale Bikeways, Chapparral Tennis Court Lighting, and
Vista Del Camino Spray Pads, were funded in part through Land
and Water Conservation Fund. Scottsdale received 20 Land and
Water Conservation Fund grants from 1965 through 1984, totaling
$2.1 million, and leveraged these funds into $4.4 million. In
Arizona alone, $46 million of Land and Water Conservation Fund
accounted for $92 million of projects since the inception of
the fund. These are only small examples of the many worthy
projects throughout the country that have been supported by
Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Without question, the greatest current concern of the
Scottsdale community, however, is the preservation of thousands
of acres of pristine Sonoran Desert and mountains that are
undeveloped and lie within Scottsdale City limits. Our citizens
were so committed to preserving this beautiful land that in
1995, they took the unprecedented step of approving by a wide
margin a .2 percent sales tax increase to preserve over 16,000
acres of the scenic McDowell Mountains and Sonoran Desert.
Three years later, 80 percent of the proposed area has been
preserved, using $132 million in voter-approved sales tax
dollars. In November, the Scottsdale community overwhelmingly
approved another measure to expand the current preserve
boundary by 19,000 acres. Clearly, the preservation of this
unique open space--with its scenic desert, majestic mountains,
stately Saguaro cactus, and energetic wildlife--is a natural
resource that Scottsdale citizens want to leave as a legacy for
future generations.
We urge you to revitalize the Land and Water Conservation
Fund and UPARR programs, so that these Federal dollars can be
matched with millions in local dollars. When the nation's
mayors gathered for our 66th Annual Conference of Mayors last
June in Reno, Nevada we unanimously passed a resolution in
support of full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
and the UPARR programs.
While we strongly support funding for the stateside program
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the UPARR program
as called for under H.R. 701 and H.R. 798, we also encourage
Congress to allow cities to apply directly for these funds
rather than relying on the states to pass them through. In
addition, we would ask you to allow UPARR funds to be used for
land acquisition and maintenance of local parks and recreation
programs.
In closing, I want to pass along a theory to which local
officials subscribe. Former U.S. Conference of Mayors President
and Knoxville Mayor Victor Ashe is fond of saying that our most
important park is not Yellowstone, but the one down the street
that serves our children every day. The importance of our parks
and open spaces cannot be underestimated.
The state and local assistance program of Land and Water
Conservation Fund and UPARR are two resources we should pursue
and utilize so that all Americans can continue to enjoy our
nation's wonderful natural resources, and the outdoors.
On behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, we thank you
for your interest in the revitalization of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and the UPARR programs and offer any
assistance we can provide as you draft this important
legislation.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
------
STATEMENT OF PAUL W. HANSEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF
AMERICA
Mr. Chairman and members of the House of Representatives
Committee on Resources, My name is Paul Hansen; I appreciate
the opportunity to present the views of the Izaak Walton League
of America on the Conservation and Reinvestment Act and the
Resources 2000 Act. These legislative proposals, taken together
with other similar proposals being considered in the Senate and
along with the administration's Lands Legacy initiative, offer
a truly historic opportunity to significantly advance the
conservation of important natural resources. The Izaak Walton
League is now in it 77th year of grassroots conservation work.
We have 50,000 members and supporters throughout the country
working in their local communities and on national conservation
and environmental issues in over 325 chapters. It is our
members who set our conservation policy and it is on their
behalf that I provide these comments.
In our view, this is an especially critical and auspicious
time to secure a reliable, long overdue financial commitment to
our nation's natural resources. At the brink of a new
millenium, with a strong and vibrant national economy producing
budget surpluses at the Federal and state levels and with
bipartisan support in both houses of Congress--now is the time
to get it done. The legislative proposals that are the subject
of this hearing demonstrate exactly the kind of leadership,
determination and cooperation necessary to accomplish this
task. I want to share with you my wish and that of our members
to see all parties working together with the singular goal of
achieving a major victory for natural resources in this session
of Congress. We are deeply committed to working with you and
others to that end.
I am especially pleased, as you requested, to address the
League's interests with respect to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) provisions of these bills. The League
has a long and abiding interest in LWCF. You may know that Joe
Penfold, a former Conservation Director of the League,
conceived of this program 35 years ago as part of his
participation on the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review
Committee. Our members fought hard for it then, and LWCF has
had our determined and continuing support. However, League
members have been over the years equally distressed to watch as
the original promise of this program was robbed year after year
in the appropriations process. We have watched in dismay as $13
billion of important land conservation efforts have gone umnet
while these funds were diverted for unintended purposes. I
cannot overstate the importance to our members of full,
permanent funding for this program.
LWCF is a critical conservation tool that supports land
stewardship in two ways. It provides for acquisition of Federal
lands to complete National Wildlife Refuges and create
important new refuges. These special lands are crucial to
maintaining the nation's abundant wildlife resources. Much of
the good that should flow from the recent passage of the
organic act for the National Wildlife Refuge System will not be
realized without a fully funded LWCF. We appreciate the pivotal
role played by the leadership of this Committee in crafting and
passing that landmark legislation--a model for the current
effort before us.
Other systems of Federal lands rely equally on LWCF to
complete acquisition within their authorized boundaries and
purchase in-holdings from willing and often eager sellers.
Some of these willing sellers have been waiting for some
time for provision of sufficient financial resources to
accommodate their sales. Federal acquisition needs also include
new lands of special conservation value. It is often not
possible to predict when these lands will become available thus
management agencies must have flexibility to respond to
opportunities as they arise--this includes readily available
financial resources.
Our systems of public lands are assets of immeasurable
value that we can and must pass on to future generations. They
are the envy of the world and draw tourists from every part of
the world to see and enjoy. Without securing, conserving and
expanding these land resources, we foreclose future
opportunities for our children and theirs as they seek to
exercise wise stewardship of the legacy they will inherit.
We fully support expanding Federal ownership of lands in
the eastern half of the country. Expanded public lands would
increase opportunities for outdoor recreation where demands
from burgeoning population centers is high and fragmentation of
natural habitats is impacting wildlife populations as well as
wildlife-dependant recreation. In fact, League members are now
working aggressively to restore a portion of the original
50,000 acre Grand Kankakee marsh, on the border of Indiana and
Illinois, now designated as the Grand Kankakee Marsh National
Wildlife Refuge. This is a hugely important wetland restoration
effort that would have major, far-reaching benefits for
resident and migratory wildlife alike. Its ultimate success
will depend on the LWCF.
We understand the concern of western states regarding
Federal land acquisition especially where some states already
have large portions of their acreage in Federal ownership.
However, we are concerned about the provision in Sec. 202 of
H.R. 701 requiring that two-thirds of funds for Federal
acquisitions be spent east of the 100th meridian. This
provision creates an unwise, and we think unnecessary,
restriction that could well result in lost opportunities to
conserve important and critical western land resources. The
Payment in Lieu of Taxes provision in Title II should alleviate
some of the concerns relating to the financial impact of
increased Federal land ownership in these states. We should
also acknowledge that these public lands provide an economic
resource to states and local communities. They contribute to
the quality of life that draws visitors from around the country
who support many local economies whether from hunting and
fishing, other forms of outdoor recreation. Or simply
vacationing.
LWCF also provides for important state conservation and
outdoor recreation needs. Funding for this part of LWCF has
been particularly neglected in recent years. The stateside
program can provide resources that states and localities need
to help control and mitigate for urban sprawl. Sprawl, with its
consequences to quality of life, is a growing concern across
the country, a trend clearly identified in the last election
cycle. Sprawl is, as shown in a study we just released, an
important limiting factor to hunter access and other wildlife-
dependent recreation. Copies of this report have been provided
for the Committee members and an Executive Summary is appended
to this testimony.
Time is against us in the battle to wisely manage land use
and conserve open space across our country. Planning options
for local communities increasingly are foreclosed. Now is the
strategic time to address this problem, and financial resources
must be provided to help. Once converted to developed uses,
open space is lost and with it the wildlife and other amenity
values it supports.
For the record, it is fair to say that given a choice
between the funding level provided for LWCF in H.R. 701 and H.R
798, we would predictably choose the latter which provides more
funding for both the Federal and state sides of the program.
The need will continue to out-strip available resources. Every
conservation dollar is important.
For many years, the League has worked with groups around
the country to secure a dedicated funding source for state fish
and wildlife agencies. The agencies need these funds primarily
for non-game wildlife management. This category of wildlife,
unlike game and threatened and endangered species, has no
specifically directed funding. We continue to feel that the
Teaming With Wildlife funding mechanism that called for a small
excise tax on outdoor equipment would have addressed an equity
issue. Hunters and anglers have for decades willingly paid such
a tax on their equipment and continue to provide the vast
majority of funding for state fish and wildlife agencies. While
we regret the loss of an opportunity to create equity in
funding for wildlife, we do fully support the principle of
reinvesting revenue from non-renewable resources in renewable
natural resources--the concept embodied in LWCF and as provided
for in these bills.
The need for financial support of state fish and wildlife
agencies is well documented. Support is long overdue, both from
within the states and from a dedicated Federal source. We
believe that Federal aid is a critical and appropriate
component. Wildlife is oblivious to political boundaries. While
states have a statutory responsibility for managing most
wildlife, these populations can and do cross boundaries and are
a part of the nation's commonly held assets. All citizens have
an interest in the wellbeing of wildlife populations,
regardless of geography.
The states have the lion's share of responsibility to
provide for the needs of wildlife under their stewardship. With
a few notable exceptions, they have not met this
responsibility. Twenty-one states currently contribute no
general or dedicated funds to their fish and wildlife agencies,
and another twenty-one provide less than 20 percent (based on
fiscal 1995 data). These agencies are supported entirely by
license fees and existing Federal aid programs--this at a time
when nearly every state is experiencing a budget surplus. We
are about to release a report detailing the relationship
between economic benefits derived from and state reinvestment
in fish and wildlife conservation. We will see that members of
this Committee receive a copy of that report.
The state matching provisions in Title III, Sec. 305(d) of
H.R. 701 should provide a positive incentive for states to do
better. However, we feel that the proposed 90:10, Federal:state
initial matching ratio misses an opportunity. We would
encourage a matching requirement on the order of 25 percent at
the outset in order to challenge the states to do their fair
share consistent with existing formula--not a Federal giveaway,
but a partnership for wildlife. It is equally important that
state matching funds not be diverted from existing fish and
wildlife agency programs.
Amending the existing Pittman-Robertson, Federal Aid in
Wildlife Restoration Act to provide for allocation of these new
funds to the states makes good sense, and the distribution
formula is equitable. Our current Federal aid programs have a
long track record of achievement and effective operation, and
we support that approach for handling the distribution of this
new revenue.
With regard to Title I of H.R. 701, we continue to be
concerned that the issue of possible incentives for increased
oil and gas development is adequately addressed. We have been
reassured with statements by the bill's sponsors' expressing
their similar intentions. We remain willing to continue
cooperative efforts to resolve this matter in bill language.
Lastly, given the realities of budget constraints, we want
to reiterate our opposition to seeking any budget offset that
may be necessary from other important programs in Function
300--Natural Resources and Environment. Robbing Peter to pay
Paul is not an acceptable solution.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee--let me end by
challenging all of us to set aside politics and organizational
and personal agendas to work together on this important
initiative. We have a unique and fragile window of opportunity
to accomplish a historic conservation measure. If we do it
boldly, not shrinking from the size of the task or magnitude of
the financial need, and if we do it right, not trading one
valued resource for another, then we can do it now--and in a
way that will allow us all to celebrate together.
Thank you for your attention.
------
STATEMENT OF HURLEY J. COLEMAN, JR., WAYNE COUNTY DIVISION OF PARKS,
WESTLAND, MICHIGAN
I have wrestled with the best way to introduce my comments
for this testimony, primarily because I am somewhat intimidated
by the magnitude of this moment, and also because I have longed
to be here doing just this for many years. I have been involved
in the provision of leisure services for the past 23 years as a
graduate of Eastern Michigan University. I walked out of
college knowing that the career path I had chosen would give me
the chance to make a difference in peoples lives.
I chose public parks and recreation because I believed
then, as I do now, that of all of the services that local
government provides, recreation is the only one that touches
people directly and personally. It is the service of choice,
the creator of memories, and the barometer of the quality of
life.
I presently serve the sixth largest county in the United
States. We are celebrating an 80 year history of providing
leisure service to the residents of Wayne County. This history
is there only because of a few pioneering visionaries who
determined that to set aside park lands for the future was
important. This sentiment can be echoed throughout the country,
especially in our urban areas where the only park lands are
those acquired through donations or grants.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund and Urban Park and
Recreation Recovery Program can be found at the center of the
development of many of the great facilities in many areas of
the country. In most of the major cities, parks programs were
enhanced only when a source of funds outside of the normal
financing process was identified. The evidence of this is the
overwhelming number of grant applications to every dollar that
is available, whether through Federal, state, private, or
foundations.
I took the opportunity to talk with some of my peers
throughout the country and, quite frankly, was not surprised to
find that most of us have the same opinion. In communities all
across the country, large and small, city and county, regional
and state parks systems; we all find ourselves in competition
for funding with other agencies within our organizations. Many
of us have the constant baffle to validate investment in
recreation in comparison to commitments to public safety. It
has even become fashionable to use terms like prevention and
alternatives when describing law enforcement, when this is
really the natural domain of the parks and recreation
profession. It is the local recreation program that identifies
the leadership qualities of the gang member and redirects it to
a positive use, that mines the caves of the shy and withdrawn
and inspires great talent. The most effective deterrent to
negative leisure pursuits is the infusion of positive
programming. The most aggressive deterrent to the negative
social elements in a park is a family picnic.
Nowhere is the impact of recreation more visible than in
the local, county, and state parks. It is these areas that the
study commissioned in 1985, by President Ronald Reagan's
COMMISSION ON AMERICANS OUTDOORS, identified as the opportunity
of first response to educate, break barriers, and enhance
appreciation of the nation's natural resources. In fact, a
great parallel was drawn showing that the recreational desires
of residents of rural, suburban, urban areas was essentially
the same. These desires changed with the cultures and
exposures, but had the same essence of enjoyment at heart.
This should come as no surprise, especially in these days
of expanding urbanization. It is no secret that the definition
of urban has changed significantly over the recent years.
During this time period, the recognized value of greenspace as
a component of healthy community environments has become a
staple in community planning.
In the late 1850's, when the Olmstead tradition of New
York's Central Park became the icon of green space protection,
the other major cities were following suit, Philadelphia's
Fairmount Park, Chicago's South Park, and Detroit's Belle Isle
were representative of good government leadership in providing
for regional type facilities. This effort was followed by the
development of playground in Boston and other large cities that
recognized the need for recreation for urban youth.
The growth of communities throughout the country followed
the recipe of big cities, with large regional parks and smaller
recreation programs on a localized basis. These were funded
through gifts and donations. The communities were not providing
services consistently until after World War II. Between the
years of 1951 and 1974, the country experienced both explosive
growth in services, however, it also became apparent that many
of the older facilities were beginning to show deterioration
and lack of investment. Communities were struggling to provide
basic services as their audiences grew by leaps and bounds. It
was evident that some assistance was necessary for these
critical needs. Several agencies engaged in study of the
situation and the following reports were produced:
1962-OUTDOOR RECREATION RESOURCES REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
established the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) and the Land
and Water Conservation Fund(LWCF).
1970-BOR produced THE RECREATION IMPERATIVE, the first
nationwide outdoor recreation plan. Supported by a special
study of urban recreation in 1972 by HUD, this report suggested
that ``up to 75 percent of the LWCF could be used to support
the day use of major urban areas and at least 30 percent of the
funds should serve the central city needs.'' This
recommendation was not followed with action, but with more
studies.
1963-Department of Interior published the NATIONAL URBAN
RECREATION STUDY, which chronicled serious deficiencies in
urban recreation nationwide, within the most serious needs in
the inner cores of the nations largest cities which had
demonstrated an inability to meet these needs without outside
assistance.
I could continue with this mantra of painful recitations
with studies that are as recent as last year, with much of the
same results. However we find ourselves with an unprecedented
opportunity. We, you, have the chance right now to take the
place of the visionaries of the past and support a process that
will provide for development, renovation, and enhancement of
critical recreation resources in important living spaces
throughout this country.
A great value of the LWCF and UPARR funds is the fact that
local agencies must make an appropriate commitment to the
investment to take advantage of the funds. Most projects would
only take place if there were dollars available outside of the
normal funding process. These funds, along with local match,
make for the most successful return on investment that
government can make in the quality of life of the citizens of
this country.
A great example of this can be found in Wayne County,
Michigan. The largest city in the county of Wayne is the City
of Detroit. For it's entire eighty year history, Wayne County,
as a result of it's development, only provided park facilities
in suburban areas. This cannot be considered a criticism,
considering that all of the parks had been donated or acquired
as a result of county road development and expansion. The Wayne
County Parks restoration story is a unique one, but significant
to the moment because it included an effort, for the first time
in it's history, to develop a dedicated source of funding. Part
of this plan included a proposal to invest a substantial amount
of the millage proceeds in the City of Detroit. The project was
identified when City of Detroit Parks and Recreation Director
Ernest Burkeen and I talked about possibilities in the city.
Chandler Park is one of the oldest and largest parks in the
city and rests in one of it's most impoverished areas. The park
is bordered by one of the oldest housing developments in the
country and both it and the park had fallen into grave
disrepair. A study had been conducted to determine the most
critical recreational need for the area. This study determined
that some type of aquatic facility was necessary. The
leadership of Wayne County, CEO Edward H. McNamara and his
staff met with Mayor Dennis Archer and his staff, forging the
plan to invest in a multimillion dollar family aquatic center
in this park.
The park was a magnet for inappropriate activities, ranging
from substance abuses of all sorts, gang banging, and even nude
dancing on hoods of cars. Needless to say, it was not a family
park. Police calls were recorded at one of the highest levels
in the city in Chandler Park. The neighborhood was up in arms
and dissatisfaction was the name of the game.
A number of community forums and neighborhood meetings
suggested that there was overwhelming support for the project.
The elected officials of Wayne County and the City of Detroit
worked with us to lease a portion of the park and construct the
aquatic center. Immediately after ground breaking, we began to
notice a shift in the culture of activities that occurred in
the park. What we see now is almost idyllic in nature, a
complete culture change as a result of that facility, and
police calls almost insignificant.
This is a true success story that could not have happened
if a source of funds outside of the normal funding process had
not become available. There also had to be political will and a
process to make it happen. These elements existed in Wayne
County for that instance, and some others, but should exist all
across America.
In fact, the format and program is there. Since the
inception of the LWCF and UPARR, these funds have served as a
ray of hope for the providers of public recreation. There are
not many sources outside of normal funding processes that are
dedicated specifically for public parks and recreation. These
not only do that, but inspired the same kind of activity in
state and local government throughout the country. They served
as catalysts for local investment in the quality of life of
communities. Some projects would never happen without the 50
percent match of the LWCF or UPARR. Some communities would have
no recreation center, no sports fields, no open space. Historic
areas would not be preserved, the legacy of a national
recreation infrastructure would not be protected.
I cannot impress upon you enough the intense needs for
stateside funding at full levels, and if possible permanent
status off budget. The number of projects would be
overwhelming, so much that it would seem like creative writing
101. For example, a 1995 survey by the National Recreation and
Park association identified capital investment needs for parks
and recreation from the period 1995-1999. Local agencies alone
will require a nationwide total of $27.7 billion for
rehabilitation, land acquisition, and new construction. Less
than half of that sum is currently identified as potentially
available.
A recent national survey of local and state recreation and
parks agencies yielded an immediate need for $1.7 billion to
support 1,450 projects. This response occurred within a 6-week
period. Last year in the Michigan there were $107 million in
grant requests, but only $25 million were approved. This is not
an atypical year for programs that the voters approved, and are
very proud of. Nothing can underscore this need any more than a
response like this. There are even more examples of unmet needs
that we can cite:
Illinois--the cost of land is skyrocketing, making it
difficult to protect valuable woodlands from development.
Nature preserves, forest preserves, and park districts are
losing the battle with developers because they can't compete
with their unlimited resources or their ability to quickly
respond to opportunities.
Nebraska--a very rural state where most communities have a
population of less than 1,000 people. Their ballfields were
developed with LWCF funds in the early years without lights.
With only $100k allocated to the state, unlit ballfields was
the best that could be done. Unlike some communities, softball
is still one of the most important public recreation activities
in Nebraska. The unmet need there is to have those fields
lighted, but there are no ready funds to undertake that effort.
Wisconsin--there is an unmet need in Wisconsin that register
somewhere near $8 million, according to some sources. A prime
example is a 15 year old project in Dane county that involves
the acquisition of some 3,500 acres of prime open space for
recreation purposes. The local appropriations process does not
include funds beyond day to day operations and normal
renovations.
There is the assumption that states and local communities are
enjoying budget surpluses and unlimited funding opportunities. In fact
those surpluses are paper for the most part, and are managed by
limiting tax exposure by placing ceilings and other restrictions. In
fact, the issue of funding from the Federal level has been raised on
the basis of responsibility. So then, there is the query of ``why
should Federal dollars be spent on what seems clearly to be local and
state responsibilities?''
First of all, the Federal Government will benefit because this
effort will take the pressure off of the Federal Government to create
new Federal lands for open space protection and recreation. This comes
at a time when the Federal programs are experiencing pressure in areas
of maintenance, operations, and capital improvements.
Secondly, the two biggest items facing the nation are crime
prevention and health care costs. Investments in park and recreation
facilities and programs is a direct counter to those expenditures. The
evidence irrefutable. Consider this notion, the $35k that it will take
to finance one incarceration will fund staff, equipment, and supplies
for a small community recreation program.
The President is talking about livability, especially in urban
areas. Critical urban areas must be made livable, with recreation as a
prime component in the decision making process for corporate and family
relocation. There is no better investment for local government than in
the quality of life. In many communities, youth assistance programs are
becoming the best method of promotion for a communities status as a
livable city.
There are 43 communities in Wayne County. Some of them have
experienced the highs and lows of urban renewal to the point that now
they area struggling to stay alive. Many of these communities are
looking to the county to provide support for their failing parks and
recreation systems. We have all of the warm feelings and ideas that can
be proffered at this time, however, resources are limited to what we
can find allocated in our own budgets. This is the place, in the past,
where the LWCF and UPARR have come to the rescue with grants that
helped these communities. The most amazing thing is that each grant
requires a substantial local match. This match encourages the initial
investment as well as the long term allocation to maintain the
facilities. Think of these programs as catalyst for local government
investment in the quality of life enhancements that help these
communities stay alive.
Today, our nation is poised on one of those pinnacles that faced
the millennium leaders of our past. This is a moment of destiny that
will establish a real agenda for the quality of life of Americans. This
is the initiative that we expected from President Reagan's Commission
on Americans Outdoors, from the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, from the
legislation that created the Land and Water Conservation Fund and Urban
Park and Recreation Recovery Program.
This is the instance where the phrase ``CARPE DIEM-SIEZE THE DAY''
makes all of the sense in the world. I trust that you will make
historic decisions for now and the future. Support funding these
critical programs at their full levels for the first time in our recent
history. Take the bold step for tomorrow, today.
______
STATEMENT OF GROVER G. NORQUIST, PRESIDENT, AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM
Chairman Young, other members of this Committee, and ladies and
gentlemen, thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning
about the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 701) and the
Resources 2000 Act (H.R. 798).
My name is Grover Norquist, and I am president of Americans for Tax
Reform, an organization of over 90,000 individuals, taxpayer advocacy
groups, corporations and associations that are deeply concerned with
the high levels of taxation and government spending. I come before you
today to oppose attempts of the Federal Government to purchase more
private land.
Federal royalties from onshore oil and gas production on Federal
land are split with the States where the leases are. Federal royalties
from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leases, are not shared with the
States. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act is an attempt to build
enough political support to send some of the OCS revenues to the States
adjacent to offshore production, by spreading the funds across many
other states. The real solution would be to send a portion of OCS
revenues only to the six OCS States' general treasuries, just like
onshore royalties.
Title I of the legislation gains support from 34 Coastal Sates by
divvying up 27 percent of OCS revenues according to several formulae.
The Great Lake States are defined as Coastal states, even though there
is no oil production in the region, simply because those states provide
a lot of votes in Congress. The six states with OCS production will get
more money than other States. Louisiana will get the most followed by
Texas, Alaska and Florida.
Title II of this legislation gains support from environmentalists
by turning the Land and Water Conservation Fund of 1965 into a trust
fund, not subject to further Congressional appropriation. This removes
accountability and is a big concern of taxpayers. The trust fund would
be generated by 23 percent of OCS revenues up to the authorized Land
and Water Conservation Fund level of $900 million per year and would be
used exclusively to purchase private land.
In fact all three titles create trust funds. Title III siphons off
10 percent of OCS revenues for the Pittman-Robertson Fund, which would
provide funds to all states.
There are good policy and budgetary reasons to oppose trust funds.
They tie Congress' hands far into the future when spending priorities
may shift drastically. Budgeting should be done so that all proposals
must compete for limited funds. After all, it is the taxpayers money,
not the government's. Either these proposed trust funds should be
offset by reducing the Interior and Related Agencies appropriation by
an equal amount, or the budget cap for Interior must be lifted by over
$2 billion. Neither of these options are palatable.
Lastly, turning over $900 million per year to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund would be a massive increase in the purchase of
private lands. The Federal Government already owns too much land as it
is. Four Federal agencies control about 29 percent of the total acreage
in the U.S. Other Federal agencies own a little more. No one has
conducted a full study of how much land state and local governments
own, but it's probably around 10 percent. This is too much. According
to the Federal land agencies themselves, they have a backlog of over
$12 billion in operations and maintenance on these federally held
lands. But instead of addressing this problem, this bill would spend
record amounts of money on buying more land and giving it to State fish
and wildlife agencies, instead of taking care of the land that the
government already owns.
This bill would triple land acquisition. Historically, annual
appropriations for LWCF have been around $300 million, but most of that
has always been for Federal, not state, acquisitions. H.R. 701
increases land acquisition spending to $756 million, $378 million each
for state and Federal land acquisition. Part of the rapid increase in
spending is due to the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program,
which will get $144 million annually of the $900 million total. This
money may be used by the States and local to purchase additional land
as well.
Buying all of this land will hurt rural communities and local
property tax bases. This is important because in almost all
jurisdictions, local property taxes are the primary funding source for
important services such as schools, police protection and fire
departments. Also, once all of this land is bought, taxpayers will have
to take care of it. This will add to overall Federal spending and
increase the $12 billion in existing backlog in maintenance and
operations of land the Federal Government already controls.
As many on the Committee know Americans for Tax Reform asks
congressional members and challengers to take the Taxpayer's Protection
Pledge each year. Another of ATR's major projects is to calculate a
Cost of Government Day as a follow-up to Tax Freedom Day. Cost of
government takes into account all the costs of government such as
regulation, not just taxation. This legislation would significantly add
to Cost of Government Day.
Finally, I would like to close by saying that taking tax money to
increase government at all levels (state, local and Federal) and
decreasing private property ownership is not consistent with the
philosophy of greater freedom through limited government, and therefore
should not be a part of the 106th Congress's agenda.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to address your Committee.
I would be happy to address any questions that you might have.
______
STATEMENT OF EDWARD NORTON, VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC POLICY, NATIONAL
TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Mr. Chairman and members of the Resources Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Trust for Historic
Preservation regarding efforts to safeguard funding to protect and
conserve our nation's natural, historic and cultural resources.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation's mission is
``Protecting the Irreplaceable.'' In 1949, Congress created the
National Trust as private organization and charged the organization to
lead the public/private effort to preserve our national heritage. The
National Trust provides leadership, education, and advocacy to save
America's diverse historic places and revitalize our communities.
Let me begin by commending both the Chainnan and Congressman Miller
for recognizing the importance of dedicating revenue from Outer
Continental Shelf fees and royalties to the purpose of protecting our
nation's most valuable and irreplaceable resources. With the foundation
created through the Chairman's Conservation and Reinvestment Act of
1999--H.R. 701--and Representative Miller's Resources 2000
legislation--H.R. 798, I believe this Committee can forge a
constructive, vital piece of legislation that enhances efforts to
protect these treasures.
There is a critical difference between the Chairman's Outer
Continental Shelf Impact Assistance bill and Congressman Miller's
Resources 2000 bill. This difference causes the National Trust for
Historic Preservation and the historic preservation community to favor
very strongly the Resources 2000 bill. Resources 2000 provides full and
permanent funding for the Historic Preservation Fund (``HPF'').
Accordingly, the National Trust recommends that this provision be
included in any legislation developed by this Committee.
The Historic Preservation Fund, established under the National
Historic Preservation Act, provides a crucial funding mechanism for
protecting our nation's historic resources. The Historic Preservation
Fund is the keystone of the partnership between the Federal Government,
the state governments and the certified local governments, and the
private sector created by the National Historic Preservation Act. This
partnership has worked extraordinarily well for more than 30 years. The
modest annual appropriations from the Historic Preservation Fund
leverage hundreds of millions of matching dollars from state
governments and the private sector. You can see and experience the
benefits of this program in almost every community in the United States
in great landmarks, buildings, and historic districts saved and
communities revitalized.
The Historic Preservation Fund was established by Congress in 1976
with income from fees charged for offshore oil leases. The HPF provides
matching grants to all 50 states and territories to survey districts,
buildings and sites for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places. It is also used to maintain and rehabilitate historic
properties and to educate and inform the public. Prior to 1976 these
funds came from general revenues of the U.S. Government.
The financial assistance created by the Historic Preservation Fund
is distributed following manner:
The State Historic Preservation Offices. The HPF provides
significant funding for the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs)
to pay half the cost of running the national preservation program. The
National Historic Preservation Act requires the states to match the
Federal share.
The States use their HPF allocations to perform a number of
invaluable services, such as helping local governments establish
historic preservation programs and local preservation commissions;
providing preservation grants; designing annual priorities to meet the
preservation goals mandated by State legislatures; encouraging economic
development through cultural tourism, administering the Federal
rehabilitation tax credit; conducting heritage education programs for
the general public; providing information on historic preservation
techniques; working with citizens and government agencies to identify
historic places; nominating significant places to the National Register
of Historic Places; and working with Federal agencies to minimize harm
to National Register properties.
Federal funds are apportioned to the states based on a three-tiered
formula that includes (1) a Tier One Base Award in which each State
receives an equal share of funding per annum subject to inflation; (2)
a Tier Two Award based on the noncompetitive factors of population and
the area of the State [including water boundaries out to the three-mile
limit]; and (3) the number of residences in each State over 50 years
old as defined in the last U.S. Census.
Certified Local Governments. Local governments that have
established an historic preservation commission and program that meets
certain Federal and state standards are eligible to participate in the
Certified Local Government (CLG) program. Participation in the program
allows CLGs to apply for earmarked grants (a minimum of 10 percent of a
State's HPF allocation) to participate in the National Register
nomination process and receive technical assistance and training.
Tribal Preservation Offices. To preserve vanishing tribal
languages, dialects and cultural practices, as well as to protect
cultural artifacts on tribal lands.
Historically black colleges and universities. For preservation and
protection of landmarks that symbolize the hope of the civil rights
struggle and the contributions that historically black colleges and
universities have made in the education of our Nation's citizens.
Save America's Treasures. This two year program was created to
preserve and restore our nation's heritage as we enter the new
millennium. The program allows appropriated funds to be transferred to
Federal agencies toward preservation and restoration of endangered
historic sites, artifacts, and documents identified by the National
Park Service and other Federal agencies. All grants administered by the
program must be matched, and the program includes a parallel private
effort to raise money from corporations, foundations and individuals.
It also includes a public education campaign highlighting the
importance of preserving America's heritage.
The National Trust strongly supports, of course, full and permanent
funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Acquisition of land
for national, state, and local parks, and protection of open space and
greenways for recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, and watershed
protection should all rank as high national priorities. The Land and
Water Conservation Fund takes public funds from a non-renewable
resource and invests it in our renewable and sustainable resources.
The same philosophy, and the same public purposes and policy
underlie the Historic Preservation Fund. Our nation's historic and
cultural resources stand equal to our natural resources. Our built
environment, in which most Americans spend most of their daily lives is
just as important as our natural environment. As we enter a new
century, we should be devoting just as much thought about public policy
and just as much public funding to the environment of our cities,
towns, villages, communities and inhabited landscapes as we devote to
protecting the natural environment.
In preparing this testimony today, I had occasion to read again
With Heritage So Rich: A Report of a Special Commission on Historic
Preservation under the Auspices of the United States Conference of
Mayors in 1966. This report provided the foundation for the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966. I commend it to your attention
because it is just as relevant today as it was in 1966. The report,
written in the wake of urban renewal and the destruction of stable
communities by the interstate highway system in the 1950's and early
1960's, concluded that ``the pace of urbanization is accelerating and
the threat to our environmental heritage is mounting.'' Today, we read
and hear the same alarm bells about ``sprawl'' and disinvestment in our
cities, towns, and neighborhoods. The Historic Preservation Fund is a
modest, highly efficient Federal program for investing in our existing
communities. This investment from the Historic Preservation Fund saves
and re-uses existing housing, commercial, and transportation
infrastructure. The Historic Preservation Fund leverages funds from the
private sector. Most important, it preserves the sense of identity and
special character that binds communities together--and we cannot place
a value on those qualities.
In terms of authorized funding levels--$150 million, the Historic
Preservation Fund is very modest compared to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. In terms of benefits conferred to the American
people, the Historic Preservation Funds ranks at the very least as an
equal.
Indeed, the National Trust respectfully submits that the Historic
Preservation Fund is underappreciated, under-valued, and under-funded.
The National Trust respectfully asks that this Committee give full and
permanent funding for the Historic Preservation Fund equal
consideration in the legislation now under consideration.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF IDAHO
We are here to listen to testimony about the merits of H.R. 701,
the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999, and H.R. 758, the
Resources 2000 Act. Although the supporters of these bills believe they
are doing the right thing, I have some serious concerns.
The essence of these bills is to infuse massive amounts of money
into land acquisition and wildlife conservation at both a state and
Federal level. We can sit around for days and debate the pros and cons
of land acquisition and not persuade each other. However, it is a bed
rock principle with me that this country is better served when land is
in private ownership, with, of course, a few very narrow exceptions.
The fact is, our land management agencies can't properly manage what
they have now. We have a $12 billion maintenance backlog on public land
infrastructure. We are closing campgrounds and other recreational
facilities. Yet, people want to add more? The fact is, many counties in
the Western United States are upwards of 95 percent publicly held.
There is very little private land for a tax base to run schools and
build roads. Yet people want to add more? Whether Federal, state,
county or local, the ultimate result of this bill will take land out of
private ownership and further erode a county's ability to provide for
its citizens.
I recognize the efforts of H.R. 701's authors to try to limit the
use of these massive amounts of monies to certain areas. Indeed, I
support the efforts to try to tighten up the use of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. Far too often we've seen the Fund used for purposes
for which it was never intended. Since it's enactment, instead of the
Fund being utilized by local units of government to enhance the urban
quality of life, it has become a Federal land acquisition monster,
spending hundreds of millions dollars annually to swallow up large
tracts of land. H.R. 701 attempts to limit the Fund's Federal
acquisitions to inholdings within congressionally designated units of
land management. So long as a true willing seller, willing buyer
relationship exists, this can be positive. I've been assured by the
authors that this is their intent and that they will work with me to
make sure the language is crystal clear.
Another troubling aspect of H.R. 701 is the specific language
furthering the Federal Government's already too broad of reach even
into state and local affairs. H.R. 701 mandates that the Federal
agencies are considered a partner of the local units of government when
they consider local land use and planning. This is absolutely
unacceptable.
Taking land out of private ownership and local land control are
only two of my concerns. I have serious problems about the funding
mechanism of these proposals. H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 propose to use
nearly a billion dollars per year of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil
and gas lease receipts. These monies, which currently go to pay down
the principle on the national debt, would not be subject to
appropriations, but rather would be directly expended by the Secretary.
Like many other trust funds, this money is mandatory, not
discretionary, and Congress has no choice in the matter. The land
acquisition program then becomes an entitlement, which is completely
unacceptable.
Additionally, the Constitution clearly states, ``The Congress shall
have [the] power to dispose of and make all needful rules and
regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the
United States.'' The net effect of providing a dedicated source of
funds to the bureaucracy for land acquisition with virtually no
congressional oversight is for the Congress to cede over its
Constitutional responsibility to the Executive Branch. Congress would
no longer be making the decisions about land acquisition; Executive
Branch bureaucrats would.
Finally, OCS receipts are currently dedicated to pay down the
principle of the national debt. Now that some in Congress claim we have
a balanced budget--without the use of Social Security we remain about
$60 billion in the red--many members are finding ways to spend the
``extra'' money. That's exactly what H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 does. What
once were fiscal conservatives now are members who are rushing to spend
money. By taking nearly a billion dollars off budget, we are increasing
total Federal spending and reducing the rate by which we pay back our
grand children. Some claim that we need to acquire this land to leave
our children a legacy. In reality, the legacy that we leave behind is
the $5.7 trillion national debt and a diminished taxable land base to
provide for schools and roads.
This proposal has been considered before, and fortunately defeated.
But whether it's the 1980's American Heritage Trust, President
Clinton's Lands Legacy, or other derivatives of the same proposal, to
continue to spend money to take land out of the taxable land base is
fiscally irresponsible on many levels. With only 5 percent of our land
base developed, this proposal is an expensive solution in search of a
problem--a solution that will violate property rights, states' rights
and the balance of power between Federal and state government. The
country simply cannot afford these proposals. Without substantial
changes, I will continue to work to defeat these measures.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.177
HEARING ON H.R. 701, TO PROVIDE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF IMPACT
ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, TO AMEND THE LAND AND WATER
CONSERVATION FUND ACT OF 1965, THE URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY
ACT OF 1978, AND THE FEDERAL AID IN WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACT TO
ESTABLISH A FUND TO MEET THE OUTDOOR CONSERVATION AND RECREATION NEEDS
OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. CONSERVATION AND
REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999
H.R. 798, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PERMANENT PROTECTION OF THE RESOURCES OF
THE UNITED STATES IN THE YEAR 2000 AND BEYOND
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11 a.m., in Room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. William J. Tauzin,
presiding.
Mr. Tauzin. [presiding] The Committee will please come to
order. We ask our guests to take available seats and to get
comfortable. We have some distinguished friends and witnesses
here that we would like to accommodate as best we can.
Thank you very much.
[The bills H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Tauzin. Today we begin our second hearing on the twin
proposals, H.R. 701 and H.R. 798, the CARA bill and the
Resource 2000 bill, and we are very honored to have with us
United States Senator Barbara Boxer, who will lead this panel,
and the Honorable Jim McGovern, and Saxby Chambliss will also
be here, I think, in just a few minutes.
Senator Boxer, we want to welcome you, and appreciate your
making a long trek over to the House side, and this is a
Committee you are very familiar with. We have missed you here
on the Committee, and so glad to see you again today. I would
be happy to yield to my friend, Mr. Miller, for a welcome.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Just to welcome the
panel and to welcome my lead Senate co-sponsor on this
legislation, and Mr. McGovern, who has been so helpful in
helping us to draft this legislation, to say that I want to
apologize to later witnesses. I may be in and out of this
hearing. It was my intent to sit through the whole hearing, but
we are doing the EDFLEX bill on the floor today, and I have an
amendment to that legislation, but hopefully I will have some
time here before I have to go to the floor. And I want to thank
all of the witnesses for coming today.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Miller. And now we are pleased
to welcome Senator Boxer, who will lead it off and, Senator
Boxer, you are pleased to go forward at your convenience.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. It is very
nice to see you and, of course, the rest of your colleagues on
this Committee, several of whom are from California. It is nice
to be here.
I am very pleased that your Committee is holding this
hearing. It is an issue that I think means a lot to all
Americans who want to see us protect and defend the beauty and
history of our Nation, who want to see us be fair to our
farmers. I think this is an opportunity for us to join hands
across party lines and do something good for the people.
Congressman Miller and I introduced the Permanent
Protection for America's Resources 2000 Act. I want to let you
know that in the Senate, that just by a little calling around,
I already have as co-sponsors Senators Biden, John Kerry,
Feinstein, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Schumer, and Senator
Torricelli.
Now, I know there are a good many bills out there and I
think this is good. On both sides of the aisle, we are finally
talking about making a permanent commitment to America's
resources.
I want to say, on a personal note, Mr. Chairman, that
during the impeachment trial over in the Senate, one speaker
after the other got up and said, ``You know, this is the most
important vote we are ever going to cast.''
And I sat back and thought, I don't want this to be the
most important vote I ever cast, I want to do something for the
legacy of this country, and I can think of nothing more
important that we can do at this point, going into the next
century, than making a commitment to permanently protect our
natural resources.
If we go back to the beginning of the 20th century, one of
the greatest conservationists of all time, Theodore Roosevelt,
was our President. From 1901 to 1909, Teddy Roosevelt set aside
places that millions of Americans still enjoy today. If not for
Teddy Roosevelt's leadership, we might have lost such national
treasures as the Grand Canyon, Muir Woods, and Crater Lake.
These natural monuments stand as a lasting testament to TR's
foresight in pioneering work in environmental preservation.
As the 21st century approaches, it is our turn. We must
renew our commitment to our natural heritage. And that
commitment must go beyond the piecemeal approach. It must be a
comprehensive, long-term strategy to ensure that when our
children's children enter the 22nd century, they can herald our
actions today, as we revere those of President Roosevelt.
Today, our natural heritage is disappearing at an alarming
rate. Each year, nearly 3 million acres of farmland and more
than 170,000 acres of wetlands disappear. Each day, over 7,000
acres of open space are lost forever. In California, in the
year 2020, we are projected to have about 50 million people. We
simply cannot lose every inch of open space at the rate it is
disappearing.
Across America, parks are closing, recreational facilities
are deteriorating, open spaces are vanishing, and historic
structures are crumbling. Why is this happening? Because there
is no dedicated funding source for all these noble purposes, a
source which can be used only for these noble purposes.
The Miller-Boxer bill offers the most sweeping commitment
to protecting America's natural heritage in more than 30 years.
It will establish a dedicated funding source for resource
protection.
We know a major funding source for resource protection
already exists because each year the oil companies pay the
Federal Government billions of dollars in rents, royalties, and
other fees in connection with offshore drilling in Federal
waters. In 1998 alone, the government collected over $4.6
billion from oil and gas drilling on the Outer Continental
Shelf.
The Miller-Boxer bill would allocate only half of these
revenues. We are not talking about all of these revenues, just
half of these revenues every year for permanent protection.
Mr. Chairman, we fund permanently eight trust funds, and
I'll go very quickly: $100 million every year for urban parks
and recreational facilities; $350 million to restore native
fish and wildlife; $250 million to restore Federal lands that
are polluted or damaged; $300 million to protect and restore
the health of our oceans; $150 million to protect our vanishing
farmlands and open space; $100 million to purchase habitat to
help endangered species recovery which will greatly help our
farmers, and $150 million every year to restore and protect our
historical and cultural heritage through fully funding the
Historic Preservation Fund.
Mr. Chairman, I see that my yellow light is on. Could I ask
unanimous consent for one additional minute over the five?
Mr. Tauzin. I don't think that will be a problem and,
without objection, so ordered.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, and I will try to talk as fast as
I can. I want to point out that the Historic Preservation Fund
was established by Congress in 1977, to provide a dedicated
source of funding to preserve our significant historic
properties. The problem is, we have not funded this noble
purpose. If you take a look at San Francisco, for example, the
Old Mint Building which was given by the Federal Government as
a gift to welcome California into the Union in 1850, that
building is a beautiful building. It cannot be torn down. It is
historic. The rats have infested that building. That building
is empty, and I think to myself, if this was Paris, this would
never happen. The bottom line is, we are losing these
buildings, and they are present in your state, Mr. Chairman,
and all over the country.
I did not mention the eighth trust fund, Land and Water
Conservation Fund, which we fully fund at $900 million. The
good news is the fund has collected over $21 billion since
1965. The bad news is only $9 billion of this amount has been
spent. As you know, we have used that Land and Water
Conservation Fund to kind of hide the deficit, and we have
shorted that fund dramatically. We have shifted $16 billion to
other accounts.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take anymore of your precious time
and that of the Committee. I am very pleased that there are
several bills on this subject matter. I have great confidence
that working across party lines we can protect our Nation's
natural heritage, and leave a lasting legacy for future
generations.
Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
testify before this Committee. This is an issue for all
Americans who want to see us protect and defend the beauty and
history of our nation.
That is why Congressman George Miller and I introduced the
Permanent Protection for America's Resources 2000 Act. Co-
sponsors in the Senate include Senator Joe Biden, Senator John
Kerry, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Frank Lautenberg,
Senator Chuck Schumer and Senator Bob Torricelli.
I know there are many bills out there and this is good. On
both sides of the aisle--we are finally talking about making a
permanent commitment to America's natural resources.
As the 20th Century began, one of the greatest
conservationists of all time, Theodore Roosevelt, was our
President. From 1901 to 1909, Teddy Roosevelt set aside places
that millions of Americans still enjoy today.
If not for Teddy Roosevelt's leadership, we might have lost
such national treasures as the Grand Canyon, Muir Woods, and
Crater Lake. These natural monuments stand as a lasting
testament to TR's foresight and pioneering work in
environmental preservation.
As the 21st Century approaches, we must renew our
commitment to our natural heritage. That commitment must go
beyond a piecemeal approach. It must be a comprehensive, long-
term strategy to ensure that when our children's children enter
the 22nd Century, they can herald our actions today, as we
revere those of President Roosevelt.
Today, our natural heritage is disappearing at an alarming
rate. Each year, nearly 3 million acres of farmland and more
than 170,000 acres of wetlands disappear. Each day, over 7,000
acres of open space are lost forever.
Across America, parks are closing, recreational facilities
deteriorating, open spaces vanishing, historic structures
crumbling.
Why is this happening? Because there is no dedicated
funding source for all these noble purposes--a source which can
be used only for these noble purposes.
The Miller-Boxer bill offers the most sweeping commitment
to protecting America's natural heritage in more than 30 years.
It will establish a dedicated funding source for resource
protection.
A major funding source for resource protection already
exists. Each year, oil companies pay the Federal Government
billions of dollars in rents, royalties, and other fees in
connection with offshore drilling in Federal waters. In 1998
alone, the government collected over $4.6 billion from oil and
gas drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf.
The Miller-Boxer bill would allocate a total of $2.3
billion every year from oil drilling revenues for permanent
protection of America's resources. It provides:
$100 million every year for urban parks and
recreational facilities
$350 million to restore native fish and wildlife
$250 million to restore Federal lands that are
polluted or damaged
$300 million to protect and restore the health of our
oceans
$150 million to protect our vanishing farmlands and
open space
$100 million to purchase habitat to help endangered
species recovery
And $150 million every year to restore and protect our
historical and cultural heritage through fully funding the
Historic Preservation Fund.
The Historic Preservation Fund was established by Congress in 1977,
to provide a dedicated source of funding to preserve our significant
historic properties. And although Congress is authorized to spend $150
million from OCS revenues annually for this purpose, less than 29
percent of funding has been appropriated since 1977. That is more than
$2 billion that could have been used to help restore the treasures of
our nation scattered across the many states. In California, there's the
Old Mint Building in San Francisco, Manzanar National Historic Site,
and Mission San Juan Capistrano. Our bill would ensure that funds would
be spent on their designated purpose.
Finally, the bill designates $900 million each year to purchase
land by fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund as
envisioned by Congress in 1965 when the Fund was established. Half
would go to the States.
The good news is that Fund has collected over $21 billion since
1965. The bad news is that only $9 billion of this amount has been
spent on its intended uses. More than $16 billion has been shifted into
other Federal accounts.
The funding Congress has made available has allowed us to purchase
some key tracts of land, but we have missed golden opportunities to buy
critical open space because the Land and Water Conservation Fund was
critically underfunded.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this series of hearings. I
look forward to working with you and other members of the Committee on
this critical issue. This is necessary and important legislation that
will benefit our Nation's natural heritage, and leave a lasting legacy
for future generations.
Mr. Chairman, it's a chance to work across the aisle for all the
people.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Senator Boxer, and with all the
deference we accord to you, if you would like to stay you are
more than welcome; if you need to get back to the Senate, we
will make accommodations at this time.
Any member who wants to engage Senator Boxer at all?
[No response.]
Then we thank you, Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so very much, and anytime you need
help on this, Mr. Chairman, I am at your disposal. And thank
you, Mr. McGovern, as well.
Mr. Tauzin. Again, Barbara, we want to thank you and wish
you the best on the Senate side. We, again, as I said, missed
your presence here in the Committee for a few years.
Senator Boxer. Well, thank you. You should have told me
that when I was here, Billy. You should have told me that when
I was here. I didn't get that message.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Miller. Better late than never.
Mr. Tauzin. We couldn't miss you when you were here, just
couldn't do it.
Thank you very much, Senator.
Now we are pleased to welcome Congressman Jim McGovern.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES McGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. McGovern. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
appreciate the opportunity to present testimony before this
Committee, and I also want to pay tribute to our colleague in
the Senate, Senator Boxer, for her leadership on this issue and
on so many other issues that are important to our environment.
I particularly want to thank this Committee for taking up
the cause of funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
In addition to you, Mr. Chairman, I want to especially thank
Congressman Miller and my other colleagues for drawing
attention to this important issue. Mr. Miller has been at the
forefront of our efforts to protect the environment, and I am
proud to stand with him in support of his bill, H.R. 798.
Senator Boxer has kind of already gone over the history of
the Land and Conservation Fund, and I am not going to do that.
I am here today to urge you to support full and permanent
funding of the state-side Land and Water Conservation Fund and
independent OCS funding for UPARR provided by H.R. 798.
Both the state-side program of the LWCF and UPARR give
states the ability to determine their own needs and set their
own priorities. State-side funding of these programs states and
local communities to preserve their neighborhood parks, ball
fields, scenic trails, nature reserves, and historical sites.
State-side LWCF is a necessary tool in the effort to
mitigate the effects of suburban sprawl. The rapid and
unplanned growth which we have been experiencing over the past
decade is leaving an indelible mark on our suburban landscapes.
As large undifferentiated developments spread out into
countrysides, communities are losing both their geographic
cohesiveness and their sense of identity. State-side LWCF
funding will enable states to compensate for vanishing farmland
and rural landscapes as development extends outward from older
central cities and new edge cities.
Mr. Chairman, the children of our cities need safe green
spaces to play in. Unused open space in a city is a vacant lot,
with garbage, glass, oftentimes with dirty needles, and drug
dealing. Without safe, healthy parks, our children go from home
to school and back without ever interacting with a natural
area. State-side LWCF and UPARR will help neighborhoods
transform dangerous vacant lots into stabilizing and
inspirational green spaces or playgrounds.
State-side LWCF and UPARR legislation has a broad base of
support which cuts through both suburbs and cities. I also
believe it has broad bipartisan support here in the Congress.
Last year, I had an amendment to the Interior appropriation
bill to put funding back into the state-side Land and Water
Conservation Fund Program, which only failed by a handful of
votes. I think if we had a better offset, it would have been
successful. It is environmentalism which walks hand-in-hand
with development. Last November, 10 states, 22 counties, and 93
towns voted on open space initiatives. Eighty-seven percent of
these initiatives passed, triggering $4 billion in state and
local conservation spending.
Further, in December, the United States Conference of
Mayors sent a letter to the Clinton Administration requesting
funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. One hundred
fifteen mayors signed the letter.
Throughout my own district, I have been approached by
mayors, town officials, business leaders, law enforcement
officials, children's advocates, education leaders, and
environmental advocates who have urged me to continue
supporting the Land and Water Conservation Fund and UPARR
funding. Projects for which Federal conservation assistance is
needed vary from a long overdue city park in Worcester to open
space preservation in the nearby town of Shrewsbury.
I was at a meeting with the Board of Selectpeople in
Shrewsbury, Massachusetts, on Saturday, to talk about their
local concerns. The first issue that they brought up was the
Land and Water Conservation Fund. Shrewsbury is one of those
suburbs that is one of the fastest growing communities in
Massachusetts, and they are facing real financial constraints
in their attempt to obtain open space land. We in Congress must
respond to what everyone outside the beltway is asking for,
full funding of state-side LWCF and UPARR programs.
For these reasons, I am asking the Committee to approve
full funding for the stateside programs, and I will do whatever
I can to assist the Committee in the deliberations. I thank you
very much for the opportunity to be here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McGovern follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. MCGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Good Morning Mr. Chairman,
I want to thank you for this opportunity to present
testimony before your Committee. I would also like to thank you
for taking up the cause of funding the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
Additionally, I would like to thank Congressman George
Miller and my other colleagues for drawing attention to this
important issue. Congressman Miller has been at the forefront
of our efforts to protect the environment, and I am proud to
stand with him on H.R. 798.
As many of you already know, the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) trust account was created over thirty
years ago. During that period it has been the principle source
of Federal money to acquire new Federal and state recreational
lands. More than 37,000 park and recreation projects have been
developed since the Fund was established. Unfortunately, in the
last ten years less than 25 percent of the $900 million taken
into the Fund from offshore drilling receipts has been
appropriated for Fund purposes. Further, the ``state-side''
matching grant program has been virtually unfunded since Fiscal
Year 1995.
I am here today to urge you to support full and permanent
funding of the state-side LWCF and independent OCS funding for
UPARR provided by H.R. 798. Both the state-side program of the
LWCF and UPARR give states the ability to determine their own
needs and set their own priorities. State-side LWCF and UPARR
empower states and local communities to preserve their
neighborhood parks, ball fields, scenic trails, nature
reserves, and historical sites.
State-side LWCF is a necessary tool in the effort to
mitigate the effects of suburban ``sprawl.'' The rapid and
unplanned growth which we have been experiencing over the past
decade is leaving an indelible mark on our suburban landscapes.
As large undifferentiated developments spread out into
countrysides, communities are losing both their geographic
cohesiveness and their sense of identity. State-side LWCF
funding will enable states to compensate for vanishing farmland
and rural landscapes as development extends outward from older
central cities and new ``edge cities.''
Mr. Chairman, the children of our cities need safe green
spaces to play in. Unused open space in a city is a vacant lot,
with garbage, glass, dirty needles, and drug dealing. Without
safe, healthy parks, our children go from home to school and
back without ever interacting with a natural area. State-side
LWCF and UPPAR will help neighborhoods transform dangerous
vacant lots into stabilizing and inspirational green spaces or
playgrounds.
State-side LWCF and UPARR legislation has a broad base of
support which cuts through both suburbs and cities. It is
environmentalism which walks hand in hand with development.
Last November, 10 states, 22 counties, and 93 towns voted on
open space initiatives. Eighty-seven percent of these
initiatives passed, triggering $4 billion in state and local
conservation spending. Further, in December the United States
Conference of Mayors sent a letter to the Clinton
Administration requesting funding for the LWCF and UPARR. 115
mayors signed the letter.
Throughout my own district, I have been approached by
mayors, town officials, business leaders, and environmental
advocates who have urged me to continue supporting LWCF and
UPARR funding. Projects for which Federal conservation
assistance is needed vary from a long overdue city park in
Worcester to open space preservation in the nearby suburb of
Shrewsbury. We in Congress must respond to what everyone
outside the beltway is asking for, full funding of state-side
LWCF and UPARR.
For these reasons, I ask the Committee to approve full
funding for the stateside programs of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and OCS funding for UPARR, and to support
H.R. 798.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. [presiding] Thank you. We appreciate our
colleague's statement, and you are welcome to stay and join us
on the dais if you are so inclined.
I'll recognize our colleague from Georgia, the Honorable
Saxby Chambliss.
STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure
for me to be here today to have an opportunity to talk to you
about something that I think is one of the most important
pieces of legislation that certainly this Committee and the
whole Congress has had an opportunity to deal with since I have
been here.
I particularly want to thank the Chairman, Mr. Young, for
the efforts that he has done every day to benefit wildlife and
preserve the fish, the right and opportunity of all Americans
to hunt, fish, trap, and enjoy our great outdoors.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to join the Committee
today to express my support for the bipartisan efforts
encompassed within H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment
Act, or CARA. As Co-Chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's
Caucus, I applaud Chairman Young for crafting a bill that
absolutely and positively gives our state fish and wildlife
agencies the resources to adequately address the wildlife
conservation funding problems. Specifically, I come before you
today to applaud Title III of Chairman Young's bill, Wildlife-
Based Conservation.
Primarily, I wear my hat as Chairman of the Congressional
Sportsmen's Caucus today, but I also am here as Vice Chairman
of the Budget Committee. As we are in the midst of preparing to
markup our Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Resolution in committee, I
must tell you that there are high hurdles that this bill faces
with regard to our budgetary constraints, specifically the
mandatory spending provisions.
While these constraints concern the Budget Committee and me
greatly, I have expressed my support for this bill to the
Budget Committee in no uncertain terms. I believe the merits
outweigh the obstacles, and look forward to working with the
Chairman and others to try to craft solutions to the concerns.
I am pleased that the Committee has heard testimony from
David Waller, the Director of the Wildlife Resources Division
of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. David has been
involved in the process of addressing the needs of his
colleagues throughout the country for a number of years.
He has shown great leadership and flexibility to work
within this budget-driven Congress to assist in crafting
legislation that will address the vacuum of funding that state
fish and wildlife directors face in addressing wildlife-based
conservation and education projects, and by wildlife I mean
conservation projects for both game and nongame species.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear that we must work to ensure we
have an abundance of wildlife and habitat to enjoy, and that we
continue to promote multiple-use habitat management for our
wildlife and fisheries. The Chairman's bill goes a long way in
ensuring these goals are achieved.
I want to share with you an example of how ordinary fish
and wildlife departments can do extraordinary things given the
resources not only by the state but also by the Federal
Government.
My State of Georgia is home to the Nation's most successful
wildlife turkey restoration program, which incidentally took
Georgia's wild turkey population from 17,000 birds in 1973, to
more than 400,000 birds today. In fact, Georgia has the
country's largest harvest record of more than 80,000 birds in
1996, and this is just one example of how every state can be
successful given the proper resources.
Our Federal-state partnerships are the key to continuing to
preserve these type of opportunities in Georgia as well as
around the country.
The Congressional Sportsman's Caucus, I believe, has an
obligation to heighten its commitment to ensure that these
Federal-state partnerships are strengthened. One step in that
direction would be the passage of H.R. 701. It is important for
all of us to recognize that we enjoy the great outdoors in
different ways. I appreciate that not all Americans hunt and
fish. Some take pictures, some watch, some hike, and some bike,
but hunting and fishing does not diminish the natural wonders
that we all enjoy. In fact, as everyone in this room knows,
hunting and fishing and trapping are valuable conservation
management tools. In fact, hunting and fishing has been enjoyed
throughout the ages.
The Bible is full of quotations and citations to hunting
and fishing that took place back in Biblical times. And that is
why it is so important to help fund hunting and fishing related
wildlife conservation and education programs. That is why we
must ensure that the age of hunters does not continue to rise
as it is doing right now nationwide.
The reason the age has risen in many states is a direct
reflection of our inability to educate our children and offer
them outdoor activities beyond the baseball diamond, the
basketball court, and the playground.
I believe that Title III of the Chairman's legislation can
help fill that gap. For too long, the Federal Government and
private industry have not adequately addressed the needs of
state fish and wildlife departments with regard to wildlife
conservation and education projects. I believe both need to
step up to the plate.
Mr. Chairman, I submitted to you a letter back in September
of 1998 regarding your commitment to working to address
concerns in Title III raised by some in the conservation
community. I believe your comments demonstrate your commitment
to working with the individual state fish and wildlife agencies
to adequately address their needs.
I would like to submit your letter for the record and at
this time to read a few key sentences. Your letter to me, dated
September 9, 1998, reads in part as follows:
``Congressman Chambliss, your letter aptly points out that
while the goal of our proposal is similar to Teaming With
Wildlife, our approach and funding mechanism are different. I
share your interest in increasing funding to our state fish and
wildlife departments for conservation and education efforts as
TWW purported to achieve. However, I also share your pragmatic
concerns with the way TWW obtained funding to achieve that end.
``The proposal contained within Title III of our proposal,
in my opinion, not only achieves the goals contained within
TWW, but surpasses them. This proposal gives a state fish and
wildlife department broad discretion in achieving the
individual goals to conserve wildlife within their state.
Pittman-Robertson was chosen because it is an existing
statutory mechanism which has successfully distributed funds to
states for almost 60 years. Also, Pittman-Robertson currently
contains language which allows a state the latitude to fund
both game and nongame programs. However, we all recognize that
this money has been primarily focused on programs directly
supporting game species. It is for that reason that our
proposal contains language to make it clear that these new
funds are to be used on wildlife, both game and nongame.''
And that ends my quote from your letter, Mr. Chairman.
I read your letter in a speech last year at the 88th Annual
Conference of the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, which was held in my state, in Savannah. I
think your position was clear then as it is today. I am
thankful that the conservation community recognizes that
wildlife conservation and education projects should be decided
at the state level, and that state agencies should be given the
flexibility to use funds for game or nongame purposes, rather
than have the Federal Government make that decision for them.
I know folks in Georgia and around the country will benefit
from this legislation because it provides a steady, dependable
revenue stream. It helps fund both game and nongame wildlife
conservation programs, and it provides the states the
flexibility to tailor their funding priorities to suit their
individual needs.
One of the most exciting parts of this bill that I am going
to be working on is the wildlife associated education. We need
to ensure that our future generations are educated about
wildlife, and recognize that hunting and fishing are valuable
conservation management tools.
I look forward to working closely with Chairman Young on
this issue to ensure that the criteria for such wildlife
education projects will accomplish this. Helping replenish
renewable resources with funds derived from nonrenewable
resources is good policy, and CARA accomplishes this while not
raising taxes one penny.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to testify
before your Committee today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chambliss follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Thank you Mr. Chairman. And thank you for all the efforts
you do everyday to benefit wildlife and preserve the right and
opportunity of all Americans to hunt, fish, trap and enjoy our
great outdoors. I am pleased to have the opportunity to join
the Committee today to express my support for the bipartisan
efforts encompassed within H.R. 701, The Conservation And
Reinvestment Act (CARA).
As co-chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I
applaud Chairman Young for crafting a bill that absolutely,
positively gives our state fish and wildlife agencies the
resources to adequately address their wildlife conservation
funding problems.
Specifically, I come before you today to applaud Title III
of Chairman Young's bill, Wildlife-based Conservation.
Primarily, I wear my hat as chairman of the Congressional
Sportsmen's Caucus today; however, I am also joining you as the
vice chairman of the House Committee on the Budget. As we are
in the midst of preparing to mark up our FY 2000 Budget
Resolution in Committee, I must tell you that there are high
hurdles that this bill faces with regard to our budgetary
constraints, specifically the mandatory spending questions.
While these constraints concern the Budget Committee and me
greatly, I have expressed my support for this bill to the
Budget Committee in no uncertain terms. I believe the merits
outweigh the obstacles and look forward to working with the
chairman and others to try and craft solutions to the concerns.
I am pleased that the Committee has heard testimony from
David Waller, the Director of the Wildlife Resources Division
at the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. David has been
involved in the process of addressing the needs of his
colleagues throughout the country for a number of years. He has
shown great leadership and flexibility to work within this
budget-driven Congress to assist in crafting legislation that
will address the vacuum of funding that state fish and wildlife
directors face in addressing wildlife-based conservation and
education projects--and by ``wildlife'' I mean conservation
projects for both game and non-game species.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear that we must work to ensure we
have an abundance of wildlife and habitat to enjoy and that we
continue to promote multiple-use habitat management for our
wildlife and fisheries. Your bill goes a long way in ensuring
these goals are achieved.
I want to share with you an example of how ordinary Fish
and Wildlife Departments can do extraordinary things given the
resources not only by the state, but also by the Federal
Government. My state of Georgia is home to the nation's most
successful wild turkey restoration program--which incidentally
took Georgia's wild turkey population from 17,000 birds in 1973
to more than 400,000 birds today. In fact, Georgia had the
country's largest harvest record of more than 80,000 birds in
1996. This is just one example.
Our Federal-state partnerships are the key to continuing to
preserve these type of opportunities in Georgia and around the
country. The Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I believe, has
an obligation to heighten its commitment to ensure that these
Federal-State partnerships are strengthened. One step in that
direction would be passage of H.R. 701.
It is important for all of us to recognize that we enjoy
the great outdoors in different ways. I appreciate that not all
Americans hunt and fish. Some take pictures, some just watch,
some hike, and some bike. But hunting and fishing does not
diminish the natural wonders we all enjoy. In fact, as everyone
in this room knows, hunting, fishing and trapping are valuable
conservation management tools.
In fact, fishing and hunting has been enjoyed throughout
the ages--even biblical times.
Matthew 4:18
As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two
brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were
casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen.
Genesis 25:27
The boys grew up, and Esau became a skillful hunter, a man of
the open country, while Jacob was a quiet man, staying among
the tents.
As you can see we have a long and storied history of sportsmen-
related activities; however, everyday those traditions are threatened
by those in the conservation community who are ill-informed and spread
misinformation about the facts of hunting, fishing, and other sporting-
related activities.
That's why it is so important to help fund hunting and fishing
related wildlife conservation education programs; that's why we must
ensure that the age of hunters does not continue to rise. The reason
the age has risen in many states is the direct reflection of our
inability to educate our children and offer them outdoor activities
beyond the baseball diamond and the playground.
I believe that Title III of your legislation can help fill the gap.
For too long, the Federal Government and private industry have not
adequately addressed the needs of State Fish and Wildlife Departments
with regard to wildlife conservation and education projects. I believe
both need to step up to the plate.
Mr. Chairman, I submitted to you a letter back in September of 1998
regarding your commitment to working to address concerns in Title III
raised by some in the conservation community. I believe your comments
demonstrate your commitment to working with the individual state fish
and wildlife agencies to adequately address their needs.
I would like to submit your letter for the record and read a few
key sentences:
Young Letter to Chambliss, September 9, 1998:
``. . . [Congressman Chambliss] your letter aptly points out
that while the goal of our proposal is similar to Teaming with
Wildlife (TWW), our approach and funding mechanism are
different. I share your interest in increasing funding to our
State Fish and Wildlife departments for conservation and
education efforts, as TWW purported to achieve. However, I also
share your pragmatic concerns with the way TWW obtained funding
to achieve that end.
The proposal contained within Title III of our proposal, in
my opinion, not only achieves the goals contained within TWW,
but surpasses them. This proposal gives a State Fish and
Wildlife Department broad discretion in achieving the
individual goals to conserve wildlife within their state.
Pittman-Robertson was chosen because it is an existing
statutory mechanism which has successfully distributed funds to
states for almost 60 years. Also, Pittman-Robertson currently
contains language which allows a state the latitude to fund
both game and non-game programs. However, we all recognize that
this money has been primarily focused on programs directly
supporting game species. It is for that reason that our
proposal contains language to make it clear that these new
funds are to be used on wildlife (both game and non-game).''
I read your letter in a speech to the 88th Annual Conference of the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. I think your
position was clear then as it today. I am thankful that the
conservation community recognizes that wildlife conservation and
education projects should be decided at the state level and the state
agencies should be given the flexibility to use funds for game or non-
game purposes rather than have the Federal Government make that
decision for them.
I know folks in Georgia and around the country will benefit from
this legislation because it provides a steady, dependable revenue
stream; it helps fund both game and nongame wildlife conservation
programs; and it provides the states' the flexibility to tailor their
funding priorities to suit their individual needs.
One of the most exciting parts of this bill I'll be working on is
wildlife-associated education. We need to ensure that our future
generations are educated about wildlife and recognize that hunting and
fishing are vital conservation management tools. I look forward to
working closely with Mr. Young on this issue to ensure that the
criteria for such wildlife education projects will help accomplish
this.
Helping replenish renewable resources with funds derived from
nonrenewable resources is good policy--and CARA accomplishes this while
not raising taxes one penny!
Thank you again Mr. Chairman for allowing me to testify before your
Committee today.
Letter from Mr. Young to Mr. Chambliss
The Honorable Saxby Chambliss
1019 Longworth Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Chambliss:
Thank you for your September 4, 1998-letter regarding the proposed
Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1998, specifically Title III.
As you know, this proposal is currently in the discussion stage
where we are soliciting comments to better the proposal as we move this
important legislation forward. To date, we have received numerous
comments regarding the wildlife conservation provisions contained
within Title III. I appreciate your participation in this important
effort and the efforts of Mr. Waller, whose insights have been
invaluable while working with the stakeholders to the Teaming with
Wildlife (TWW) proposal. I hope that with your and Mr. Waller's
assistance we can keep the TWW coalition whole and work together as we
move forward to achieve our common goals.
Your letter aptly points out that while the goal of our proposal is
similar to TWW, our approach and funding mechanism are different. I
share your interest in increasing funding to our State Fish and
Wildlife departments for conservation and education efforts, as TWW
purported to achieve. However, I also share your pragmatic concerns
with the way TWW obtained funding to achieve that end.
The proposal contained within Title III of our proposal, in my
opinion, not only achieves the goals contained within TWW, but
surpasses them. This proposal gives a State Fish and Wildlife
Department broad discretion in achieving the individual goals to
conserve wildlife within their state. Pittman-Robertson was chosen
because it is an existing statutory mechanism which has successfully
distributed funds to states for almost 60 years. Also, Pittman-
Robertson currently contains language which allows a state the latitude
to fund both game and non-game programs. However, we all recognize that
this money has been focused primarily on programs directly supporting
game species. It is for that reason that our proposal contains language
to make it clear that these new funds are to be used on wildlife (both
game and non-game).
I recognize that most states are requesting additional funding to
address non-game funding demands. This proposal allows these states to
utilize this new funding for those purposes. The proposal takes the
approach that an individual state knows what is best for its wildlife
conservation efforts and should be given the flexibility to address
their needs. Additionally, we are currently in the discussion phase and
look forward to working with the states as well as the conservation
community to make changes to accomplish our common goals.
We are currently in an important process in shaping a wildlife
program for the benefit of our Nations' valuable wildlife resource. I
look forward to working with you and appreciate your correspondence and
insight on this issue.
Sincerely,
Don Young,
Chairman
Mr. Young. Thank you, Saxby, and welcome to the witness
table after yesterday's snow delayed you, we're glad to have
you here. We have a small problem in this legislation, I want
everybody in this room to know, concerning the budget. I know
you have been working very closely to try to explain the
importance of this to the leadership, and we will continue to
try to build fires to make sure this becomes a reality. You
have done quite well, and I do appreciate your testimony and
support of this legislation. If it was not for you and Mr.
Waller, I probably would not have become so enthusiastic about
this project. You have educated me well, and so I do thank you.
Mr. McGovern, I also thank you. I would like to say,
though, before I continue and pass it over to the gentleman
from California, Governor Geringer could not make it today, his
flight was canceled, but I will submit his written testimony in
support of the bill.
[The information may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Young. Governor Carper has been delayed, he will be
here about two o'clock, and he will be able to testify at that
time. And I do apologize for everybody that expected the
Governors to be here, but we can't also control the weather.
But, thanks, both of you. The gentleman from California.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, and I just want to thank both of our
witnesses and our colleagues for being here. I think it shows
the breadth of support that we have in the House for this
legislation, and I think we can overcome some of the hurdles
that we have before us. And I want to thank you both for your
effort in helping to draft these proposals, and look forward to
continuing to work with you.
Mr. Young. Any other comments, statements, questions?
[No response.]
If not, I want to thank the panel again for being here.
Thank you very much.
The second panel will be the Honorable Malcolm Wallop, and
he is not here yet but he will show up; the Honorable Ron
Marlenee, Safari Club International from Bozeman, Montana. The
Honorable Javier M. Gonzales, Commissioner, Santa Fe County,
Representing The National Association of Counties, Washington,
DC Pietro Parravano is not here. He will be here, hopefully,
later on, and we will put him on the witness list then. Sarah
Chasis, are you here? Why don't you come on down. It is amazing
what eight inches of snow will do to the East Coast. I mean, we
only had 54 inches in Anchorage this last month.
Mr. Miller. This is a mixed and matched panel this time.
Mr. Young. That is all right, this makes it fun. All
right.
This is Panel II and, Mr. Gonzalez, we will let you go
first, if you are ready. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAVIER M. GONZALES, COMMISSIONER, SANTA FE
COUNTY, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Committee, my name is Javier Gonzales. I am a
Commissioner from Santa Fe County, New Mexico, and I am here
today representing the National Association of Counties in my
capacity as Second Vice President. I will summarize my prepared
statement focused on CARA 1999, and I ask that the full text be
included in the record.
Mr. T4 Young. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Gonzales. NACo is pleased to testify on behalf of this
important bipartisan bill that, if enacted, will have a very
positive effect on our Nation's counties and communities. This
bill present an exciting opportunity because of the genuine
support from such a broad range of interests and the fact that
the Administration, the U.S. Senate, and this Committee have
very similar proposals. Each bill uses OCS revenue as the
source for funding the distribution proposed by this
legislation, and each has similar uses in mind. I need not
remind you that the potential budget pitfalls are significant
and creative solutions need to be found.
At our recent Legislative Conference, our Board of
Directors adopted a resolution in support of the concepts
embodied in the CARA legislation. Our resolution states: ``NACo
strongly supports the principles of the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act of 1999 that would reallocate Outer
Continental Shelf oil and gas revenues to the LWCF, a coastal
state revenue sharing program, add funding to the Urban Park
and Recreation Recovery program and establish an innovative
procedure for adding funding for the Payments In Lieu of
Taxes--that is the PILT program--in addition to annual
appropriated funds.
NACo will advocate a change in the stateside program to
allow counties to directly apply for LWCF grants and provide
authority for innovative and flexible methods for utilization
of these grants such as ``a leasing program, rather than
outright purchase of land that removes them from tax roles.'' I
believe this statement of policy is very unambiguous.
We also have another resolution, Mr. Chairman, one that was
passed in July 1998, supporting OCS revenue sharing with
coastal states, and one of our key principles for
reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act parallels H.R.
701's section on Habitat Reserve Program. I believe it is clear
why NACo supports the concepts of this legislation.
Let me take a few moments to comment on some of the issues
surrounding this legislation. First, NACo is very pleased that
the authors have chosen to recognize the significant impact OCS
development can have on coastal counties and have taken steps
to assure that any shared revenue from OCS development is
shared with coastal counties.
Second, the bill acknowledges the need to fund the
stateside portion of the LWCF and would assure that counties
would share the revenues set aside of the states. It would be
preferable to have counties be able to utilize their share of
the Fund without having to work within the mandated structure
of a state plan, but we believe an acceptable approach can be
worked out during deliberations on the bill. We also believe we
need to look at innovative approaches, such as conservation
leasing to meet the goals of the LWCF without removing land
from the tax roles.
Third, the innovative approach to adding money to the PILT
program in Titles I and II should be applauded and the authors
should be commended for recognizing the need to fund the PILT
program at reasonable levels. Let me share with you some
interesting facts from a soon-to-be-released PILT study by the
Federal Government:
Overall PILT payments are about $1.31 per acre less than
the property taxes that would be generated. PILT entitlement
lands in the sample counties would have generated an average of
$1.48 per acre if taxed by the county, but PILT payments only
amount to an average of 17 cents, only 11 percent of the
potential tax bill.
To fully fund PILT another $200 million would have to be
added to the $125 million currently appropriated. Mr. Chairman,
at this time, there was a typo in the text testimony that we
presented. I would ask that the $100 million be changed to $200
million for the record.
Third, to achieve overall PILT/tax equivalency, another
$696 million would have to be added to full funding of the PILT
program and, even then, 18 percent of the counties would not be
equivalent.
In the case of the East, taxes would exceed PILT payments
by over 1,000 percent. Counties in the Interior West responded
that moderate or substantial costs were imposed by the presence
of Federal lands, particularly in the areas of search and
rescue, law enforcement and road maintenance.
Fourth, NACo, through its Large Urban County Caucus,
applauds the inclusion of funding for the Urban Parks and
Recreation Recovery Act. Parks and open space are important
factors in improving the quality of life in America's urban
counties.
Fifth, NACo also supports the additional funding for the
Pittman-Robertson Act, but we believe counties should play a
larger role in the allocation and utilization of the
disbursements.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would like to
thank you and the Members of the Committee for your interest in
the needs and concerns of America's counties. We stand ready to
work with the Committee, the Senate, and the Administration to
hammer out an acceptable bill that will set the tone for
conservation in the 21st century. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Commissioner Gonzales may be
found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. Young. Thank you. Mr. Marlenee, because you are on the
second panel, you will go next.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON MARLENEE, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL,
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
Mr. Marlenee. Well, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member George
Miller and Committee Members, it is a pleasure to be here with
you once again.
SCI is an organization of several thousand sportsmen across
the United States and the world. We are as concerned with
conservation and propagation of wildlife as we are with
hunting. We know that there has to be habitat in order that we
have wildlife of all sorts.
We have examined both bills before you. Let me say that in
our opinion, not since Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux has
legislation been considered that would have such a profound and
long-term effect on wildlife. Sportsmen and women have been
pouring millions of dollars in the past into wildlife and
wildlife habitat. It has resulted in one of the greatest
success stories known to outdoor recreation.
In recent years, this effort has been diluted and drained
of funds by mandates and requirements of the Federal
Government. Trying to keep up with funding the Endangered
Species, Coastal Protection, and other programs, state wildlife
agencies are having shortfalls that force them to dip into
funds that sportsmen have paid into to enhance wildlife
populations.
Bill 701 by Congressmen Young and Dingell and others could
well be termed a partial solution for unfunded Federal
mandates. These new funds that H.R. 701 creates will be
available to state fish and wildlife agencies for conservation
of game and non-game wildlife, endangered species, as the
states deem appropriate.
Using OCS money, Title III of H.R. 701 will expand state
wildlife conservation efforts and allow state agencies to work
with all types of government and private landowners to achieve
specific goals in virtually all areas of wildlife conservation,
healthy habitat, and a diversity of wildlife.
During the 104th and 105th Congress, a concept to increase
funds available to states for wildlife conservation was
conceived as a new and additional excise tax on all outdoor
recreation equipment. However, this idea, called ``Teaming with
Wildlife,'' was never introduced as legislation.
Although SCI supported the general concept of providing
funds to the state agencies for wildlife conservation, we could
not support the TWW approach. A new tax of any kind was
unlikely to become law. In addition, the TWW draft would have
forced the states to use most of the funds for non-game
wildlife and outdoor recreation activities, regardless of state
needs. We feel that it is critical to leave the decision to the
state wildlife agencies. The TWW proposal would have been an
incentive to spend valuable taxpayer money on unwanted, or
perhaps even unnecessary, programs. However, H.R. 701,
introduced by Young and Dingell, corrects that.
In the 105th Congress, Chairman Young found a way to
achieve the important goals of state funding for wildlife
conservation without imposing the excise tax, or without
robbing the state fish and wildlife agencies of the discretion
to make professionally sound decisions.
As one of the leading organizations representing sportsmen,
SCI supports Mr. Young and the co-sponsors of the Conservation
and Reinvestment Act. H.R. 701 is a focused and carefully
crafted effort. It is an effort to solve a few important needs
whereas H.R. 798, although well intentioned, is an
inappropriate approach that reaches into new programs and
appears to expand other programs. It circumvents the committee
process by pouring money into programs that have not been
authorized, approved, or debated.
And I could name a few of those programs. Both bills deal
with the acquisition of property. While this is not the primary
expertise or interest of SCI, many concerns about these
provisions have been expressed to us both from within and
without our organization.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your sensitivity to those
concerns, and we feel that your Bill 701 contains provisions
intended to guard against undue infringement on private
property rights. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman--as a matter
of fact--the League of Private Property Voters has published a
rating of Members of Congress for 1998, and I am sure you will
remember that rating because your beaming face shines out from
the inside pages as a 100-percent protection of private
property rating with the League of Private Property Voters. I
would hope, Mr. Chairman, that this publication would be
included in the record along with my statement.
Mr. Young. Without objection.
[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. Marlenee. In closing, Mr. Chairman, we would like to
congratulate you for recognizing the need to provide more
funding for the state fish and wildlife agencies and for
finding an inventive way to accomplish that goal. We believe
your bill appropriately recognizes the primary role of the
states and their professional wildlife agencies in wildlife
conservation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marlenee may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mr. Young. I thank my good friend, Ron Marlenee, for his
testimony, and it was all handwritten, I want everybody to
notice that. It was not typed out or used on a fancy machine,
so there is a little bit of sincerity put in this, which I
deeply appreciate.
Ms. Chasis, you are next.
STATEMENT OF SARAH CHASIS, SENIOR ATTORNEY, NATURAL RESOURCES
DEFENSE COUNCIL, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Ms. Chasis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask that
my full written statement be accepted into the record.
Mr. Young. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Chasis. I also wanted to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
accommodating me. I tried like the devil to get here yesterday.
It took me eight hours to get from New York to Washington, and
I appreciate your putting me on a panel today.
My testimony focuses on the Outer Continental Shelf Impact
Assistance Title of H.R. 701, and the Living Marine Resources
Title of H.R. 798.
In our view, the overarching goal for the Coast and Ocean
Title of these bills should be protection and restoration of
our Nation's fragile, but extremely valuable, coastal and
marine resources which are increasingly under pressure from a
variety of forces. In achieving that goal, five principles
should be closely adhered to.
First, the legislation should not provide incentives for
new leasing or new drilling. This should apply to all Titles of
the legislation, not just the coastal or OCS impact assistance
Title.
Second, the state or local share of money should not be
tied to the acceptance of new or closer leasing or drilling.
Third, money that goes to the states and local governments
should be spent on environmentally beneficial projects.
Fourth, there should be Federal agency oversight of how
money is spent to ensure compliance with Federal environmental
laws.
Fifth, any offsets should not come from existing
environmental programs.
While we very much appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the
improvements that you have made to Title I of H.R. 701, we feel
still that the principles enunciated just now have not been
fully complied with.
In contrast, H.R. 798 adheres to these principles very
closely. As a result, we support H.R. 798, but must continue to
oppose H.R. 701 unless and until the concerns we have raised
are satisfactorily resolved.
H.R. 701 includes revenues from new leasing and new
drilling as a funding source for all Titles of the bill, except
that revenues from leased tracts in areas under moratorium are
excluded from Title I. That is a crucial improvement, and we
appreciate that.
However, that same language needs to apply to both Titles
II and III, and we are in receipt of a letter from the Chairman
indicating an interest and willingness to work on correcting
that for Titles II and III, and we appreciate that and look
forward to working with you on that.
The improvement in Title I, however, remains incomplete
because revenue from new leasing and drilling in sensitive
frontier areas, such as Alaska, would be used to fund the
Title. In addition, revenues from drilling on existing leases
off North Carolina, the Florida Panhandle, and Central
California, may possibly be used to fund Title I. The bill is
not clear on this point, and we seek clarification.
We believe that to address this problem, the legislation
should define the term ``qualified Outer Continental Shelf
revenues'' in the definition section, to exclude revenues from
new leasing and new drilling after the date of enactment of the
legislation. This is contained in Mr. Miller's bill, the
Resources 2000 legislation.
Fifty percent of the state's allocable share under H.R. 701
is dependent on its being within 200 miles of a leased OCS
tract. The more production on such tracts and the closer in to
shore these tracts are, the more money the state gets. An
improvement in this section of the bill is the exclusion of
moratoria tracts from this calculation. However, the language
is ambiguous with respect to whether existing leases in
moratorium areas that are not covered by the moratorium would
be also excluded. These tracts, development of which is very
controversial, should be excluded, in our view.
Moreover, new leasing and drilling outside moratorium
areas, including sensitive frontier areas off Alaska, would
still be factored into the allocation formula, thus providing a
significant incentive for allowing such activities to proceed.
We favor a formula that is based on population and
shoreline miles. If OCS activity is to be a factor in the
allocation formula, we think it should be based on past
historic activity and not tied to new leasing and drilling.
Another concern is the method of allocating funds to local
jurisdictions. Fifty percent of a state's share goes directly
to eligible local political subdivision. A locality with OCS
leasing off its coast is entitled to share in 50 percent of the
state's share, with its share increasing the closer the leased
tracts are. Localities with no leasing are not entitled to any
share of the state's allocable share. Obviously, this creates a
major incentive for localities to accept new OCS leasing.
The uses of the money in H.R. 701 authorized in section 104
do not ensure that environmental degradation does not take
place. Their focus is not on restoring the environment or
ensuring activities do not further degrade the environment.
While states may use funds for such purposes, there is no
requirement that they do so.
The Secretary is given no authority to review and approve
state plans. The lack of Federal oversight combined with the
broad uses to which the funds may be put and the large Federal
dollars involved mean that environmentally damaging projects
could well be funded under this Title of the legislation.
With respect to H.R. 798, we strongly support it because it
adheres to the principles we think should govern this
legislative initiative. The bill specifically excludes revenues
from new leasing and production as a funding source for the
bill. In Title VI, the bill does not allocate revenues among
states or local jurisdictions based on proximity of leased
tracts or production.
Finally, the bill requires that the money be spent on the
conservation of living marine resources, not on activities that
could contribute to further environmental degradation.
We very much appreciate this opportunity to testify and
look forward to working with the Committee on this important
legislation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Chasis may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mr. Tauzin. [presiding] Thank you, Ms. Chasis.
The Chair thanks the panel for their testimony, and the
Chair will now recognize himself and other Members for five
minutes.
Let me first thank you, Mr. Gonzales, on behalf of the
sponsors of our legislation, and NACo, for their support. You
mentioned some recommended changes to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, and in that context you mentioned
``conservation leasing.'' Are there other changes you would
recommend?
Mr. Gonzales. Mr. Chairman, at this point, no, we don't
have any other changes, but we would work with the Committee
for any proposed other changes that you would recommend.
Mr. Tauzin. Again, we thank you for your support, and we
will continue that dialogue if there are other discussions you
would like to have.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Marlenee, we have been requested by a
number of organizations to restrict the emphasis in Title III
funds in their use on non-game programs. I understand you
disagree with this. Could you give us an explanation of why you
feel this is not in the best interest of the states?
Mr. Marlenee. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. Having forgotten my
hearing aids, I have not been listening intently.
[Laughter.]
I am sure it is not the first time somebody did not listen
to you.
Mr. Tauzin. It is an old habit you have retained from your
membership in this body. I was asking you, in regard to the
requests we have gotten from several organizations to restrict
the emphasis, that Title III funds should be used on non-game
programs. I understand you disagree with that, and I just
wanted to get your take on it.
Mr. Marlenee. We feel that the states should have the
opportunity to make the decision--game, non-game--and not have
the Federal Government or not have legislation mandate that
non-game species be singled out for a funding-specific funding.
So, we feel that H.R. 701 does the balance and allows the
states to do that.
Mr. Tauzin. Ms. Chasis, let me engage you a bit. I want to
thank you for, first of all, your acknowledging that there has
been a great deal of work and conversation between the Chairman
and the sponsors and your organization.
In the first Green Group letter, the only request made, I
understand, of the sponsors of our legislation, was for the
language prohibiting the use of ``no funds from areas under
drilling moratorium'' under Title I, and that is now in the
bill, as I understand it.
Since that time, we understand that the Green Group
indicated they would like similar language regarding the other
three titles of the bill. I want to emphasize the Chairman and
the other sponsors have agreed to work that with you. If we do
that, if we have all this language that says from Title I
through Title III no funds are going to come from areas under
drilling moratoria, how does the bill possibly serve as an
incentive for lifting moratoria?
Ms. Chasis. Well, if the correction is made for Titles II
and III, that would be a big help. The allocation formula is
also a problem, although the change made there is also very
helpful. But for example, for local jurisdictions, they get to
share in 50 percent automatically of the state's allocable
share if they are within 200 miles of a leased tract. That does
not exclude moratoria tracts.
So, that is another part of the bill that needs fixing in
terms of the moratorium.
Mr. Tauzin. In that area of your concern about proximity to
production in the allocation of funding, you also make, I
think, a very correct statement that Title I funds should be
used to mitigate the OCS production. Obviously, in our own
state, we argue about how much of a deterioration of coastal
wetlands is attributable to natural forces, how much is
attributable to canals and other pipelines that have been laid
to support the Offshore industry. But there clearly is--in
fact, Jack Caldwell, yesterday, when you were not here,
presented some pictures indicating some very clear ties between
that development and the loss and degradation of those lands.
If, in fact, the money should be used to mitigate problems
associated with near-shore production, I am having a great deal
of difficulty understanding your concern that the money should
be distributed on that basis. If, in fact, it is going to be
used for that purpose, should it not be distributed on that
basis?
Ms. Chasis. Our concern is we think where there has been
past harm that has occurred from OCS activity, it is
appropriate for funds to go to mitigate those impacts,
particularly if it is done in an environmentally sensitive way.
We do not want the availability of the money, though, to serve
as an incentive----
Mr. Tauzin. You do not want the incentive problem.
Ms. Chasis. Exactly.
Mr. Tauzin. I understand. Finally, you mentioned the
Federal Government oversight. As I read the bill, the Federal
Government is involved in every Title. I mean, obviously, the
Federal Government does not have a veto power over the state's
use, but it is involved in every Title, in some cases by
partnership with the state and local governments, in other
areas as the advisor to the state and local government. That is
not enough for you? You want the Federal Government to tell the
states exactly what they have to do? What is your complaint
there?
Ms. Chasis. We think in Title I, all that happens is the
state certifies the plan to the Secretary of Interior. There is
no opportunity for the Secretary to review and approve the
plan, and there is a huge amount of money involved, a broad
array of uses, and we think to ensure that Federal
environmental laws are adhered to, there needs to be that kind
of review.
Mr. Tauzin. I understand. I just make the point that the
states have to obey Federal law just like we do. And I would
find it rather strange that the states would submit a plan to
the Secretary that would be violative of the Federal law, but
we can discuss that as we move along.
The Chair now yields to the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
John.
Mr. John. I just have a couple of brief comments and a
question for Mr. Gonzales. You mentioned an interesting concept
that is not in either one of the bills and, if you could
explain it a little further, it may give me a better
understanding and the Committee a better understanding, of what
exactly you are talking about when you refer to conservation
leasing.
Neither one of our bills address that and, obviously, one
of the concerns of both of our bills is the fact of the
addition of more land through the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, has been opposed by lots of groups. Tell me a little bit
about your experiences with conservation leasing.
Mr. Gonzales. Mr. Chairman, Congressman John, conservation
leasing is an innovative approach to where you do not,
hopefully, remove lands from the tax roles. As you know, in
local government we are very dependent, especially at the
county level, and reliant on property taxes as a means for us
to generate revenues and there, in turn, supply services to our
communities. So, the hope would be as we move possibly to
looking at acquiring some of these lands, that we would do it
through the Lease Conservation Program so we do not take them
off the private tax roles and onto the public where we cannot
generate any taxes.
Mr. John. That is a real interesting concept because the
goal in both scenarios, whether the purchase of land or the
actual leasing of it, is to conserve open spaces. This is an
interesting concept that I will take to heart and maybe factor
into some of the other discussions we have thoughout the day.
My next question is addressed to Ms. Chasis. You made
several interesting comments, but most of them were directed
toward your concerns about drilling incentives. I think that it
is apparent in both bills in a lot of ways that we have gone
very far to make sure that this legislation is in no way, shape
or form about drilling incentives, and we have really talked a
lot about that because we believe that in the past the
incentives issue has been the nail in the coffin for other
pieces of legislation that have focused on reserve sharing and
impact assistance.
Your comments talked about the new leasing and the
moratoria, and you talked about only past leases in history.
Does that mean to me that only the production and the royalties
and the leases in the Gulf of Mexico would be contributing to
Title I?
Ms. Chasis. Well, our position is that revenues from new
leasing and production should be excluded from the revenue
stream.
Mr. John. But does that mean that only monies from the Gulf
of Mexico drilling would be deposited as Mr. Miller suggests in
his proposal, H.R. 798?
Ms. Chasis. That is not how we have articulated it. It
would be whatever existing leasing and production there is as
of the date of enactment.
Mr. John. In the present situation of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund as it is today, do you believe that the LWCF
has proven to be an incentive for drilling because that is tied
to OCS funds?
Ms. Chasis. I do not believe so, but the amount of money
that has actually been appropriated there, as you know, has
been much less than what is authorized, or than what would be
spent under this bill. I mean, this bill is talking, for
example, about $1.4 billion, according to MMS, for Title I
alone. So, we are talking about a lot more money, and when we
are talking about a lot more money there is the much greater
potential for incentives.
Mr. John. And, finally, as a follow-up, do you believe that
a motivating factor in an oil and gas business' decision to
invest multi-million dollars into drilling and OCS production,
would be the fact that the state would receive some money from
Title I of CARA 701? Would that lead an oil company to say,
``Well, I think I am going to go drill because the state wil
receive funding''--or the state says, ``I think we are going to
do this because we receive some Federal dollars''--and that
will be a determining factor in whether the drilling company
decides to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to go out and
explore for oil?
Ms. Chasis. I think our principal concern is the incentive
to state and local governments saying, ``The only way you are
going to get a significant amount of money is to accept new
drilling and leasing.'' We would rather see the money spent for
the uses, but not tied to that incentive.
Mr. John. So your concern is that a state or--maybe not a
local government, but a state--may somehow, in their state
legislature, provide some kind of drilling incentives, whether
it is tax incentives or something--in some kind of way entice
companies to come into that area because the state may benefit
with some of that.
Ms. Chasis. Yes, but I think local governments are also an
important component because often a relatively small amount of
money can make a big difference to them. And if they see that
they are going to get double the money they would otherwise get
by accepting new leasing, then that is going to be a
temptation.
Mr. John. Well, it is my past experience that when an oil
production company makes a decision to drill, there are a lot
of other factors, and I do not believe that this will be one of
them in any kind of way. And, secondly, we have worked very
hard with a variety of environmental organizations because we
understand the sensitivity of that issue.
And we will be glad to work with you as we go through this
bill, to make sure that that is done because in no way, shape
or form do we want to provide this as an incentive because,
frankly, the oil and gas companies do not have a dog in this
fight. I mean, this is about the dollars that they are
presently paying, and this is about whether we use these funds
to save our coastline, which NRDC should support as a top
priority; especially when in Louisiana we are losing lands that
are of great environmental value.
Mr. Tauzin. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, who I think wants to
yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. Gilchrist. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much. I wanted to ask a quick
question because I am afraid I am going to have to offer my
amendment on the floor after this vote.
Sir, I want to thank you for being here. I know it took you
over eight hours or something to get here to Washington.
One of the differences in the two bills is we have a set-
aside fund, if you will, for marine resources, and I wonder if
you just might address that, the importance and what
alternative funding there would be if you did not have this
kind of set-aside.
Ms. Chasis. We think that is extremely important. The
living marine resources, those are the resources that are under
tremendous pressure now from a variety of sources, offshore
drilling being one of them, but also pollution, over-fishing,
habitat degradation, and we think having a specific set-aside
of $300 million, which is in your bill, is extremely important
in terms of enhancing and ensuring the long-term sustainability
of those resources. And there currently is not the kind of
funding available through the appropriations process to----
Mr. Miller. There is really no dedicated----
Ms. Chasis. There is no dedicated money to do that, as
compared to on-shore with wildlife and other programs. So, I
think we see that as an absolutely crucial part of the overall
approach, and would urge the Committee to look to that and take
that.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. And, again, thank you very much for
all your effort to get here and to testify, it has been
helpful. Thank the other panelists.
Mr. Tauzin. The Chair would equally emphasize our
appreciation. Cajuns have a hard time getting through snow,
maybe even harder than New Yorkers.
We have two 15-minute votes on the floor. I can do one of
two things: We can dismiss this panel and move to the next, or
I can hold the panel until we get back. I am seeking some
guidance from the Members. What would you like? Mr. Udall? The
gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Thank you. I would just, first of
all, thank the panel for your testimony here today, and
recognize the County Commissioner, Javier Gonzales, from the
Third Congressional District in New Mexico. He is a rising
young star in New Mexico politics and now, as I see, is going
to be in two years the President of the National Association of
Counties----
Mr. Tauzin. I predict a future Congressman, myself.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Well, that could be. That worries
me every now and then, Bill, it worries me every now and then,
but I want to say one thing. His comments--he is very
consistent in terms of what he has done locally. In this last
election, they had a $12 million bond issue to protect wildlife
and create parks, so I think that effort was very important,
and we look forward to working with you on these bills.
And I would just like to say to your association, I know as
you meet you are going to look further at both of the bills
that are under consideration, and we hope that you will give us
specific comments about how they can be improved and how we can
partner with you in terms of these issues that are being
addressed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you. Any other Member, quickly, we have
got to move to the vote. Mr. Udall?
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is not
the first time my cousin has stolen all my time, but I just
wanted to put a word behind this concept of agricultural
easements and looking to NACo to help us understand this. In
Colorado, there is a lot of pressure to maintain productive
farmland and productive ranchland, and I think that is one of
the very, very important parts of these bills. So, thank you
very much for being here, to the whole panel.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Udall. Mrs. Christensen.
Mrs. Christian-Christensen. Just to add my thanks to the
panel for being here, and my support for the bill and my
interest in working with you to make sure that this bill
becomes a reality. And I would like to just enter my formal
statement for the record.
Mr. Tauzin. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Christian-Christensen
follows:]
Statement of Hon. Donna M. Christian-Christensen, a Delegate in
Congress from the Territory of Virgin Islands
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to make a few
opening remarks in general support of the bills before the
Committee today. I want to begin by applauding you Mr. Chairman
and Ranking Democrat Miller for once again recognizing and
acknowledging the significant need for funding for recreation
programs through the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery
Program (UPARR). While I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 798,
I am pleased to note that even your bill, Mr. Chairman, would
provide more than $100 million annually for this important
program.
I have always been a strong believer in the importance of
providing recreational outlets for our young people. Because of
this, I have been very disappointed that over the past several
years no funds have been appropriated for the UPARR program.
Two years ago, both this Committee as well as its Senate
counterpart, held oversight hearings on the lack of funding,
since FY95, for state grants. In my district, our local parks
are in very serious disrepair and our young people have no
where to go for recreation. Because the Virgin Islands
government is laboring under severe financial constraints,
there are no local funds available to address this situation.
That is why I am excited and very hopeful about the prospects
of the two bills before us today and I look forward to working
with you Ranking Democrat Miller to make sure that we are
successful in securing funding for the UPARR program this
Congress.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and I look forward to hearing from
the witnesses.
Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentlelady. I want to submit for
the record, without objection, the letter that Ms. Chasis
referred to, to the Green Group, indicating our comments on the
issue she has raised.
[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. Marlenee.
Mr. Marlenee. I ask permission that my written text be
included in the record.
Mr. Tauzin. Absolutely, without objection. Mr. Marlenee, by
the way, my dad had a hearing aid, and he used to turn it off
on me a lot, too.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tauzin. Again, thank you for your patience. We will
reconvene as soon as these two 15-minute votes are over. The
Committee stands in recess.
[Recess]
Mr. Tauzin. The Committee will come to order. We are going
to try to move along in the hopes that other Members will
arrive as we proceed. We will assemble the next panel which
will consist of the Honorable David Cobb, Mayor of the City of
Valdez, Alaska. Welcome, Mayor. I know Congressman Young would
like to be here to welcome you. I think he is on extraordinary
business right now. It must be serious stuff.
We also have Mr. Mark Van Putten, President and CEO of
National Wildlife Federation, Vienna, Virginia; Mr. Alan Front,
Senior Vice President of The Trust for Public Land, San
Francisco, California; and Mr. Thomas Cove, Sporting Goods
Manufacturers Association in Washington, DC. Gentlemen, thank
you for your patience. I apologize for the absence of Members.
When we get in an afternoon session, when there is floor
activity, it just gets difficult, I hope you understand, but
your testimony will be made a public record, of course, the
written testimony, and we would like you to engage
conversationally as much as you can.
We will begin with the Honorable David Cobb, Mayor of the
City of Valdez. Welcome, Mayor.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID COBB, MAYOR, CITY OF VALDEZ, ALASKA
Mayor. Cobb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first want to
apologize for the weather yesterday.
Mr. Tauzin. Is that Alaskan weather?
Mayor. Cobb. I do want to thank the Honorable Mayor of
Washington, DC for providing that weather so that we could feel
right at home.
Mr. Tauzin. Mayor, I want you to know I have seen Valdez. I
have been to Alaska many times with my dear friend, Don Young,
and it was never in Alaska as bad as it was here in Washington,
DC.
Mayor. Cobb. Mr. Chairman, my name is Dave Cobb, Mayor of
Valdez, Alaska, home of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Terminal. My
testimony today is in support of H.R. 701, the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act of 1999. This piece of legislation addresses
the fundamentally important issues of enhancing the
conservation and management of coastal areas, providing revenue
for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and for making
funding available to enhance fish and game resources and
management in all states.
Today, I represent not only Valdez, Alaska, but Mayor Hank
Hove, from the North Star Borough, Fairbanks, and also Mayor
Naqeak, Mayor of North Slope Borough. Collectively, we three
Mayors are what is fondly called in Alaska as ``The Trans-
Alaska Pipeline Corridor Communities.'' We have the entire
pipeline within our jurisdictions.
The City of Valdez supports this legislation to provide
coastal impact assistance to state and local governments, to
revitalize the Land and Water Conservation Fund Stateside
Program, and to aid wildlife programs. We believe it is wise to
re-invest revenues from all non-renewable natural resources in
the resources that provide long-term public value.
What is more important to me is the coastal impact
assistance issue. The Federal Government has a responsibility
to the states and local governments affected by the development
of Federal mineral resources to mitigate adverse environmental
and public service impacts incurred due to that development.
While Valdez sets some 800 miles from the Outer Continental
Shelf oil and gas developments, nevertheless, every drop of oil
that comes off of those leases passes through our community.
The impacts are real not only for water and sewer, for schools,
this is the 20th anniversary--last year was--of the oil find on
the North Slope. We will have the tenth anniversary this year
of the infamous Exxon Valdez oil spill. The impacts continue.
After 20 years, we still have major impacts on our communities.
The revenues that come to Valdez in particular, and the
other pipeline corridor communities, are based on ad valorem
property taxes assessed on the pipeline itself. Those property
taxes have declined by about 51 percent since 1990.
What does that mean to a small community like Valdez of
4,500 people? Within the next two years, my community will lose
$1.2 million in revenues from those declines. The oil industry
in Valdez, Alaska makes up about 80 percent of my tax base.
Back during construction of the pipeline, Valdez was
impacted with as much as 2,500 people to approximately 10,000
people. That happened again in 1989 after the oil spill. We
went, in a two-week time period, from about 2,800 people to
10,000 people. You have to have infrastructure in place to take
care of those situations. We put our infrastructure in place to
support the industry. Now we must maintain and operate that
infrastructure. We have spent approximately $150 million in
infrastructure to mitigate public service impacts from the
results of oil development in Alaska.
The cost to maintain infrastructure and public service
needs do not rise and fall with the price of oil. As I have
stated, the property tax base has fallen 51 percent since 1990.
Oil and gas properties are declining at a rate of 7 percent
annually. I do not know of any other community, certainly in
the State of Alaska, but pretty much anywhere else, where your
annual revenues will decline at 7 percent.
We have been frugal. We have tried to make the best of a
bad situation. The upside, however, is the population of Valdez
has increased 25 percent since 1980. We still provide services,
port and dock services, police services, specialty training in
bomb unit, terrorism and other security issues associated with
the pipeline and the terminal. We provide fire service and
equipment, petroleum firefighting apparatus. We have joint
firefighting agreements between the Terminal because they sit
inside the city limits of Valdez.
In addition, under Title II the City of Valdez supports
full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900
million, and full funding of the Stateside Program.
State and local governments are integral components in
meeting the Nation's outdoor recreation needs. It is
unbelievable that even in Alaska we have recreational needs. We
have a vast, humongous state with two of the largest national
parks in the Nation. Primarily, one is fairly well developed,
the other is undeveloped at all. We still have recreational
needs for the millions of tourists visiting Alaska every year.
Public access to recreation opportunities and facilities
depends on a combined system of local, state and Federal sites
and services.
More than 367 projects have been constructed in 45
different Alaskan communities and on state parks lands since
the Land and Water Conservation Fund was established. Each of
these projects plays a key role in meeting the outdoor
recreation needs not only of our local citizens in our state,
but our Nation as well.
Valdez has more than $1 million of outdoor recreation
projects that are eligible for LWCF Stateside funding. These
projects include campground renovation, winter recreation
facilities, parks, and beachfront access developments.
One of the things that greatly affects Alaska, and in
particular Valdez, is that we do not have much private land.
Prince William Sound is pretty much all controlled and owned by
the Forest Service. Some Native corporations own land but, for
the most part, very little private land in Alaska.
Other Alaskan communities such as Fairbanks, Unalaska,
Sitka, Anchorage, Barrow and Juneau have more than $60 million
in projects that need to be funded.
Mr. Tauzin. Mayor, we ask you to kind of begin wrapping up,
we are going to try to get other witnesses in. Mr. Pombo will
sit in the chair just temporarily.
Mr. Pombo. [presiding] Go ahead.
Mayor. Cobb. I will go ahead and close. Our local
communities have a long history of impacts on our communities,
and the provisions provided under Title I are greatly needed.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cobb may be found at the end
of the hearing.]
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
Mr. Van Putten.
STATEMENT OF MARK VAN PUTTEN, PRESIDENT/CEO, NATIONAL WILDLIFE
FEDERATION, VIENNA, VIRGINIA
Mr. Van Putten. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. I appreciate this opportunity to testify this
afternoon on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation,
America's largest conservation advocacy and education
organization.
I want to begin by congratulating the sponsors of H.R. 701
and H.R. 798 for their tremendous leadership in introducing the
two bills that are now pending before this Committee. If
successful in passing a permanent conservation funding bill,
your contribution would be a conservation milestone comparable
to the passage of landmark laws like the Clean Air and Clean
Water Acts, and the original Land and Water Conservation Fund.
The National Wildlife Federation has made it our top
priority to work with you to ensure that this victory is
accomplished. One caveat: To realize the tremendous possibility
posed by these bills, as Representative John pointed out
earlier, it is vital that the final bill does not create
perverse incentives for negative environmental impacts, the
nail in the coffin, as he put it earlier.
We are greatly heartened by the significant improvements
that have been made to Title I of H.R. 701 to exclude areas
currently covered by the oil and gas moratoria from the revenue
stream. We thank you for that progress, and we look forward to
working with you to ensure that any remaining incentives for
increased oil and gas drilling are addressed before the
Committee marks up the bill.
As my written testimony indicates, the Federation has an
active interest in many of the major issues associated with
this bill, but I am going to focus my oral remarks on the
wildlife component of the two funding bills because this has
been a priority to the Federation since our role in the
creation of the Teaming With Wildlife Coalition.
Historically, fish and wildlife agencies have been
responsible for managing and protecting the fish and wildlife
that inhabit their borders. These efforts have yielded
remarkable results, including the restoration of wild turkey,
elk, black bear, and striped bass, to their native habitat;
yet, the funds available to these agencies do not typically
reflect their broad mandate, and the agencies must fill too
often these difficult programmatic goals based on a limited
budget.
Traditionally, much of the funding for wildlife management
has come from the support of sportsmen and women through excise
taxes on hunting and fishing equipment and through the sale of
sporting licenses. Consequently, it is not surprising that the
vast majority of these resources have been used to manage game
species; yet, roughly 90 percent of species, those that are not
hunted or fished or federally listed as threatened or
endangered--commonly referred to as ``nongame'' wildlife--
receive significantly less reliable and less financial support.
Annual funding for all state nongame wildlife programs amounts
to less than $100 million compared to the more than $1 billion
spent for state game programs.
It makes sense to prioritize the funding available under
these bills to prevent the decline of nongame wildlife species
before they reach a crisis point where most costly options are
required.
We greatly appreciate the efforts by the sponsors of both
bills to include substantial and reliable funding for these
agencies that would be dedicated to on-the-ground state
wildlife conservation. We strongly urge you to prioritize this
funding for the historically underfunded nongame wildlife
programs.
I would like to make a few observations specific to each of
the pending bills. With respect to H.R. 701, I already
mentioned our strong belief in the need to prioritize the
funding for nongame wildlife bills. Given the longstanding
emphasis state and wildlife agencies have placed on game
species, this legislation should include that prioritization.
Second, H.R. 701 does not provide a clear mechanism to
ensure public participation in the process, and the bill should
be amended to include language that provides for public
meetings and citizen advisory committees.
Third, and finally, we are concerned about some of the
restrictions in Title II on the Land and Water Conservation
Fund.
With respect to H.R. 798, we commend the drafters for their
creativity, but we are concerned that channeling these funds
through the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act rather than the
Pittman-Robertson Act would create some administrative
disadvantages. It may require the creation of a new
administrative infrastructure for distributing the funds and
may make it more difficult to provide oversight and
accountability. We recommend using the proven mechanism of
Pittman-Robertson.
Second, this bill would not reach full funding of $350
million per year until five years out. Delaying the funds for
wildlife conservation will impair the ability of states to
develop effective programs.
Third, we recommend that funding levels for these state
programs be increased by approximately $100 million to match
the higher level in H.R. 701.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the National
Wildlife Federation is resolved to work with you in crafting a
final legislation that assures reliable, permanent funding for
wildlife conservation, adequate emphasis on those species that
have the greatest need and have historically been shortchanged,
an effective mechanism for distributing funds, and reasonable
Federal oversight and public participation. You have the
opportunity to make a historic contribution to wildlife
conservation in America, and we are dedicated to work with you
to achieve that end. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Van Putten may be found at
the end of the hearing.]
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, Mark, and, indeed, we will
continue to dialogue as we go forward on the bills.
Next is Mr. Alan Front, Senior Vice President for The Trust
for Public Land, San Francisco, California. I am reminded,
Alan, of your assistance to us in Louisiana on the black bear
conservation issues, and I want to thank you for that. By the
way, you are not related to Allen Funt, are you, with Candid
Camera?
Mr. Front. No, this is the correct spelling.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Front.
STATEMENT OF ALAN FRONT, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, THE TRUST FOR
PUBLIC LAND, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Front. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased
to be here today to represent The Trust for Public Land, a
national not-for-profit land conservation organization that
works with communities, landowners, and public agencies across
the country, with diverse constituencies, willing sellers, and
public agencies, to secure important lands of public interest
and to make those lands available for public use and enjoyment.
Mr. Chairman, if you can bear the weight of some additional
appreciative laurels this afternoon, I would like to begin by
expressing the Trust for Public Land's appreciation for your
work and for the work of Chairman Young, the Ranking Member,
Mr. Miller, your many respective co-sponsors, and the Members
of this Committee, for advancing this important legislation at
a time of critical need and particularly ripe opportunity.
There has never been a more challenging time for our
Nation's public lands either at the Federal level or at the
state and local level, and the inclusive process that you and
the Committee have engaged in really holds great promise for
enacted legislation that we hope to be able to embrace and see
you at the signing ceremony for.
You have heard this morning on several panels about the
need for additional conservation funding through the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, through UPARR, and through some of the
other mechanisms of these bills. I will not beat that horse,
but I will share with you that with the Trust for Public Land's
work on the ground with those communities, we have seen that
need in the backlog of land acquisition, land protection, land
restoration need.
We have seen those needs expressed at the local level
across the country, from the forest lands of Maine to the
beaches of the Gulf Coast and Florida, and elsewhere, to the
Swann Valley in Montana, to the watershed lands of the Wasatch
Front, all the way to Hawaii where public lands are the life's
blood and the mainstay of the tourist economy that keeps that
state going.
We are very pleased that both of these proposals, CARA and
Resources 2000 which, I believe, in the Silicon Valley is
called ``R2K''--we are pleased that both of those bills, both
of the bills that you are considering today, meaningfully seek
to address the shortfall in funding in these conservation
programs to bridge the gap between the express need in
communities around the Nation and the annual funding that
Congress has diligently tried to provide but has not met the
needs.
I would like to talk about some of the differences between
those two proposals, but, first, I would love to celebrate for
just a moment some of the commonalities between the two.
Obviously, these bills are not identical, but even if they are
not identical twins, there is a certain family resemblance that
is very, very encouraging.
Both the bills provide permanent funding for the Land and
Water Conservation Fund at its congressionally authorized
level. Both of the bills restore a substantial commitment to
state and local recreation through a meaningful recreation of
the Stateside program, and both of these bills make an equally
meaningful commitment to the Urban Parks and Recreation
Recovery Act program, by putting, again, guaranteed funding
into that program.
We do celebrate those, and those three items are critically
important not only to the Trust for Public Land and its
conservation work, but to the many willing sellers that we work
with around the country who ought not to have to wait for
compensation if they are willing to sell their priority public
lands, and to the communities that depend on these lands not
just for recreation, but also, in many cases, for their
economic stability and sustainability.
Given those similarities and appreciating them, we also
recognize that there are some differences, and in a few
specific cases in the conservation titles of the bills,
specifically in Title II of CARA, we are concerned about some
of the limitations of the use of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund that my tablemate made some reference to.
First, there is a geographic limitation that would steer a
set percentage of the money to the eastern states, east of the
100th Meridian, and while we recognize the pressing needs on
both sides of the 100th Meridian, we also recognize that
Congress and the Administration, in their dual wisdom, have
reckoned out for years how on a case-by-case basis to respond
to the needs on either side of the line, and that is a
flexibility that we would dearly love to see sustained in any
successor to the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
The bill also limits Federal acquisition with respect to
exterior boundaries, and while that is a particularly key issue
for some of the Members on the Committee, we have also seen
that many landowners own property that straddles the line
between the public jurisdictions and the areas just outside the
boundary, or own properties that are outside the boundaries but
are necessary for programmatic initiatives that the agencies
are pursuing. And so we would like to see that flexibility
maintained as well.
Lastly, there is an additional restriction that would
require new authorizing legislation for any project that was
funded through this fund over a set amount. And all of the
acquisitions that take place currently are already authorized,
and we believe that a duplicative authorization requirement
would delay projects in a real estate marketplace that is very
dynamic, and cost communities their resources, and cost
landowners excessive time.
Finally, I would like to ask that whatever bill is reported
out also consider one budgetary dynamic, and that is that there
obviously will need to be offsets identified for this new
spending, and full and fair disclosure is that it is new
spending for an old obligation, for a historic partnership but
new spending. It would be a tragedy to see that funding come
out of the hide of the land management agencies that are trying
to sustain their programs, and so however the mechanism is
arrived at, we look forward to working with the Committee to
make sure that offsets can be identified that will not close
the Washington Monument while we try to protect additional
parklands.
With that, I do appreciate the Committee's openness, and I
appreciate this opportunity to speak to you, and I look forward
to working with you up until that signing ceremony.
Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Front may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, Mr. Front. By the way, in
your earlier comments about thanking those who worked on the
bill, I do not want to leave out the excellent work of my
colleague from Louisiana, Chris John, who has been a key player
in the early drafting and many discussions that have led to a
bill that is getting closer and closer to a consensus product.
We, by the way, affectionately call Resource 2000 not Y2K, but
``Y2CHAOS''.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tauzin. We are now pleased to welcome Mr. Thomas Cove,
of the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association of Washington,
DC.
Mr. Cove.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS COVE, SPORTING GOODS MANUFACTURERS
ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Cove. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sporting Goods
Manufacturers Association is the national trade association for
producers and distributors of athletic equipment, footwear and
apparel. We have about 2,000 member companies.
I associate myself with the same remarks about commending
the Chairman, you, Mr. Tauzin, you, Mr. John, as well as Mr.
Miller. We have been at this table a couple of times.
I testified two years ago, it was a message of lament, we
had little to look forward to. Four or five years ago, I was on
the National Park Service Committee to address the state and
local side of the Land and Water Fund, and while we produced a
wonderful report, we generated very little activity where it
mattered, which is up here fundamentally in this Committee.
So, we start with a tremendous optimism about the energy on
this issue and profound appreciation for the leadership that
all of you, as well as your staffs, have brought to this table.
I recognize there are substantive differences between H.R.
701 and H.R. 798, and I might look to my friend, Mr. Front, and
take the same position he articulated. I would like to talk,
first, about those parts of the bill that are close or, as he
said, are members of the same family. I am not as articulate as
Alan Front, but I try hard.
What we see on the Land and Water Stateside and on the
UPARR program is a tremendous need in America today that we can
fund. We can fundamentally address a quality of life concern
with America's families and communities.
Today, the sports and recreation infrastructure shows
basically an equation out of balance. Demand outstrips supply
across the Nation. Ball fields, courts, trails, rivers,
greenways, bike paths, lakes, nature preserves, they are being
taxed, taxed every day, and conflicts amongst our citizens are
springing up and causing conflicts.
Let me just talk briefly about how it cuts across America,
and I would reiterate that the bills' provisions with regard to
UPARR and Land and Water speak directly to these needs.
First, it is an urban issue. Let me give you just some
quick examples. In the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota,
literally thousands of young girls and boys in the city want to
but will not get to play soccer this year because there are no
playing fields there.
Mr. Tauzin. I thought wrestling was the big sport.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cove. Well, we love the new Governor, but lots of folks
want to do other things as well. There is one public soccer
field in the entire city, there are 341 soccer fields in the
Minneapolis suburbs.
With inner-city programs that we work with like Reviving
Baseball in the Inner City, Soccer in the Streets, this is a
common complaint. They've got kids coming out of everywhere to
come play, and there is no place to play.
It is a suburban issue. Let me identify one Maryland
county, in this county, 25,000 girls and boys play organized
soccer, 74 fields to serve them. Last year in one age-specific
league, 550 children were turned away, no space. In the next
two years, county officials estimate that 60 to 120 additional
fields in one county need to be built. Forty thousand kids are
going to be in the soccer program in four years.
In Ft. Lauderdale, there are 1,000 kids on the waiting list
to sign up for soccer in the American Youth Soccer Organization
League.
The problem is not unique to soccer. Hopewell, New Jersey,
they have not had football there for years because there are no
fields. This year, parents wanted to start a youth football
league, Pop Warner. One hundred and thirty kids signed up in
the spring without any hope of having a field. Now they have a
problem because they have to go out and raise money to start to
buy equipment, which we love, but without a field there will be
lots of children there, and parents as well, left unfulfilled.
It is a gender equity issue. In Georgia, for example, girls
and women's softball league administrators do battle with the
baseball folks, softball versus baseball. In one typical
Georgia city, there are five fields for 800 boys and some girls
who play baseball. There is one field for 300 girls who play
softball. Girls do not get the chance to play.
Title IX has opened doors for girls and women to play
nontraditional field sports like lacrosse, soccer, rugby, and
field hockey. This is great, but the conflicts over field usage
only get worse.
It is a cultural issue. We are seeing more and more youth
sports leagues having to play on Sundays. Parents do not like
having to make a choice between church, family time, and youth
sports.
It is a socio-economic issue. One response to what people
are facing out there is parents are starting to raise money and
build their own facilities. But these are fee-based facilities,
so only the people that can pay get to play. Only the people
that are fully committed to that particular sport get to play,
and the intramural athlete does not get to. It is not right to
make basic recreation access limited by financial
considerations.
Health and safety. A recent CDC study established that
people living in unsafe neighborhoods are less likely to get
outside for physical activity--no surprise. Almost 40 percent
of people living in ``not safe'' neighborhoods reported no
physical activity or exercise in the past month.
For older Americans, it is particularly important. The
study found 63 percent living in unsafe areas got no exercise,
compared with 38 percent in safer areas. I offer these examples
just to put a human face on the problem, and I see my time is
up. Let me speak just quickly to the two bills. Let me be clear
as to what we think.
I said we think both of them are good. We generally support
H.R. 701 because it will provide a permanent, dedicated,
sustainable funding source for Federal and state Land and Water
Conservation Fund and UPARR. This is the heart of the bill for
us, and lots of America's families and kids.
SGMA supports H.R. 798 as well, but there are areas in the
Chairman's bill, H.R. 701, that can be improved. I have listed
them in my testimony. In fact, we have concerns about the
allocation only within the exterior boundaries because there
are trails that people use all the time, and willing sellers
want to make that land available; they should be able to be
accommodated. The two-thirds issue east of the meridian is a
concern for us.
Let me make two points about other titles and I will close.
First, I do need to say that my industry is against the use of
coastal impact assistance as an incentive to promote offshore
gas and oil drilling. We are not in a position to make that
decision, whether it is an incentive or not, but we would ask
that whatever final language is agreed to would be incentive-
neutral to the most people as possible.
With regard to Title III, the sporting goods industry
supports Title III and supports the dedicated revenue stream to
provide funds for wildlife management. You may know that the
previous option to tax products to pay for Teaming With
Wildlife was not a big favorite of my industry. We are very
happy and commend the Committee for taking an innovative
approach, and we look to work with you to pass this bill. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cove may be found at the end
of the hearing.]
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much. The Chair will recognize
himself and other Members for five minutes. Let me begin by
pointing out that, indeed, in past Congressional sessions, we
have offered all sorts of bills to incentivize drilling. Coming
from Louisiana, you can imagine how our citizens feel, like we
have opened up the Gulf to drilling and accepted many of the
consequences of that, including pretty severe impacts on our
communities, as the Mayor of Valdez has pointed out.
We have been appalled that in some places other people have
not accepted what we think is their responsibility. In fact, I
remember when we had a five-year leasing discussion here, when
the Secretary of the Energy Department testified that some
tracts were in moratoria and not because of environmental
concerns. They were low in environmental concerns, and they
were high in hydrocarbon potential, they were just off because
of politics.
So we have had those battles, but I want to make it clear,
we do not make this battle here. We have attempted to try to
make this incentive neutral and make sure that it is a program,
however, that is well funded in the future, that is why we
include both old and new revenues, and to make sure that it
permanently provides for the many concerns that all of you have
discussed today--Mayor, in terms of impacts, and the rest of
you in terms of wildlife preservation and wetland preservation
and recreational needs of our communities. You made a great
case in terms of the human--all of you--in terms of the human
elements here, the human elements of the community impacted by
the declining tax base, Mayor, in Valdez. By the way, I chaired
the first hearing after the Exxon Valdez disaster in Valdez. I
was the Chairman of the Coast Guard Committee. So, I am keenly
aware of what you have gone through, and how the community now
continues to suffer with the declining tax base.
And for all of you, we, of course, are equally troubled by
this or that provision in our bill and Mr. Miller's bill, as we
try to balance these things out. Understand, I am a big
property rights advocate, and so we are trying to make sure our
property rights coalitions are not terribly offended by what we
do here, that we protect property rights.
Mr. Front, I know that is a concern of your group, that
private property rights are protected and respected throughout
this effort. At the same time, I understand your concerns that
if there is a need for additional trails or park space in a
given community, that we want to make sure that that can
happen. Tough balances, I hope you see that. And we are trying
to find the right mix, and that is why we keep this dialogue
going throughout the process.
For example, Mr. Front, you did mention your concerns about
protections for private--could you expand on your concerns, and
give us any suggestions how we might make sure that we are not
offending the private property rights concerns of legitimate
private property owners in America?
Mr. Front. I will be glad to, Mr. Chairman. First, I should
note that we are certainly in favor of accountability and
responsible use of these funds and appropriate deliberation.
And what we recognize is that in the process that Congress and
the Administration have engaged in over the years, there seems
to have been exactly that sort of give-and-take, exactly those
sorts of checks-and-balances. When the Hill has been overly
concerned about an acquisition that the Administration has
proposed, it has seen fit to put restrictions, or to cancel
outright, the Administration's capacity to pursue that
acquisition.
Mr. Tauzin. Or at least to require willing sellers, as we
have always tried to do.
Mr. Front. Yes. And my organization's perspective may be
somewhat limited because not having imminent domain authority,
not really wanting imminent domain authority, with the
challenges that brings, all of our relationships with all the
sellers that we work with--Black Bear owners in Louisiana and
elsewhere--are on a very willing seller basis.
Mr. Tauzin. Is there something wrong with our bill in that
regard that you can recommend any improvement?
Mr. Front. Yes. The concerns that I have about the bill,
and I believe that they can be worked out to the satisfaction
of property rights advocates, are that the specific
limitations, ironclad limitations, about how that money will be
spent--two-thirds of it must be spent of the 100th Meridian,
the money cannot be spent on exterior boundary acquisitions--
and the delays inherent in requiring additional legislative
authorization----
Mr. Tauzin. Your concerns are more in the place where
willing sellers cannot make----
Mr. Front. If there are willing sellers who would like to
pursue acquisitions, but unfortunately they happen to lie
outside of the framework of the restrictions----
Mr. Tauzin. Let me move around quickly. Mayor, you said
your tax base is declining on the pipeline. Is that because of
depreciation?
Mr. Cobb. Yes, it is, property tax devaluation of the
pipeline itself.
Mr. Tauzin. So you still have all the problems, your
communities are growing, you still have all that fire
protection and safety concerns, and yet your base is declining.
The impact assistance is pretty critical to you.
Mr. Cobb. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tauzin. Quickly, Mr. Van Putten, you mention that
public land is eroding. I can tell you big time in Louisiana,
as Mr. John has pointed out with me. Congressman Regula
recently said there is a $12 billion backlog in the maintenance
of Federal lands. Would you support allowing the Federal Land
and Water Conservation Fund to be used for rehabilitation and
maintenance of public lands?
Mr. Van Putten. Congressman, that is an issue that I have
not focused my attention on, and I will respond to you on
behalf of the Federation in writing, if I may.
Mr. Tauzin. That would be very, very good, I appreciate
that, sir, because that is a big discussion here, how much
should go into new acquisitions, how much should go into simply
taking care of what we already have, and rehabilitating it
where we are losing it. That is something we want to hear more
on, if you do not mind coming back to us on.
Mr. Van Putten. Yes, sir, I will send you a letter.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Cove, my time is out, but I did want to ask
you one very quick question. Your statistics seem to indicate
that the needs are not for a great deal more public land
acquisition, except in the area of fields perhaps, but tell
me--we keep hearing from other Members that what people are
going to use this money for is to go out and buy great new
swatches of land out there.
You seem to indicate the real needs in this area are for
small acquisitions for new fields and new recreational
opportunities for underserved women and underserved kids,
particularly, and elderly people for safety purposes in urban
communities, is that right?
Mr. Cove. Well, that is exactly what I said, and we have
identified the Stateside Land and Water as a great success that
has been lost--the investment has been broken for the last 15
years, and it is time to pay the price.
I would not want to give the impression, though,
particularly from our business interests, that the Federal land
issues are resolved. Purely on the business of recreation,
there are tremendous needs out there, and we fundamentally
believe that there is a considerable amount of land that would
need to be purchased with regard to protecting it for
conservation purposes for the good of the country.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, gentlemen. The Chair yields to my
friend from Louisiana, Mr. John.
Mr. John. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me thank all
of the panelists, especially the Mayor of Valdez, who traveled
several time zones to get here. I have been up to your
beautiful city, and we need to make sure that we do everything
to help.
I also appreciate your testimony and your comments earlier,
and also agree with them, that I do believe that the Federal
Government has an obligation to help the states and local
governments to mitigate the impacts of oil and gas development.
So, I really appreciate you coming and sharing those thoughts
with us.
Mr. Van Putten, you mentioned in your testimony a little
earlier about the differences and similarities of our bills.
One of the biggest differences, I believe, in R2K, as one of
you called it, and H.R. 701, is that it limits the sources of
these funds to come only from Gulf of Mexico leases that were
in production as of January 1st. Obviously, this limits the
available funding under H.R. 798, and denies some of the
programs access to these resources. Do you see a reason why we
should limit the funds for these programs to just from the Gulf
of Mexico? Especially if the language in the bill we are going
to continue to work on, prohibits any drilling in moratoria
areas?
Mr. Van Putten. Well, Congressman, our goal is, as Ms.
Chasis described it this morning, to assure that the bill is
incentive-neutral with respect to oil and gas drilling. We
think there are ways to do that while still addressing what
Representative Tauzin alluded to, the need to assure there is
long-term funding. One approach would be a snapshot approach as
of a point in time. That is what Ms. Chasis suggested this
morning would work. That could be revisited by the Congress at
appropriate opportunities in the future.
Frankly, I do not see how the geographically focused
approach that you suggest works any better in balancing those
two goals of being incentive-neutral while at the same time
assuring that the money will be there for the long-term to
satisfy the identified needs.
Mr. John. I am not suggesting that just the revenues come
out of the Gulf of Mexico. To the contrary, that is not what
H.R. 701 attempts to do--that is what H.R. 798 does. So, I just
wanted your thoughts on that. And, also, you talked about your
concern about prioritizing the money in the nongame portion of
our bill. I assume that is Title III, right?
Mr. Van Putten. Yes, sir.
Mr. John. Expand on that, please. Are you suggesting that
the Federal Government, in this legislation, actually slot out
different dollars for different programs in priority fashion?
Mr. Van Putten. We are suggesting that this legislation
clearly articulate a priority in the use of the Title III funds
for nongame wildlife needs. Historically, because of the source
of the funding in Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson is the
excise tax on equipment used by hunters and anglers, they have
been a very effective constituency for assuring that those
funds are focused on those uses. The original Teaming With
Wildlife approach, because it had an excise tax on equipment
used by other wildlife enthusiasts, would have relied on the
same dynamic. As my colleague to the left from the
manufacturers alluded to, it has proven to be politically
pragmatic not to pursue that funding approach. We accept that,
but what we are looking for is the same kind of targeting then
of this revenue to meet those historically unfunded needs of
nongame wildlife and their habitat. We have broken the linkage
in terms of the funding source and the use that has proven so
effective with Dingell-Johnson and Pittman-Robertson, we accept
that. All we are looking for then is the same kind of focus and
targeting and prioritization for the uses of the Title III
funds for nongame wildlife that was in the Teaming With
Wildlife proposal.
Mr. John. Thank you. Mr. Front, earlier today, we had a
witness with NACo, National Association of Counties, and he
brought an interesting concept to us about conservation leases
in lieu of, or as an alternative to, outright purchase of land.
And that was an interesting concept because it is in neither
one of our bills. Could you maybe elaborate your position on
that concept. Is that something we need to think about? Does it
calm the fears of some of the property rights guys?
Mr. Front. Well, it is certainly an interesting concept,
Congressman, and the real question. And it is a question that
has not been adequately tested, in our view, out in the world,
is whether or not there is a sufficient nexus of landowners in
the landowning community who are interested in pursuing that as
a way of offering up property while still paying the taxes and
allowing it to be used for recreation or other public purposes.
Currently, the existing authorization of these conservation
programs does allow for not so much for conservation leasing,
but does allow for limited interest acquisition. Generally, the
language in these programs is acquisition of lands or interest
in lands. And so conservation easements and other innovative
approaches are used now but, with respect to conservation
leasing, we can look at this a little further and get back to
you but, right now, our jury is still out as to how widespread
its utility might be.
Mr. John. Right. And I would like for you to articulate
that to your association because I think it is something that
may have potential, or it may not. And I know I am out of time
but, finally, Mr. Cove, you had mentioned not only in your
written testimony, but earlier in your testimony at the table,
that you do not want to see drilling incentives, but in your
testimony you do not take that one step further and say that
there are drilling incentives in the bill, but you suggest that
you do not want to see them.
I guess my question is, are there concerns in our bill that
suggest to you that there may be some drilling incentive
language in there, as you suggested, you do not want to see.
Mr. Cove. You are making me say things that I probably
wanted not to say in the course of the testimony but, frankly,
we are not in a position to know--and we have been battered by
our friends on both sides to take a position. In the industry,
it is important. We are an industry that relies on the ongoing
protection of our natural resources. When we hear from folks
there are incentives, we take note, but we are in no way in a
position to determine that, and would just ask that----
Mr. John. I did not mean to put you on the spot, but it is
a very sensitive issue for me and this Committee, that we
address that issue to the best of our ability. And I understand
that we are going to, at some point, have to draw a line in the
sand about what is an incentive, and there will be some groups
that will not agree with that.
Mr. Cove. As we say in the football business, I will punt
on that.
Mr. Tauzin. We cannot. Unfortunately, we cannot. The Chair
yields to Mr. Pombo.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. I think we punt all the time. Mayor
Cobb, I, too, have had the opportunity to visit your city, and
it is a very interesting place, and I appreciate what you are
trying to do.
I do want to ask you in terms of your tax base, do you have
a property tax on private property held within your city now?
Mr. Cobb. Yes, we do.
Mr. Pombo. What percentage of your budget is made up of
that property tax versus the tax that you currently receive off
of the pipeline?
Mr. Cobb. Well, each year, as our major property owner, the
pipeline itself, declines, that money has to be made up
somewhere, and so the non-oil side of the property tax has been
on a steady increase. It will increase this year about 3.5
percent.
Mr. Pombo. You have had to increase that tax?
Mr. Cobb. Yes.
Mr. Pombo. How would you feel if some of the current
private property that is held within your city were bought by
the government, whether it was state or Federal Government, to
be used for some conservation purpose, or other purpose, that
this Act deemed suitable?
Mr. Cobb. An incident like that just happened. We just had
a 100-acre parcel of waterfront property that borders on Port
Valdez that was a joint effort between the city of Valdez, the
State of Alaska, and the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustees, we
purchased that 100 acres, the city of Valdez threw in an
additional 350 acres of wetlands, in a partnership effort to
conserve that land.
I think the reason the land is being purchased is the key
for me. And we have had $900 million worth of oil spill funds
and about 50 percent of that has been spent on land
acquisition. I am not crazy about some of those land
acquisitions. I think if it is for the purpose of protecting
the environment, a specific endangered species, I am all for
that, but I would hate to see what small amount of private
property we have in our community turned over to either a state
or the Federal Government and take it off the tax rolls.
Mr. Pombo. You come from a state that is approximately 98-
percent-owned by Federal, state, or Native Alaskan groups,
local government groups. You have heard questions raised about
two-thirds of this funding being spent in the east. Do you have
concerns about land acquisitions being done in the State of
Alaska?
Mr. Cobb. I do not have real concerns of that. I think
while there may be some private inholdings within some of the
Federal leases and stuff like that, I do not see them as being
very large. I do not have problems with----
Mr. Pombo. You do not have a lot of property to buy.
Mr. Cobb. We do not, not much of it at all.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Front, I am familiar with your organization
and a lot of the work that they do. Do you see yourself, if
this legislation is adopted, working with the state and Federal
Government to identify lands that should be held and help to
put that forth?
Mr. Front. Congressman, in the identification of the lands
to be acquired, we really do not. My organization does not set
priorities. We do not determine what the public ought to
acquire or ought not to acquire. Rather, we provide what I
would consider a very technical service where, if there are
landowners who have immediate needs for compensation and there
are public jurisdictions that would acquire their properties,
but the process is too slow or cumbersome to get to those needs
as quickly as possible, we step in and serve as sort of a
bridge role, but that does not extend to determining which
lands ought to be acquired.
Mr. Pombo. So they identify the lands and you step in and
buy them?
Mr. Front. Yes, or in some cases we may respond to
landowner or community needs in advance of a government agency
identifying anything, and create an opportunity and make that
property available by buying some time with the landowner.
Mr. Pombo. In those cases where the government has not
identified the acquisition but others have and you step in and
buy that, do you then approach the Federal agencies or the land
management agencies about the purchase of what you now have?
Mr. Front. Yes. We may approach Federal, or state, or local
jurisdictions. We may talk to nonprofit groups that might have
an interest in acquiring the lands. And we may look at private
purchasers who would put the property to a conservation
purpose.
Mr. Pombo. So, a substantial amount of this money would go
into the kind of things that your organization does.
Mr. Front. Possibly. That would be subject, again, to
whether the opportunities that we were taking advantage of were
aligned with the opportunities that this body and the
Administration identified.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I do have
further questions.
Mr. Tauzin. The Chair would be glad to extend the
gentleman's time, if you so request. Without objection, so
ordered.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. One of the concerns that a number of
people have with this legislation, or this kind of legislation,
is that a focus of the land purchases has predominantly been in
the West, over the past several decades, and a substantial
portion of the Western states is already owned by the state and
Federal Government. How much is too much? California, which I
know you are very familiar with, how much of California should
be owned by the state and Federal Government?
Mr. Front. That is a question I was not quite prepared to
answer today, I will admit, and I am not sure that there is an
objective standard. As a couple of my co-panelists have
mentioned, some of these opportunities arise--Mayor Cobb had
mentioned that it really is on a case-by-case basis, whether it
is a 100-acre parcel in Valdez, or whether it is a few thousand
acres in the bayous of Louisiana.
Mr. Tauzin. Would the gentleman yield for a second?
Mr. Pombo. Sure.
Mr. Tauzin. The number I have for California is 44.5,
approximately, public owned.
Mr. Pombo. Federal
Mr. Tauzin. Federal-owned, that is correct.
Mr. Pombo. Fifty-six percent, if you include the state
government--56 percent of California. Now, thankfully, we are
not on the level of Alaska, but 56 percent, over half of the
State of California, is currently owned by state and Federal
Government. That does not include local government ownership,
which is substantial as well. And there is a huge concern over
where it stops. The Mayor of Valdez was talking about how
difficult it is to finance his infrastructure, his budget,
there. We have counties in California that have filed
bankruptcy because they are heavily owned by the Federal
Government, and they cannot pay for their infrastructure costs,
their schooling, all of the basic necessities that a county
depends on. And that is why I ask the question, how much is too
much?
Mr. Front. I guess the only answer I can give is, right now
there is a deliberative process in which the counties have, I
hope and believe, a very influential voice in whether or not
land should come off their tax rolls. And the Administration
and this Congress has the capacity either to direct funds
towards projects that make sense to you all, or to suggest that
those projects not proceed and that conservation take a
backseat to local economic interests. In some instances, there
are counties who take a look at a property coming off the tax
rolls, and nonetheless favor the acquisition because of the
economic and other benefits that the public land base might
provide. And, so, because of that case-by-case dynamic, I guess
what we would suggest, rather than drawing the line in the sand
and saying the right number is 2 percent or 82 percent, is,
rather, to say that we favor a deliberative process in which
the counties and other interests do have a voice and in which
good decisions can be made by you all.
Mr. Pombo. Well, unfortunately, in the real world, that is
not the way it works. I do know of one specific Federal
purchase that was done in my district that was opposed by the
county, by the local government, by the elected Representatives
from that area, including myself, that the Federal Government
purchased land, over my objections and over the objections of
local government, is a part of a wildlife refuge. It is a
decision that was made before I was elected to Congress that
they wanted that, and they did it anyway, even though people
objected to it. It is precedence like that that makes me very
leery of opening this process in this way where we have an
additional billion dollars to spend on land acquisition. I am
very, very leery of being able to do that.
I do want to ask Mr. Cove a question. You said in your
statement that you were concerned, or your organization was
concerned, about directing two-thirds of these purchases to the
eastern part of the United States. Now, a lot of property
owners in the east are not wild about that either, but from
your perspective, why? Why are you concerned about this? Over
half of the west is already owned by the Federal Government.
Why are you concerned about focusing the attention on the
eastern two-thirds?
Mr. Cove. Well, fundamentally, I am concerned that it takes
away from the flexibility of Congress to determine those
priorities, but let me give you the more specific example. As
you know, Mr. Pombo, many parts of the west are quickly
becoming urbanized and suburbanized as well. If you look at
places like Las Vegas, one of the fastest growing urban centers
in the country, and Phoenix and Boise, Idaho. Those places are
taking on the same problems of urban sprawl as in the East.
They are seeing some of the older parts of the city becoming
dilapidated. They need some of the same support that the
eastern older cities do as well. That is our fundamental
premise, there is enough work--and I can give you example after
example through the western states and Texas--where the kinds
of pressures I identify, the urban, suburban, the gender equity
issues, the health and safety issues, are just as real in the
west as they are in the east.
Mr. Pombo. I do not disagree with that, but I think that we
are talking about different things. You know, in the State of
Nevada, Las Vegas is the fastest growing city in the country
right now. At the same time, it is in a state that over 80
percent of it the Federal Government owns. Not all 80 percent
of that is environmentally sensitive land that should be held
by the Federal Government. Could we not sell part of that
federally owned land in the State of Nevada, and take that
money and pay for urban parks?
Mr. Cove. That is a different question, and one which the
officials within the Congress as well as in the State and
county areas of Nevada should take up. Our concern is that we
need to provide places for folks to recreate near where they
live. UPARR and the Stateside of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund do exactly that. I do not know of other ways,
and I am well aware of the tensions about land exchanges, et
cetera, but clearly we need to be able to find places near
where folks live for us to protect, and not only for recreation
but just to give them an ability to touch their natural world.
We need to enable kids in the cities to go out and go fishing,
to go out and understand what makes flowers bloom. We need to
protect those places for the good of all of us. That is why we
support across-the-board greater flexibility, rather than the
two-third/one-third.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Pombo. Don't you ever tell me
that you are not as articulate as Mr. Front--touching nature
and watching flowers bloom.
Just a couple of points. We do have the $1 million
limitation, as you all know, in the bill. It requires
acquisitions of that nature to at least come before this
Committee again, we try to put some protections in.
Mayor, also, a final point, we also fully fund PILT,
Payment In Lieu of Taxes. I should hope that would have a
serious and profound effect and assistance on communities like
yours where property taxes are being lost. Comment?
Mr. Cobb. It does. The PILT payments to Valdez I think
roughly come in at about $130,000 a year. It is significant for
a small community. As long as those continue to be funded, we
fully support that.
Mr. Tauzin. And we funded them at 60 percent. This bill
takes it up to 100 percent.
Mr. Cobb. Correct.
Mr. Tauzin. So, again, it is a recognition that when
communities do lose taxes because of acquisitions of land to
the public domain, that the Federal Government owes some
obligation to reimburse, and we provide 100 percent
reimbursement.
Gentlemen, thank you. Mr. John, do you have any further
comments or questions of this panel?
Mr. John. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Pombo?
Mr. Pombo. No.
Mr. Tauzin. Again, we thank you very much for your
contributions, and we will assemble the next panel and get on
with it. Thank you.
The next panel will consist of Mr. Kevin Paap, Vice
President, Minnesota Farm Bureau, representing the American
Farm Bureau Federation, Washington, DC; Mr. Mark Shaffer, Vice
President, Defenders of Wildlife here in Washington, DC; third,
Mr. Ralph Grossi, President of the American Farmland Trust, of
Washington, DC, and Mr. Pietro Parravano, President, Pacific
Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, San Francisco,
California. If you gentlemen would kindly assemble, and we will
begin with Mr. Kevin Paap. Kevin, welcome, and we appreciate
your oral testimony. Remember, your written testimony is a part
of our record. If you will summarize and engage us in
conversation, if you will.
Mr. Paap.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN PAAP, VICE PRESIDENT, MINNESOTA FARM BUREAU,
REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, WASHINGTON,
DC
Mr. Paap. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Kevin Paap.
My wife and I operate a fourth generation farm in Garden City,
Minnesota, where we raise corn, soybeans and boys. I am Vice
President of the Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation. Minnesota is
a coastal state identified in H.R. 701. I am appearing today on
behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation.
We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the
Committee today to testify. We will direct our comments to the
Land Acquisition and Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Programs. If
funding is to be provided for Federal and state lands, we
strongly urge that any such funds be first earmarked for repair
and maintenance to existing lands before being authorized to
purchase additional land. The Federal land management agencies
have a significant backlog of repairs and maintenance to their
lands that totals billions of dollars. We should first use any
funds to take care of lands that we have. If our national parks
are considered ``American jewels,'' America would be better
served to have fewer jewels that are high quality and polished,
rather than more lower quality, unpolished and imperfect ones.
Because farmers and ranchers own much of the remaining
privately-owned open space in the country, they are natural
targets for having their land appropriated by governmental
entities for various purposes. We are naturally skeptical,
therefore, about any bill or action that involves or authorizes
the acquisition of land by government.
We are pleased that H.R. 701 contains such safeguards with
respect to the Federal component of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund amendments. By limiting Federal purchases
only to existing inholdings and to willing sellers, H.R. 701
prevents the runaway and uncontrolled acquisition of Federal
lands that many people fear, unlike similar positions in H.R.
798 and other bills. However, the state component of the bill
contains no such safeguards. We urge that the bill be amended
to incorporate the same safeguards for state land acquisitions
as exist for Federal acquisitions.
Also, unlike H.R. 798 and similar bills, H.R. 701 provides
that for any money collected above the maximum authorized for
the LWCF, the excess shall be applied to the Farm Bureau
supported Payment In Lieu of Taxes program. We support the
effort of H.R. 701 to give this program a needed shot in the
arm.
No less significant are the provisions that seek to further
the partnership between private landowners and the government
to enhance wildlife and its habitat. Privately owned farm and
ranch lands provide a significant amount of the food and
habitat for our Nation's wildlife. The agencies must have the
cooperation of farmers, ranchers and private property owners if
our wildlife is to thrive.
The American Farm Bureau Federation believes that an
appropriate balance between the needs of a species and the
needs of people can be struck. Given the proper assurances,
farmers and ranchers can play a significant role in management
of species on their property.
We are therefore very pleased that both H.R. 701 and H.R.
798 contain programs that acknowledge and seek to implement
such a partnership.
H.R. 798 provides a definite source of funding for its
program whereas H.R. 701 does not.
H.R. 701 would create the Habitat Reserve Program, a
program that provides those assurances and achieves that
balance between species and landowner that is necessary for the
well being of both.
Under this section, farmers and ranchers would enter into
contracts for the protection of habitat for species listed
under the Endangered Species Act. This program will enhance the
conservation of species because it provides for their active,
on-the-ground management by affected landowners while at the
same time it provides landowners with the flexibility to manage
their property. The HRP thus provides benefits for both the
species and the landowner, the type of win-win scenario that is
needed.
In conclusion, we believe that H.R. 701 provides more
overall balance than H.R. 798 and similar bills thus far
introduced. We look forward to working with the Committee on
the issues we have addressed in our testimony today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Paap may be found at the end
of the hearing.]
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, Mr. Paap.
Now we welcome Mr. Mark Shaffer, Vice President of
Defenders of Wildlife, here in Washington, DC.
Mr. Shaffer.
STATEMENT OF MARK L. SHAFFER, VICE PRESIDENT, DEFENDERS OF
WILDLIFE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for the opportunity to be here today and address the Committee
on H.R. 701 and H.R. 798. My name is Mark Shaffer. I am Vice
President for Program for Defenders of Wildlife. Defenders of
Wildlife is a national nonprofit organization. We have nearly
300,000 members and supporters, and you may be aware that we
are advocates for the conservation of our native wildlife and
natural habitats.
We would very much like to thank Mr. Young and his co-
sponsors and Mr. Miller and his co-sponsors and the entire
Committee for your leadership in working to secure dedicated
funding to conserve our Nation's natural resources. We hope the
following comments will prove useful to you as these bills work
their way through the Committee legislative process.
Defenders' highest priority this Congress is to see the
passage of legislation that will provide dedicated funding to
aid in the conservation of our Nation's wildlife legacy. Of the
two bills under consideration here today, we believe that H.R.
798, the Resources 2000 Act, would accomplish this goal more
effectively. We have that view for three reasons.
First, H.R. 798 would assure that monies directed to state
fish and game agencies to bolster wildlife management at the
state level would be for all wild plant and animal species.
Also, it would require that each state undertake a thoughtful
and thorough assessment of all their wildlife species, their
habitat needs, the threats to these species and their habitats,
and the management actions necessary to address those threats.
It is, after all, habitat that is the key to conservation
success. Eighty-five percent of the more than 1,000 native
species currently listed as threatened or endangered by the
Federal Government are in that condition, at least in part,
because of the loss or alteration of habitat. Without proper
habitat protections, game and nongame species alike can become
threatened or endangered in short order. We believe that such
comprehensive conservation planning as is called for in H.R.
798, focused on habitat needs, is absolutely essential to
assure the effective and efficient conservation of our wildlife
heritage.
We would like to point out to the Committee that at least
two states, Florida and Oregon, have undertaken such habitat-
focused planning exercise. I have brought copies of each plan,
and I offer them for the record and for your consideration.
Each of these efforts has its own unique features, but each
serves as a prototype for the sort of comprehensive
conservation planning that will be necessary to maintain our
Nation's wildlife legacy. Properly done, such plans could be
the blueprints for conservation success and could provide a
common framework for effective coordination of conservation
programs at the Federal, state and local levels.
The second reason we favor H.R. 798 is that, like H.R. 701,
it provides dedicated funding for the LWCF, but unlike H.R. 701
we do not believe it provides any new incentives to expand
offshore drilling, nor does it place undue restrictions on the
Federal part of LWCF. I would just echo some of the concerns
that some of the other witnesses on the previous panel
expressed about restrictions on the Federal portion of LWCF,
namely, the need for authorizing legislation on any
acquisitions of $1 million or more, requiring that two-thirds
of the yearly funding be spent east of the 100th Meridian, and
the prohibition on the acquisition of properties outside of
current boundaries to existing Federal land management units.
We have noted in our written testimony some examples of the
problems that restrictions could create for addressing real
conservation needs.
The third reason we favor H.R. 798 is that it includes
significant dedicated funding for incentives to private
landowners to help them be better stewards for threatened and
endangered species. Private lands will play a critical role in
our Nation's efforts to conserve its wildlife legacy.
After all, over 40 percent of currently listed species are
not even known to occur on Federal lands. We know that many
private landowners are good stewards of their land and want to
do the right things to help maintain our Nation's wildlife
heritage. We also know that some affirmative stewardship
activities have a real cost. In those instances where
landowners need assistance with positive actions on behalf of
listed species, we believe it is appropriate for the government
to provide that assistance.
By providing $100 million per year for endangered species
recovery actions on private lands, H.R. 798 would enable the
Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service to support private initiatives that would serve the
public good. We believe such an approach to endangered species
management is long overdue, and we support it strongly.
Once again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in
working for dedicated funding for conservation of our natural
resources, and for providing this forum to hear our views.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shaffer may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Shaffer. Mr. Ralph Grossi,
President, American Farmland Trust, Washington, DC.
Mr. Grossi.
STATEMENT OF RALPH GROSSI, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Grossi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, American Farmland Trust appreciates this
opportunity to provide your Committee with our views on the
merits of H.R. 701 and H.R. 798. I am the President of AFT and
the managing partner of a family farm that has been in the
dairy, cattle and grain business in northern California for
more than 100 years. AFT is a national, nonprofit organization
working to stop the loss of productive farmland and promote
farming practices that lead to a healthy environment.
I want to suggest to the Committee today that it is long
past time that conservation policy be based on working with
private landowners. H.R. 798 contains provisions that move us
in that direction. AFT supports the Resources 2000 Act because
this bill recognizes the important role that private landowners
play in the stewardship of our natural resources, protecting
their property rights while compensating them for the
environmental goods they produce for the public.
At this time, we cannot support H.R. 701 because except for
the Habitat Reserve Program provisions, it does not contain the
provisions needed to address the critical needs of farmers and
ranchers. My comments today will focus primarily on the
specific provisions in H.R. 798 that direct conservation
incentives toward private landowners.
For the past quarter century, conservation and
environmental objectives in our country have been largely
achieved by either imposing regulations or through government
purchase of private land. However, these actions have failed to
resolve conflicts over important environmental problems, like
species and farmland protection, that rely on the participation
of thousands of private landowners. At AFT, we very strongly
believe that in the 21st century new approaches to land
conservation will be needed that address the concerns of
private landowners.
The farmland protection provisions of the Resources 2000
Act recognize that America cannot--indeed, should not--buy all
the land that needs protecting. Instead, it acknowledges that
America's private landowners play a vital role in producing
conservation benefits for all Americans to enjoy, and
rightfully offers to provide $150 million annually for the
protection of the best farmland, ranchland, and forestland,
while leaving it in private ownership.
I would urge you to consider similar provisions in H.R.
701, or whatever consensus bill emerges from the Committee. The
easement acquisition or purchase of development rights approach
proposed by 798 provides an innovative voluntary opportunity
for appropriate local agencies to work with landowners by
offering them compensation to protect the most productive
farmland, farmland that is critical to both the agricultural
economic base of our rural and suburban communities and the
environmental values provided by well managed farms. It would
also provide important matching funds to the many local and
state efforts now underway to protect farmland.
Under the bill's provisions, protected lands would remain
on the local tax rolls contributing to the local economy. The
value of this approach to local communities should not be
understated. In every case, the studies that AFT has conducted
around the country have shown that farmland provides more
property tax revenue than it demands in public services, while
sprawling residential development almost always requires more
in services than it pays in taxes.
Conservation policy does matter to farmers and ranchers,
who are strong believers in individual freedom and private
property rights. Their support for conservation policies is
absolutely critical because they own the land that is at stake
in the increasing competition for land. But as competition for
land has increased, so has disagreement over how to balance
economic use with conservation of natural resources and the
increasing demands being placed on private landowners to
achieve objectives whose benefits accrue largely to the public.
The fact remains that for most landowners the equity in
their land represents the hard work and savings of at least
one, if not numerous, generations of the farm family. Their
land is their 401(k).
As farmers, we are proud of the abundant supply of food and
fiber we have provided Americans and millions of others around
the world, and we are pleased that we also produce scenic
vistas, open spaces, wildlife habitat and watershed integrity
for our communities to enjoy.
In many cases, our farms and ranches serve as crucial
buffers around our parks, battlefields and other important
resources. These are tangible environmental goods and services
that farmers should be encouraged to produce and appropriately
rewarded for. It is only fair that the cost of producing and
maintaining these goods that benefit so many Americans be
shared by them.
The recent surge in local and state efforts to protect
farmland suggests rapidly rising national concern over the loss
of farmland and the environmental benefits it provides.
In last November's elections, 72 percent of 240 initiatives
to protect farmland and open space were approved by voters
across the Nation. In recent years, Governors Engler,
Voinovich, Ridge, Pataki, Wilson, Whitman, Weld, Glendenning
and others have supported or initiated farmland protection
initiatives to protect their important farmland.
I see that my time is up. I can wrap up in about a minute
and a half, if I might.
Mr. Tauzin. Proceed, sir.
Mr. Grossi. An AFT 1997 AFT study found that over the past
decade over 400,000 acres of prime and unique farmland were
lost to urban uses each year. The loss of soil to asphalt, like
the loss of soil to wind and water erosion, is an issue of
national importance.
However, food security is not the reason farmland
protection has emerged as a national issue. Communities across
the Nation are working to protect farmland because farmland
protection is seen as an inexpensive way to protect those other
values associated with the working landscape, and keeping land
on local tax roles.
The Resources 2000 Act achieves that balance by adding
carrots to the existing sticks of regulation among the tools
available to local communities to protect their farmland.
Mr. Chairman, during this Congress you will have
unprecedented opportunities to develop policies to encourage
and reward stewardship on this Nation's private lands, and to
redirect financial resources in a way that shares the cost of
protecting our great natural resources between the taxpayers
who enjoy them and the landowners who steward them. While it is
not the domain of this Committee, in closing I call your
attention to the Federal farm programs.
At a time when the public is demanding more of private
landowners every day, I ask you and all of Congress to consider
a major shift of commodity support payments into conservation
programs such as farmland protection that will help farmers
meet those demands that the American taxpayers and the public
are putting on them.
Thank you very much for providing me with this opportunity
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grossi may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, sir.
Finally, on this panel, Mr. Pietro Parravano, of the
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, San
Francisco.
Welcome, Mr. Parravano.
STATEMENT OF PIETRO PARRAVANO, PRESIDENT, PACIFIC COAST
FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS, SAN FRANCISCO,
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Parravano. Thank you, sir. Good afternoon, Members of
the Committee.
My name is Pietro Parravano, and I am a commercial
fisherman from HalfMoon Bay, California, and President of the
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations,
representing working men and women in the West Coast commercial
fishing fleet. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be
here today to talk about Resources 2000 and the Conservation
and Reinvestment Act of 1999.
The lives of the fishing men and women my organization
represents are impacted every day by the health of our Nation's
fisheries and, in particular, by the many species of salmon.
Unfortunately, a number of these salmon stocks have been listed
or are now candidates for listing under the ESA. Those of us
that are coastal family fishermen, salmon has historically been
the most important fishery.
The legislation we are discussing here today brings us
optimism and hope for our future and that of our Nation's
resources. It is time that we began putting money in instead of
just taking it out of the fisheries. It is time that we begin
funding fish habitat restoration instead of destroying it. That
is why our Federation is vitally interested in the legislation
being addressed here today, specifically Resources 2000.
Resources 2000 has two titles that are of particular
importance to the fishing industry. The first is the title that
establishes a permanent trust fund for the conservation and
restoration of living marine resources and fish habitat. Much
of this money will be allocated to the states to develop and
implement conservation and management programs for living
marine resources and their habitats. This will be especially
important to states developing conservation and management
plans for the myriad of nonfederally managed fisheries. Two
examples are the following: One, legislation which was authored
by Mr. Young and Mr. Miller that extends the state's
jurisdiction of the Dungeness crab fishery into Federal waters,
and the second example is California's passage of AB 1241,
which implements research, conservation and management program
for its fisheries. The permanent funding source in Resources
2000 could assist states such as California in working and
promoting sustainable fisheries.
The permanent funding source in Resources 2000 could also
be used to complement existing Federal programs. Two examples
are CalFed and the President's proposed $100 million program
for salmon on the West Coast. The permanent funding source in
Resources 2000 clearly defines that this money goes out to the
states and specifies the areas that it is needed.
The second title of Resources 2000, also of great
importance to us, is the one which establishes the endangered
and threatened species recovery fund. We all know that listing
a species under the ESA, by itself, does not guarantee species
protection or recovery. Species protection and recovery, as we
have seen on the West Coast with the number of salmon, requires
political will on the part of the agencies to enforce the law
and funding to implement protection and recovery programs. In
the West, species such as Coho salmon that once supported major
economic activities are now listed in California and Oregon. It
is not enough that we merely stabilize the populations or get
them to some threshold above listing qualification, but that we
fully recover these fish so that they may once again support
commercial and recreational fisheries, fish processing, tourism
and coastal communities, but to do this will take political
will and permanent funding.
The problem is not the ESA, but our failure to fund
recovery of listed species. The quicker we develop and fund
recovery programs, the sooner we can lift restrictions on other
interests. Moreover, this fund will be invaluable for assisting
landowners and water districts in making changes or taking
actions, such as installing effective fish screens or fencing
riparian areas to help protect and recover listed fish.
We appreciate the fact that H.R. 701 includes a provision
that addresses endangered species, however, our preference is
for the current language in Resources 2000 for a number of
reasons. First, it provides an identified source and dedicated
amount of money that will be spent annually to contribute to
the recovery of endangered species. The current language in the
proposed Conservation and Reinvestment Act does not do this.
Second, Resources 2000 uses this money specifically for
recovery of species, a focus that has been missing all too long
from existing ESA programs. If we do not recover salmon on the
West Coast, they will never be removed from the Endangered
Species list and our industry itself will never recover.
Third, Resources 2000 will only provide grants for recovery
activities that are beyond the requirements of the law. The
provision in H.R. 701 could potentially pay landowners to
merely comply with the law. We do not think this is fair. As
fishermen, we do not get paid when we are told we cannot
harvest salmon that has been listed due to a loss of habitat
which is out of our control. We do not think others should be
paid to merely comply with the law. Resources 2000 provides
incentives to those who want to go beyond the law to recover
our threatened and endangered species. We think this is the
right approach.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the fact that some of the money
allocated to the states in H.R. 701 could also be used for the
purposes I have mentioned, but we are concerned that there is
no guarantee that the money would be targeted directly to
salmon and other marine fisheries and their habitats. The
deliverables are just not there.
Mr. Chairman, I have about a minute left. Thank you.
Mr. Tauzin. Proceed, sir.
Mr. Parravano. We feel that this could once again force
fisheries to compete with numerous other state programs and get
the short end of the stick, as they have done for so many
years. Therefore, we believe that it is imperative that the
Marine Resources Fund found in Resources 2000 be part of any
legislation that is supported by this Committee. Only then can
we guarantee these resources will get funding that they
desperately need and deserve.
In summary, we support Resources 2000 because it is
comprehensive and it defines mechanisms with which altered and
damaged habitat can recover. I want to express the gratitude of
the working fishing men and women that I represent to you, Mr.
Chairman, for your vision in introducing your two bills.
Utilizing receipts from nonrenewable resource extraction from
the marine environment to reinvest in renewable marine and fish
resources is, we believe, good public policy.
Fishing is America's oldest industry. It is a wonderful
calling. The members of my organization take pleasure in
deriving our livelihoods on the beauty and bounty of the ocean.
We take pride in providing the public wonderful and wild
sources of healthy food. But our fish stocks and their habitats
need investment desperately to be conserved and rebuilt.
Members of my organization have dug deep in their own pockets
to pay for fishery programs, but we cannot do it all by
ourselves. We cannot, and should not, pay for damage done by
others. That is why we need a permanent source of public
funding to invest in and recover our public fishery resources.
Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Parravano may be found at
the end of the hearing.]
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, sir.
I don't have to tell you that, coming from Louisiana, where
fishing is not just a profession, it is a way of life. We call
ourselves sportsmen, that is fair, but we also have commercial
fisheries as an industry. But I am very empathetic to your
concerns.
By the way, I want to put into the record with unanimous
consent, a letter from the West Coast Seafood Processors
Association, which is endorsing the CARA Bill, for the very
reason that it authorizes monies to be spent on marine
research, which is a deep concern. I think we share that
concern.
I understand you may prefer one language over the other,
but we share that concern. Without objection, this will be made
part of the record.
[The information may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Tauzin. Let me point out, as David Waller testified
yesterday, that the reason in CARA that we have created the
state flexibility in how it spends its money in these areas is
because the ``one size fits all`` may not work. It may be that
in California, for example, where the legislature has already
established programs for marine research and assistance and
marine habitats, that that state will, using the authority of
CARA and the state guaranteed program, direct more money into
that area than perhaps another state in the Great Lakes, which
may have a different set of problems to deal with.
It is the state flexibility in this area that we have tried
to capture in our bill, and I hope you understand, Mr.
Parravano, it is not that we care less about the marine
ecosystems or marine biologies, it is simply that flexibilities
give our state some chance to actually make their programs fit.
Let me also address what, Mr. Paap and Mr. Grossi, you both
talked about here, which is the issue of private property
rights and the different versions of the bill as they apply to
conservation easements and purchases of land and what have you.
Let me first inform you that I think the Land and Water
Conservation Fund can be now used for conservation easement
type work.
There is controversy over that, however. There is
controversy within our support group as to whether we ought to
clarify it in the law. I think we ought to, frankly; I like the
idea, and I think it makes good sense for us to encourage
private owners to, indeed, go beyond the law, if you will--not
only do what the law requires, but assist in creating habitat
for species that are either threatened or endangered, or to
help prevent them from ever getting there because that, indeed,
impacts farmers and communities a great deal if that is allowed
to happen.
So, we have some differences to the language and how we
treat it, but I want to point out that in our bill we do have
provisions in the last section for assistance to landowners
with ESA problems. I caught an argument today that might argue
against it, but we intend hopefully to fund that in the process
of going through this Committee work.
So, funding the assistance to encouraging landowners to not
only obey the law, but actually to take aggressive action to
increase and encourage the propagation of species on their
property that either are threatened or endangered or scheduled
one day to be there if we do not do something now. It makes
good sense, and I think you are going to see as we work the
process of these bills we continue that effort.
The final thing I wanted to point out is that we keep
hearing from a lot of folks about the incentives in this bill
that might incentivize oil and gas drilling or something. I
want to point out that interior states now share 50 percent of
the revenues from the Federal Government from interior
drilling, interior mining, interior production of minerals. In
a perverse way, you could argue that that is an incentive for
the states to encourage those activities inside the state.
Again, we are trying to be as neutral on that proposition as
possible so that that argument does not come back to bite us as
we move this bill forward.
It is not a bill to try to encourage more offshore
drilling, it is a bill that captures a permanent fund, some of
those revenues to do the wildlife preservation that we have
lacked for too many years, in too many areas, and to preserve
marine ecologies and do research that might help us in the
future.
We have also been joined today by Governor Carper, who has
finally made it, so I do not want to prolong this panel, but if
any of you have a comment to make in regard to my statement, I
will be happy to receive it now. Any of you want to come back
to me? Mr. Parravano.
Mr. Parravano. I really appreciate your comments, and I
feel that too long our public policy has been directed by this
one-size-fits-all, and it is something that there are a lot of
entities that suffer from that attitude.
It is time that somebody takes the lead in addressing the
problems that are facing America's natural resources. I know in
California we have been doing a lot of work with a lot of
different groups, a lot of different agencies, in trying to
promote sustainable fisheries and coastal communities because,
if it was not for the natural resources that we find out in the
ocean, our coastal communities would not exist.
Mr. Tauzin. I only ask you to take that into consideration
as you look at the two bills because instead of directing
funding, we are trying to give the states flexibility in that
area. And, again, my assumption is that California regards its
fisheries as extraordinarily important, as we do in Louisiana.
My assumption is California is going to make the right
decisions when it comes to applying the marine research funds,
et cetera.
Mr. Grossi. On that front, Mr. Chairman--and I certainly do
not mean to imply that H.R. 701 does not have incentives,
clearly there are a number of incentives for private
landowners, particularly in the habitat section--but I suggest
that you consider taking Title IV from H.R. 798 and
incorporating it in a final bill. Title IV is the title that
deals specifically with the efforts that local communities and
states are trying to put together to purchase development
rights and keep good land in farming by making up some of the
difference between its development and its farm value.
Mr. Tauzin. Yes, and, again, it is something that I have
great affinity for. I just want you to know that there are some
differences of opinion among the co-sponsors on that somewhat
controversial issue, but we are trying to get there.
Mr. Grossi. I would just close that point by saying that
Title IV in H.R. 798 is the companion piece to Senate Bill 333
that has very bipartisan support over in the Senate to
reauthorize the Farmland Protection Program that was part of
the 1996 Farm Bill. So, this would be in keeping with what is
going on in other areas of policy.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much. Mr. Paap, thank you very
much, too, for your statements in support of our efforts to
preserve private rights in this thing.
Mr. Shaffer, I cannot argue at all with your comments, they
have been very excellent. Thank you.
Mr. John.
Mr. John. Very quickly, Mr. Grossi, just, I guess, a point
of clarification in my mind and in the minds of the Members
that are at the desk today, as it relates to conservation
easements. Do you feel that they will reduce the value of
property, or devalue property, thus eroding the tax base for
local government?
Mr. Grossi. No. In fact, I think there always is a concern
when there is the removal of certain value off the property
that is going to impact local property taxes in the local
community. In fact, in the case of farmland protection, almost
every state already has use-value taxation on farmlands so that
the property taxes are based on that use-value.
Putting an easement on the land rarely has any additional
impact on the property but, to the contrary, if the easement is
purchased, it provides the landowner with significant liquid
capital. And our survey showed that they spend this money, that
some of them put it in savings like any other American would,
but a lot of it goes right back into improving their farm
operations, buying new equipment, buying more land.
So, the money used to buy the easements turns over in the
community quite rapidly. In fact, about 85 percent of it turns
over in the community within 24 months, according to our
surveys.
Mr. John. Thank you for that clarification because I agree
with that observation also.
Final question to Mr. Parravano. In your testimony you
mentioned funding of aquatic research. Obviously, that is very
important to all of us, especially in Louisiana where we
actually represent about 35 percent of the domestic seafood
industry in the lower 48 states.
Mr. Tauzin. Most in my district, by the way.
Mr. John. Well, I have a few in my district, too. We have
the bigger fish over on our side. We send them all to you guys.
You do not have anything left, it is all eroding. So, we are
very, very interested in aquatic research, and obviously
coastal erosion impacts those estuaries, so that is something
that is very, very dear to myself as I represent 300-plus miles
of coastline. You specifically talked about two measures in
California, about two laws that address fishing research.
I just would like to bring your attention to the language
in H.R. 701, the CARA bill, on page 13, when it talks about the
uses of the funds in section 104. It specifically says--and let
me read this to make sure that it calms your fear about
research. It says: Funds received pursuant to this title shall
be used by the coastal states and eligible political
subdivisions for--and it enumerates--air quality, water
quality, fish and wildlife (including cooperative and contract
research on marine fish).
So we do provide funding for research, although it is not
mandated. As my colleague from Louisiana said, I think this
language is consistent with the State of California and their
concerns. I believe that a healthy coastline, a healthy
estuary, is good for fishermen, and I know you would agree with
that.
Mr. Parravano. I certainly do, sir, and I appreciate those
comments. One of the things we have been able to undertake in
California is a partnership program that we have initiated with
universities, with various colleges, where they utilize the
resources of the fishermen in going after research programs
because what we have seen too many times is that somebody does
a study, or will go out and do some research, and the actual
resources, the people that spend their time on the ocean, are
never invited to participate in the programs.
So, that is one of the things we have found has worked out
really well, that in order to really get proper research and
proper analysis done of the resources, one has to incorporate
the uses of the user groups.
Mr. John. That is one of the reasons why you are sitting at
this table today, to make sure that we have input of guys that
have actually gotten their hands bitten a couple of times as
they were grabbing all those fish. Thank you very much.
Mr. Parravano. I would also like to express my thanks to
the Committee for the flexibility in my presentation. My flight
was canceled coming here, so I literally just got here. I do
not even have my baggage. It is probably going to be waiting
for me at the airport when I return.
Mr. Tauzin. As a seafaring man, I know this has been rough
on you. We appreciate you coming.
We also have an honored visitor who came a long way, so I
want to thank this panel for your participation and
contributions. Again, we will continue this dialogue to see if
we can't get as perfect a product as we can, understanding that
we have a lot of interests to balance here. Thank you very
much.
We are now very pleased to welcome Governor Thomas Carper,
who himself has spent many years with us here in the Congress
and who we are pleased to see again.
Governor Carper, we often look back on those days with
great affection and memory, and appreciate seeing you again,
and have been very aware and following your career in Delaware,
and want to congratulate you for the great job you are doing
for the great people of Delaware. Governor Carper.
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, GOVERNOR, STATE OF DELAWARE
Governor Carper. Mr. Chairman--and I am really not sure if
you are the Chairman of this Committee or Subcommittee. You
used to be my Chairman when we were on the Merchant Marine and
Fisheries Committee.
Mr. Tauzin. I have moved around a lot since you were here.
Governor Carper. Old habits die hard, so I am happy to call
you ``Mr. Chairman,'' and other Members of the Committee. We
used to meet just down the hall there at the old Merchant
Marine and Fisheries Hearing Room. In fact, that is where I
went first, looking for all of you, and glad to have found you
here.
I appreciate very much the chance to be back and to share
some thoughts with each of you. I have a prepared testimony
here, I am not about to ask you to let me go through it, given
how long you have been here already, but I would ask for
permission to have it entered into the record.
Mr. Tauzin. Without objection, so ordered.
Governor Carper. Let me just make three or four points, and
I will be done and you all can be on to what you need to do. I
understand there is a bill up on the House floor today, maybe
expansion of education flexibility that my Congressman Mike
Castle along with Tim Roemer from Indiana are pushing, and I
hope that it will do well. It is important to the Governors and
to the states.
Just a few points, if I could, Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Committee. One is some thoughts on sort of the basic theory
that underlies these bills that you are considering. The notion
that finite resources, nonrenewable resources, gas and oil, as
those resources are depleted, what should we do with the money.
And what we would suggest, as Governors, is that those
dollars be used to invest in things of lasting value, to
provide in some cases permanent resources such as recreational
areas, park improvements, to help us with preserving open space
AG land habitat, wildlife, and fishery resources as well. We
would urge that as you go forward, this theory that seems to
underlie both pieces of legislation that you are dealing with.
That is a sound theory, and we would certainly support that.
Second is who ought to be involved in the decisionmaking as
how any monies that come to the state are invested.
Surprisingly, as Governor and Chairman of the National
Governors Association, I would suggest the Governors should
have a role in that. I understand that at least one of the
bills provides for a more direct role for Governors.
Having said that, I would not say for a moment that
Governors are omniscient and have the ability to know how all
these dollars should be invested. It is one of those deals
where we were actually better off, I think, for the
decisionmakers to come up from the bottom, and from folks who
live in the communities, live in the counties in the coastal
areas, to have them be very much involved in the
decisionmaking, and for Governors and other elected leaders in
our states to recruit and to welcome that kind of input.
When I sat where you sit, I was more interested in making
those decisions from Washington, but I hope not blindly so.
Sitting where I sit today, I still remember how I felt when I
was here, and would acknowledge that, but I would just ask you
to keep in mind that some of the local folks have a real good
feel for what their needs are, and we need to be mindful of
that and remember that.
Another point I would make is there are some concerns that
if we are not careful, the monies that flow back to the states
might somehow provide a perverse incentive for us to go out and
do more offshore development and activities. As Governors, we
would say we are big boys and girls, we are not interested in
doing that, we do not believe that perverse incentives lie
there, certainly that is not our intent or spirit, and we would
not use the financial resources in that way. In fact, we just
adopted an NGA when we were in town here a couple of weeks ago,
the policy that says that is not what we are about and that is
not what we want to see happen.
The other point I want to make--this is kind of on a
personal note. I used to run when I was down here. I used to go
out and run a lot on the Mall and work out in the House gym
just next door in the Rayburn Building. I do not get to do that
much anymore, but I still work out pretty regularly. And every
Sunday morning I go for a run usually before my family wakes
up, before we go to church, I go out and run five or six miles.
And I run through a park called Bellevue.
And that was a park that was bought I want to say 25 years
ago, and it was bought with monies from Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
Over the years, those monies have been used to build
bicycle paths, bicycle trails, other recreational amenities,
and those monies have come from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund. It has been a couple of years, several years, since
monies have flowed to the states for those purposes.
But I just wanted to tell you on a very personal level,
that I see on a weekly basis as I get out on Sunday mornings
right after daylight, what we can do and what states can do
with these kind of financial resources.
I do not know if you have ever been to our beaches in
Delaware, but we have some places called Rehobeth, and Dewey,
and Bethany, just wonderful places. And if you go through the
parking lots at the Delaware beaches, you find the license tags
on the cars--there is a bunch from Delaware, of course--but
there is a bunch from Virginia, from the District of Columbia,
from Maryland, from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, they come from
all over. And people not just from our state enjoy those
recreational assets, but people from throughout the region and
actually throughout the country, actually throughout the world.
That park I mentioned, Bellevue State Park, not far from my
home, where I like to run, if you go through the parking lot
there on a weekend in the spring, summer or fall, you see
license tags on the cars, they are not just from Delaware. We
are only five miles from Pennsylvania. We have people from PA
there, New Jersey, Maryland, and from all over the Eastern
Seaboard, and we use these resources--that is just a great case
in point where we have used these resources, financial
resources, through the Land and Water Conservation Fund in ways
that benefit not just the people in our own state, but people
from throughout our region.
The last thing I would mention, when I was down here, a
bunch of us were concerned about deficit reduction and
balancing budgets--in fact, some of us worked together on that
stuff for a number of years--and I commend you on the good work
you are doing now with the President to get the budget under
control.
I would just say, as you go through this process and there
is some give-and-take, I understand, with the Budget Committee,
you make a permanent source of funding without ongoing
appropriations, a question of offsets, and you come to
Governors and say, ``What offsets would you be willing to live
with?''
One Governor is going to say one thing, another will say
another, depending on what our needs are. And I would just ask
as we get to that point, if we are looking for permanent
reauthorization and without going back for appropriations that
are offsets that are needed, that we just continue to have a
conversation on that point and we would welcome that.
The last thing I would say, just kind of looking back to
when, Mr. Chairman, you and I served together, that Merchant
Marine and Fisheries Committee always amazed me. Our Chairman
was Walter Jones, and walking by the hearing room I saw his
name over the hearing room and it made me smile.
Chairman Jones and Members of the Committee were uncommonly
good at taking different points of view--in some cases a
Democratic proposal or Republican proposal--and working them
through, and being able to set aside our differences to work
things out and to go over to the floor and get our bills
passed, almost without exception. In fact, it was in some ways
the most productive Committee here, and was one of the smallest
committees and one of the least known committees.
You have a couple of good proposals here from people that I
have served with, you have obviously served with, and people I
certainly respect, and I hope at the end of the day that kind
of bipartisan spirit that used to characterize so much of what
we did in Merchant Marine and Fisheries can come to the fore
here and help you to work this out and, if you do, in ways that
we will have a chance to provide some input, and we appreciate
that chance today.
[The prepared statement of Governor Carper may be found at
the end of the hearing.]
Mr. Tauzin. Governor, thank you very much.
Obviously you know Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee
is gone, it has sort of merged with the Interior Committee,
which has not always been as bipartisan as our old Merchant
Marine and Fisheries Committee, but we are reaching for that
here. As you know, Mr. Miller and Mr. Young have a lot of
commonalities in the two bills we are going for, and I thank
you for that message again, that we need to go back to those
days.
I know when you mentioned Walter Jones, my young colleague
from Louisiana, Chris John, said, ``Walter Jones, he was
Chairman?'' His dad was Chairman. As you know, his son is now
serving with us. Just to indicate how old we are all getting, I
served with Chris' father in the state legislature, and I
hunted with his grandfather. You know how old I feel right now?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tauzin. Again, Governor Carper, thank you for those
comments. Indeed, it is true that we are trying to focus
decisions on more of the states and local governments in many
of these areas. We got a complaint this morning, someone wanted
us to have all the decisions made here in Washington, the
Federal Government overseeing and deciding all these questions.
I think you bring the other perspective to us, that there are
folks back home who have a better sense of what the needs in
Delaware are.
Finally, Thomas Cove was here earlier, speaking for the
Sporting Goods Manufacturers, and he put a real human face on
how communities, like those in Delaware, are tested because
there is not enough space for all the young ladies to play
their sports and fields that are reserved for other sports that
perhaps they are not as interested in, and how soccer fields
are not available to kids who want to play soccer in many
places in America. So, I think we have had some great testimony
coming from others.
Finally, I would just mention to you that we heard one
witness, Mr. Jack Caldwell, our Secretary of Natural Resources
in Louisiana, who testified that without this bill, without
help somewhere soon, that in Louisiana we are about to lose in
land acreage, acreage the size of the State of Delaware, to
coastal erosion. That is how huge a problem we have. So, I
guess that puts in perspective how big a problem it is for us
and how much we appreciate your coming to urge us on in this
effort. My good friend, Mr. John.
Governor Carper. That also puts into perspective how big
Delaware is.
[Laughter.]
Mr. John. Thank you, Mr. Tauzin. I appreciate that when you
were talking about age and serving with my Dad and Grandfather,
I did a little figuring here as it relates to the bill, of what
we are trying to address--the coastal erosion in Louisiana. If
we, in fact, lose about 35 square miles every year, then we
have lost, since you have been in Congress, about 1,750 square
miles.
Mr. Tauzin. The size of Rhode Island. Yes, I know.
Mr. John. Actually, as it relates to age, it might be the
size of Texas. No, I am just kidding. Governor Carper, thank
you so very much for being here today. As I read your
testimony, I was very encouraged by the bipartisanship and the
geographical pull that is pulling everyone together and is
really alive and well; How someone from your state and
Louisiana can think so very much alike because we are brought
together with the problems of our coastlines that are so
important to us economically in a lot of ways. However, some
Members of Congress question whether states that do not have
any OCS production off their coast, should receive funding or
have a need for coastal assistance.
Do you believe that any comprehensive bill that comes out
of this Congress, whether it is this bill or any other bill,
must provide funding for coastal restoration as part of that
piece of legislation?
Governor Carper. I believe it should be. Having said that,
the lands that are off of our coasts and under the oceans, the
question is who do they belong to, do they belong to the states
alongside which they are located, or do they really belong to
all of us? And we, as Governors, are convinced that they really
belong to all of us, and we are a coastal state, you are a
coastal state, but the idea that folks in Kansas and Iowa and
Minnesota as well have some claim on those lands and the
revenues derived from them, we believe that is an important
point.
Mr. John. I happen to agree, thank you very much for that.
Also, would you clarify that the State of Delaware really does
not have, as it relates to incentives, any plans of putting any
oil rigs off its shores in exchange for any coastal revenues,
is that a fact?
Governor Carper. You got it.
Mr. John. And, lastly, I do not believe that I would
anticipate that you would come up and lobby the Congress to
eliminate the Federal leasing moratorium just to get some of
these funds up here as an incentive measure, isn't that true?
Governor Carper. No, we would not do that. Actually, I
think it is the----
Mr. John. I'm sorry, I make light of that because I am
trying to make a point about drilling incentives; We are trying
to address those concerns as much as possible. I appreciate
your answers to those questions.
Governor Carper. Thank you. Can I make one other quick
point? In Delaware, we have spent over the last four years
almost $100 million of our own money--in fact, probably more
than that--for open space preservation, ag-land preservation,
for parks--and for our state, that is a huge amount of money.
It is money spent out of our own pockets, so we are not just
coming to the Federal Government and saying we want the Federal
Government, with these revenues from the Outer Continental
Shelf, to do this work for us. I just want you to know that we
are putting our own money where our mouths are as well, and we
feel that that is our obligation and we are trying to meet that
obligation.
Mr. John. We are hoping we can help you. Thank you for
coming.
Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Chris. Governor Carper, you know the
call, we have got to go. Deeply appreciate your coming and
sharing your time with us, and great seeing you again. Good
luck to you, sir.
The hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Javier Gonzales, NACo Second Vice President and
Commissioner, Santa Fe County, New Mexico
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is
Javier Gonzales. I am a Commissioner from Santa Fe County, New
Mexico and I am here today representing the National
Association of Counties (NACo)\1\, in my capacity as Second
Vice President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The National Association of Counties is the only national
organization representing county government in the United States.
Through its membership, urban, suburban and rural counties join
together to build effective, responsive county government. The goals of
the organization are to: improve county government; serve as the
national spokesman for county government; serve as a liaison between
the nations counties and other levels of government; achieve public
understanding of the role of counties in the Federal system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NACo is pleased to testify on behalf of these important
bills that, if enacted, will have very positive effects on our
Nation's counties and communities. These bills present an
exciting opportunity because of the genuine support from such a
broad range of interests and the fact that the Administration,
the U.S. Senate and this Committee have very similar proposals.
It is important to note the bipartisan nature of these
proposals and the distinct possibility that something will be
done in this arena in this Congress. Each bill uses OCS revenue
as the source for funding the distribution proposed by this
legislation, and each has similar uses in mind. I need not
remind you that the potential budget pitfalls are significant
and creative solutions need to be found.
Today I will focus my remarks primarily on the Conservation
and Reinvestment Act of 1999, (CARA), but will comment on H.R.
798 during my remarks.
At our recent Legislative Conference, our Board of
Directors adopted a resolution in support of the concepts
embodied in the CARA legislation. Our resolution states: ``NACo
strongly supports the principles of the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act of 1999 (CARA'99) that would reallocate Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas revenues to the LWCF, a
coastal state revenue sharing program, add funding to the Urban
Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) program and establish an
innovative procedure for adding funding for the Payments In
Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program, in addition to annual
appropriated funds. NACo will advocate a change in the
`stateside' program to allow counties to directly apply for
LWCF grants and provide authority for innovative and flexible
methods for utilization of these grants such as a leasing
program, rather than outright purchase of land that removes
them from tax roles.''
We also have another resolution, one that was passed in
July 1998, supporting OCS revenue sharing with coastal states,
and one of our key principles for reauthorization of the
Endangered Species Act parallels H.R. 701's section on Habitat
Reserve Program. We believe it is clear why NACo supports the
approaches in this legislation.
Let me take this opportunity to comment on some of the
issues surrounding this legislation.
First, NACo is very pleased that the authors have chosen to
recognize the significant impact OCS development can have on
coastal counties and have taken steps to assure that any shared
revenue from OCS development is shared with coastal counties.
Second, the bill acknowledges the need to fund the
stateside portion of the LWCF and would assure that counties
would share the revenues set aside of the states. It would be
preferable to have counties be able to utilize their share of
the Fund without having to work within the mandated structure
of a state plan, but we believe an acceptable approach can be
worked out during deliberations on the bill. We also believe we
need to look at innovative approaches, such as conservation
leasing to meet the goals of the LWCF without removing land
from the tax roles.
Third, the innovative approach to adding money to the PILT
program in Titles I and II should be applauded and the authors
should be commended for recognizing the need to fund the PILT
program at reasonable levels. Let me share with you some
interesting facts from a soon-to-be-released PILT study by the
Federal Government:
Overall PILT payments are about $1.31 per acre LESS
than the property taxes that would be generated. PILT
entitlement lands in the sample counties would have generated
an average of $1.48 per acre if taxed by the county, but PILT
payments only amount to an average of 17 cents, only 11 percent
of the potential tax bill.
To fully fund PILT another $2OO million would have to
be added to the $125 million currently appropriated.
To achieve overall PILT/tax equivalency another $696
million would have to be added to full funding of the PILT
program, and even then 18 percent of the counties would not be
equivalent.
In the case of the East, taxes would exceed PILT
payments by over 1,000 percent.
Counties in the Interior West responded that moderate
or substantial costs were imposed by the presence of Federal
lands, particularly in the areas of search and rescue, law
enforcement and road maintenance.
The presence of Federal lands in a county provide
virtually no direct fiscal benefits (other than PILT and
existing revenue sharing programs) to counties.
NACo is the only national organization advocating for additional
funding for the PILT program, and we appreciate this attempt to do
something about this shortfall.
NACo, through its Large Urban County Caucus, applauds the inclusion
of funding for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act (UPARR).
Parks and open space are important factors in improving the quality of
life in America's urban counties. We believe improving our parks and
preserving and acquiring additional open space will assist our efforts
to attract new economic opportunities for our counties. The synergism
created by inclusion of this provision helps bring together urban,
suburban and rural counties in support of this legislation. It also
brings to the debate on resources other interest groups, such as The
U.S. Conference of Mayors, that have not traditionally been involved
with legislation of this type.
NACo also supports the additional funding for the Pittman-Robertson
Act, but we believe counties should play a larger role in the
allocation and utilization of the disbursements.
On other matters, NACo is confident that this legislation does not
adversely effect private property rights without due process and local
involvement. This is an important consideration as this bill moves
through the process. We believe there are adequate protections built
into the bill to preclude an incentive for opening new areas for OCS
oil and gas development. While supporting this bill approaches, NACo
will make every effort to assure there are no unfunded mandates or
requirements that would effectively preclude counties from
participating and enjoying the benefits of this legislation.
H.R. 798, the Resources 2000 Act, has a role to play in the
consideration of legislation in this area, however, we do not believe
it is as ``county friendly'' as the CARA proposal and it attempts to
fund a much broader array of programs that could reduce the amount of
money available for counties to meet local needs. It also does not make
any provision to assist the PILT program, which again is very important
to the hundreds of counties nationwide that receive payments from this
program. Title VIII speaks to the concept of incentives for the
conservation and recovery of endangered species, as mentioned in our
resolution on the subject, however, we would defer judgment at this
time on the specifics of the Title.
I would like to take this opportunity to touch on specific
provisions of H.R.701. Title Section 103 (a)(2) addresses the issue of
incentives for new OCS development, the Committee may want to be even
clearer in its intent. We applaud Section 103(a)(3) for its innovative
approach to adding money for the PILT program. Section 103(e) assures
that counties will benefit from OCS revenue sharing and we believe this
is a critical element of the bill. In Section 105(a) dealing with state
plans, the role for counties needs to be strengthened and expanded and
subsections (b) and (c) need further review and fine tuning. Section
202 (a) needs clarification where it refers to the utilization of any
excess revenue above $900 million where the excess would be available
without further appropriation to the PILT program or the Migratory Bird
Act of 1935, but does not make clear what entity decides where the
money shall be allocated. I specifically wanted to note that the
legislation in Section 202(b)(1) requires that 2/3 of the Federal LWCF
be spent east of the 100th Meridian. Many county officials in the west
would wholeheartedly support this requirement because, as you well
know, the bulk of the Federal lands inventory is in the west. I wanted
to reiterate our concern about mandates and Section 202(g) may present
some concern. Section 205 establishing a voluntary Habitat Reserve
Program is consistent with the principles of NACo's resolution on
reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. Section 205(c)
specifically limits lands eligible for the program to no more than 25
percent of the land or water of any county at any one time unless a
determination is made that exceeding that level would not adversely
affect the local economy of the county. While in concept this is a good
idea, the provision allows a state agency to make the economic
determination rather than the local county commission. This needs to be
changed. My final comment about the specifies is that counties need a
larger role throughout Title III.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I have attached copies
of the relevant policy resolutions adopted by the NACo Board of
Directors. I would like to thank you, and members of the Committee for
your interest in the needs and concerns of America's counties. We stand
ready to work with the Committee, the Senate and the Administration to
hammer out an acceptable bill that will set the tone for conservation
in the 21st century.
Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify on this
important legislation.
Attachments:
RESOLUTION TO RE-ALLOCATE STATESIDE FUNDING FOR THE LAND AND WATER
CONSERVATION FUND
Issue: Support for additional funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) and for other purposes.
Adopted Policy: NACo strongly supports the principles of the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 (CARA'99) that would
reallocate Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas revenues to the
LWCF, a coastal state revenue sharing program, add funding to the Urban
Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) program and establish an
innovative procedure for adding funding for the Payments In Lieu of
Taxes (PILT) program, in addition to annual appropriated funds. NACo
will advocate a change in the ``stateside'' program to allow counties
to directly apply for LWCF grants and provide authority for innovative
and flexible methods for utilization of these grants such as a leasing
program, rather than outright purchase of land that removes them from
tax roles.
Background: The Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund was
created in 1965 to provide matching funds to encourage and assist local
and state governments in urban and rural areas to develop parks and
ensure accessibility to local outdoor recreation resources.
In the past several years Congress has diverted Land and Water
Conservation monies to programs unrelated to parks, conservation and
recreation. This action has resulted in total elimination of state
grant programs to assist counties to meet the needs of our rapidly
increasing populations, and has created a backlog of upgrades,
renovations and repairs to outdoor recreation facilities.
Past benefits to counties have been accessing, through a grant
process, dedicated monies to provide important economic, social,
personal and resources benefits to our citizens. Outdoor recreation
reduces crime by providing positive alternatives and experiences for
our citizens. Millions of state and county dollars have been invested
in outdoor recreation and have been matched by local funds in the form
of donated labor and materials and community force accounts.
Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impacts: Coastal state counties, both urban and
rural, would receive substantial payments from the OCS revenue sharing
program should this legislation be passed. Urban counties would benefit
from additional funds for the UPARR program, rural public land counties
would benefit from additional funds for PILT and all counties would
potentially benefit from LWCF grants.
Adopted by: NACo Board of Directors
February 28, 1999
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF OCS COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE
Whereas, the coastal regions of the United States are fragile
environmentally and under intense pressure from storms and natural
disasters, population growth and, in some counties and states, from
onshore support activities that are necessitated by the development of
the nation's oil and natural gas resources on the Federal outer
continental shelf; and
Whereas, each year the Federal Government receives billions of
dollars in revenues from the development of oil and natural gas
resources on the Federal outer continental shelf, a capital asset of
this nation; and
Whereas, the Federal Government does not share directly with the
coastal states or counties a meaningful share of these revenues, while
the Federal Government share with states 50 percent of the revenues
from onshore Federal mineral development; and
Whereas, at least a portion of the revenues from this capital asset
of the national should be reinvested in infrastructure and
environmental restoration in the coastal regions of this nation; and
Whereas, states and counties that host onshore activities in
support of offshore Federal OCS mineral development should receive a
share of these revenues to offset state and county impacts of this
development; and
Whereas, the OCS policy committee of the United States Department
of the Interior has recommended that all states and the territories
should receive a portion of these revenues as an automatic payment
annually pursuant to a formula based on proximity to offshore
production, miles of shoreline and population; and
Whereas, members of Congress representing coastal states are
preparing Federal legislation to enact the proposal to share a portion
of Federal OCS revenues with all coastal states and the territories:
Therefore, Be it resolved, that the national association of
counties (NACo) commends the members of Congress that are pursuing this
initiative and the OCS policy committee for their recommendations; and
Be it further resolved, that NACo supports Federal legislation to
share a meaningful portion of Federal OCS mineral revenues with all
coastal states, their counties and territories pursuant to the formula
recommended by the OCS policy committee.
Adopted by: NACo Board of Directors
July 21, 1998
RESOLUTION ON THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT REAUTHORIZATION
Issue: Provide for increased participation in the listing and
recovery of endangered species by local officials and increase
flexibility and innovation in responding to the need to recover
species.
Adopted Policy: NACo shall petition Congress to amend the
Endangered Species Act through its reauthorization process to provide:
1. A recognition that if it is in the national interest to
protect species, then it must be a national priority to attempt
to forestall listing by aggressively providing for pre-listing
incentives to affected governments, public land lessees and
private property owners to avoid the negative impacts of the
Act by entering into conservation agreements with the Secretary
of the Interior.
2. For greater involvement by local governments in planning and
management decisions affecting the listing process.
3. For a significant improvement in the scientific review
process by including verifiable peer review by a qualified
agency other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
4. The effects on the economic, social and cultural aspects of
human activity, and their communities, must be fully studied,
and taken into account in all decisions made pursuant to the
Act.
5. Provisions should be adopted to require the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to use professionally trained specialists to
rescue and remove threatened or endangered species within 120
days whenever it is necessary to maintain, repair and
rehabilitate critical structures that provide for human health
and safety.
6. Provisions should be included to require previously adopted
habitat recovery plans for threatened and/or endangered species
that were not developed in consultation with affected county
governments, to be reviewed and modified to reflect genuine
consultation with the affected county government.
7. A full partnership for the affected state, its local
governments, public land lessees and affected private property
owners in the post-listing consultation and decision making
process, including critical habitat, habitat conservation plans
and full-scale recovery plans.
8. Adequate protection of private and public property rights.
9. Prior to a listing, no action shall be taken to restrict or
interfere with the use of private or public property without
consultation with the affected land owner. Every effort should
be made by the Secretary and the affected land owner to
establish voluntary agreements for species conservation and
habitat protection.
Following a listing, no action shall be taken to diminish the use
of property until full consultation has taken place with affected
landowners, or lessees, and full compensation is agreed upon between
the landowner, or lessee, and the Secretary. If the Secretary refuses
to act or limits the compensation to below fair market value, the
affected landowner is granted status to pursue due process in the
appropriate Federal District Court.
NACo believes that the land and wildlife management agencies must
make a full accounting of funds spent since 1985 for mitigation,
research, habitat studies and land acquisition, including private fund
expenditures, and economic losses from land uses diminished or
cancelled by agencies.
Background: After 22 years of experience in implementing of the
Endangered Species Act, there now appears to be ample evidence of the
need for reauthorizing and revising the Act. It should be the policy of
the United States to avoid the need for listing threatened and
endangered species, by involving all affected parties in pre-listing
conservation activities and by providing a range of incentives to those
affected parties to enter into conservation agreements to avoid the
need for listing. Counties can be involved to a much greater extent in
sustaining of species, through the management of lands, and in making
decisions which affect their habitat.
The Federal Government needs better verifiable peer review of the
science that leads to listing of species, and the identification of
critical habitat. There needs to be greater emphasis on the affects of
listing of a species and designation of critical habitat on human
individuals, their communities, and on the economic, social and
cultural aspects of such a listing and/or designation of habitat. All
affected parties should be involved in the postlisting decision and
consultation process to assure that all concerns are raised, if not
addressed.
The current Act provides too little flexibility for the Secretary
of the Interior to utilize creative and innovative management
approaches to address the conservation of the species, and does not
provide for the full participation of state and local governments in
the recovery process. Protection of some species has led to substantial
loss of jobs, property loss due to natural disasters, (such as fire,
flood, etc.) and economic hardship and reduced county revenues.
In many instances, the burden of protection of species has fallen
on private property owners, who have been forced to provide habitat
without adequate compensation for use of their land, while the
decisions are made in Washington, DC, and the current Act lacks
provisions for a full and complete analysis of proposed listings on the
economic, social, and cultural values of humans and their communities.
It does not contain provisions for adequately compensating affected
private property owners for losses incurred by listing.
Counties depend upon a healthy economy to maintain viable
communities and to produce revenues to provide needed services and
counties have a strong interest in maintaining community sustainability
while protecting natural biodiversity because reputable scientific
evidence suggests that long-term stability for those communities that
are natural resource dependent is directly related to adequate
biodiversity:
Fiscal/Urban Rural Impacts: There are substantial costs to counties
of all sizes from implementation of recovery plans under the ESA.
Changes proposed by this policy would provide more flexibility and
potentially reduce costs. More participation by county officials could
improve recovery plans and avoid potential economic losses.
Adopted by: NACo Board of Directors
February 28, 1999
______
STATEMENT OF HON. RON MARLENEE, ON BEHALF OF SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for giving Safari Club
International (SCI), the opportunity to testify before this Committee
on H.R. 701 and H.R. 798. We have reviewed both bills.
SCI has verified the need for additional money for state fish and
wildlife agencies. State agencies have been forced to spend money,
raised by sportsmen, on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and other
Federal mandates not related to sportsmen's interests. This has
resulted in a tremendous drain on Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration
Act funds, otherwise known as Pittman-Robertson funds.
SCI strongly supports H.R. 701 and the wildlife conservation that
it will accomplish with the broad-based support of fish and wildlife
agencies, implementing essential wildlife preservation. By creating a
sub-account under ``Pittman-Robertson,'' and funding it with a 10
percent draw on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues, H.R. 701
will effectively expand the species restoration efforts which, in the
past, have largely been funded by hunters and anglers nationwide.
These new funds will be available to State fish and wildlife
agencies for conservation of game and non-game wildlife; endangered
species conservation; conservation education; and other aspects of
wildlife conservation, as the individual states deem appropriate.
As you know, over 60 years ago, Congress passed the Pittman-
Robertson law and created a wildlife conservation and restoration
program that is among the most successful Federal programs ever
instituted. It has also become one of the most successful wildlife
conservation programs in the world and has been responsible for the
restoration of many species, such as white-tailed deer, elk, and wild
turkey, which were rare or on the brink of extinction a century ago.
Since then, Congress has added the Dingell-Johnson and Wallop-Breaux
laws, to provide a complete program for fish and wildlife species.
Under the provisions of these bills, sportsmen have willingly paid user
fees, in the form of excise taxes, on hunting and fishing equipment for
six decades.
Using OCS money, Title III of H.R. 701 will expand state wildlife
conservation efforts and allow state agencies to work with the Federal
Government, tribal governments, private landowners and interested
organizations to ensure achievement of state specific goals in
virtually all areas of wildlife conservation, healthy habitat
conservation, and a diversified variety of wildlife, as well as
conservation education.
During the 104th and 105th Congresses, a concept to increase funds
available to States for wildlife conservation was conceived as a new
and additional excise tax on all outdoor recreation equipment. However,
this idea, called ``Teaming with Wildlife (TWW),'' was never introduced
as legislation.
Although SCI supported the general concept of providing funds to
the State fish and wildlife agencies for wildlife conservation, we
could not support the TWW approach. To begin with, in the newly
conservative political climate of Congress, a tax of any kind was
unlikely to ever become law. In addition, the TWW draft would have
forced the States to use most of the funds for non-game wildlife and
outdoor recreation activities, regardless of state needs. We feel that
it is critical to leave the decision to the State wildlife agencies as
to how best to use any additional funds for wildlife conservation. Like
a lot of Federal legislation, the TWW proposal would have been an
incentive to spend valuable taxpayer money on unwanted, or perhaps even
unnecessary programs. However, H.R. 701, introduced by Representatives
Don Young and John Dingell, corrects that.
In the 105th Congress, Chairman Young wisely saw a way to achieve
the important goals of increasing state funding for wildlife
conservation without imposing an unpopular tax, and without robbing the
State fish and wildlife agencies of the discretion to make
professionally-sound decisions on directing wildlife conservation funds
to where they are needed most. This bill has been reintroduced in the
106th Congress as H.R. 701.
As one of the leading organizations representing sportsmen
nationwide, SCI supports Mr. Young and the co-sponsors of the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act. H. R. 701 is a focused and carefully
crafted effort. By contrast, H.R. 798 scatters its funds on issues, and
thinly distributes the OCS revenues. H.R. 701 is an effort to solve a
few important needs; whereas H.R. 798, although well intentioned, is an
inappropriate approach that reaches into new programs and appears to
expand other programs. It circumvents the committee process by pouring
money into programs that have not been authorized, approved, or
debated.
H.R. 701 enhances the time-tested mechanisms of the Pittman-
Robertson program to increase the funds available to the States for
wildlife conservation. Under Pittman-Robertson, both game and nongame
species have benefited dramatically. Species, which were nearly
extinct, from the white-tailed deer to the beaver in the Eastern United
States, are now back in force. By contrast, H.R. 798 would put a
smaller amount of OCS revenues into the Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Act of 1980, a law that has never been implemented and in which the
``Findings'' section fails to recognize a need for funding the full
diversity of wildlife needs by emphasizing only those species called
``non-game'' wildlife.
Both bills deal with the acquisition of property. While this is not
the primary expertise or interest of SCI, many concerns about these
provisions have been expressed to us, both from within and from outside
of our organization and so we would like to make a comment on the
subject. We appreciate Mr. Young's sensitivity to those concerns and we
feel that Congressman Young's bill, H.R. 701, contains provisions
intended to guard against an undue infringement on private property
rights. As a matter of fact, the League of Private Property Voters has
published a rating of the members of Congress for 1998. Attached to
this statement is the rating, which indicates that Congressman Young
had a 100 percent ``protection of private property'' rating in 1998.
With this kind of record, I'm sure Congressman Young will support
provisions which strengthen private property rights even further.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, we would like to congratulate you for
recognizing the need to provide more funding for the State fish and
wildlife agencies and for finding an inventive way to accomplish that
goal. We believe your bill appropriately recognizes the primary role of
the States and their professional wildlife agencies in wildlife
conservation.
We encourage the States to seek local and regional management
solutions to wildlife conservation problems and we think that the funds
provided by H.R. 701 can be an important part of that effort. We would
rather see States using the funds provided by H.R. 701 to work together
to manage various wildlife species and their associated habitats, than
to see an escalation of Federal listings of endangered species. We feel
that the States have both the proper interests and qualifications
needed to manage and conserve wildlife, and we do not favor unnecessary
Federal intrusions on the lives and properties of people throughout the
country.
Much of what the States have lacked in order to accomplish their
conservation mission has been adequate funding to conserve wildlife
before it reaches the point of endangerment. H.R. 798 does not provide
enough funds and attempts to use an untried mechanism for distributing
those funds. Its focus on wildlife conservation is watered down by its
efforts to be all things to all people. H.R. 701 is a much better
vehicle for the important work of wildlife conservation.
______
STATEMENT OF SARAH CHASIS, SENIOR ATTORNEY AND DIRECTOR OF WATER AND
COASTAL PROGRAM, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
My name is Sarah Chasis and I am a Senior Attorney with the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Director of its Water and Coastal
Program. I appreciate this opportunity to testify today before the
House Resources Committee on H.R. 701, The Conservation and
Reinvestment Act (``CARA''), a Bill introduced by Chairman Young, and
H.R. 798, the Resources 2000 Act, a Bill introduced by Congressman
George Miller.
My testimony on behalf of NRDC focuses on the Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) Impact Assistance Title of H.R. 701, the Living Marine
Resources Title of H.R. 798, and the OCS revenues used to fund all
Titles of both Bills.
NRDC is a national environmental organization, with over 400,000
members, dedicated to protecting natural resources and ensuring a safe
and healthy environment. NRDC has a long history of involvement with
the protection of ocean and coastal resources and has worked on a
number of coastal and ocean issues, including offshore oil and gas
drilling, coastal zone management and marine fish conservation.
In our view, the overarching goal for the coast and ocean Title of
these Bills should be protection and restoration of our nation's
fragile, but extremely valuable coastal and marine resources which are
increasingly under pressure from a variety of forces. In achieving that
goal, 5 principles should be closely adhered to:
The legislation should provide no financial benefit to
states from the lifting of current moratorium or from new
leasing or new drilling. This should apply to all Titles of the
legislation, not just the coastal or OCS impact assistance
Title.
The state or local share of money should not be tied
to the acceptance of new or closer leasing or drilling.
Money that goes to the states and local governments
must be spent on environmentally beneficial projects.
There should be Federal agency oversight of how money
is spent to ensure compliance with Federal environmental laws.
Any offsets should not come from existing
environmental programs.
These same basic principles are set out in the February 2,1999
letter to Chairman Young and other representatives from nineteen of the
nation's major national conservation organizations that is attached to
our testimony. This letter states that: ``Our organizations are
strongly opposed to any financial incentives that promote offshore oil
and gas development,'' identifies incentives included in earlier
versions of the legislation and recommends ways of removing them.
H.R. 701, while containing improvements over last year's Bill (H.R.
4717), still falls seriously short when measured against the above
prjnciples. In contrast, H.R. 798 adheres to these principles very
closely. As a result, we support H.R. 798, but must continue to oppose
H.R. 701 unless and until the concerns we have raised are
satisfactorily resolved. We stand ready to work with the members of the
Committee and their staff to do this.
Following is our analysis of the two Bills with respect to the
principles enunciated above.
H.R. 701, THE CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT
REVENUE SOURCE
H.R. 701 includes revenues from new leasing and new drilling as a
funding source for all Titles of the Bill, with one exception. Excluded
from revenues for Title I (``Impact Assistance Formula and Payments'')
are revenues from leased tracts in areas under moratorium on January 1,
1999 (unless the lease was issued prior to the establishment of the
moratorium and was in production on january 1, 1999).
While this latter language represents a definite improvement in the
Bill, it only affects Title I. In addition, it does not exclude
revenues from new leasing and drilling in sensitive frontier areas not
covered by the moratorium. The Bill thus still falls short of meeting
the first principle.
The obvious concern is that if the many and varied beneficiaries of
this legislation see that it is in their financial interest for new
leasing and drilling to occur--in order to provide more funding for the
legislation overall and for them in particular--it will erode support
for the existing offshore oil and gas moratorium, which currently
protects the east coast (with the exception of existing leases off Cape
Hatteras), the coast of Florida (with the exception of existing leases
off the Florida Panhandle), the central and northern California coast
(with the exception of existing leases off the central California
coast), Oregon, Washington and Bristol Bay in Alaska. It will also lead
to support for new leasing and drilling on existing leases off North
Carolina, the Florida Panhandle and central California, as well as in
sensitive areas off Alaska--none of which are currently protected by
moratoria and many of which, if not all, are extremely controversial.
It is crucial to remember that the moratorium only exist because
Congress each year reenacts it as part of the Interior Appropriations
legislation. Presently, a one-year congressional Outer Continental
Shelf Moratorium contained in the FY 1999 Department of Interior
appropriations Bill precludes the expenditure of funds for new Federal
offshore oil and gas leasing in specific coastal areas until October 1,
of this year (1999).
This congressional OCS moratorium prevents new leases for offshore
drilling on any unleased tract along the entire U.S. west coast, the
east coast, portions of Florida, and Bristol Bay in Alaska. Now in its
seventeenth year, the moratorium must be renewed each year. As recently
as the 104th Congress, the moratorium was removed in the House
Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, and was only narrowly
reinstated after a big fight in the full House Appropriations
Committee, in spite of strong opposition to the measure by then-
chairman Rep. Bob Livingston. There have been previous years in which
the OCS moratorium has survived in the House Appropriations Committee
by a narrow single-vote margin.
Related actions have been taken by two successive presidents, which
supplement, but do not replace, the protection granted by the
congressional moratorium. These ``Presidential Deferrals'' are
political in nature and are not considered to be as dependable in
providing assured protection over time. In 1991, former President
George Bush announced that he was directing that any further OCS
Leasing within the areas protected by congressional moratorium, except
in ALASKA, be deferred until after the year 2002. No formal executive
order was issued by Mr. Bush, and it is considered that any subsequent
president could reverse this decision.
During the 1999 ``Year of the Ocean Conference'' in Monterey,
California, President Clinton, accompanied by Vice-President Al Gore
and four Cabinet Secretaries, announced that they were directing the
Minerals Management Service of the Department of Interior to extend the
previous Bush OCS Deferrals until the year 2012. No formal executive
order has been issued by the Clinton Administration since this
announcement, and it is considered vulnerable to possible policy
reversals by subsequent administrations.
Even for Title I, the improvement is incomplete because revenues
from new leasing and drilling in sensitive frontier areas not covered
by the moratorium would still fund the Title. In addition, it is not
clear from the language whether revenues from drilling on existing
leases off North Carolina, the Florida Panhandle and central California
would be used to fund Title I. These leases are in moratoria areas but
are not covered by leasing moratoria. Drilling on these leases is an
extremely controversial issue in each of those states.
To address the problem, the legislation should define the term
``Qualified Outer Continental Shelf Revenues'' in the definitions
section (section 102) to exclude revenues from new leasing and new
drilling after the date of enactment of the legislation, as the
Resources 2000 legislation does. This would remove the financial
incentive to support new leasing or drilling in moratoria and other
sensitive coastal areas.
ALLOCATION OF STATE AND LOCAL SHARES
The legislation ties a state's share of funding under Title I
directly to the amount and proximity of OCS leasing and production off
its coast. This provides a clear financial incentive to states to
accept new leasing and drilling.
Fifty percent of a state's allocable share is dependent on its
being within 200 miles of a leased OCS tract. The more production on
such tracts and the closer in to shore these tracts are, the more money
the state gets. See section 103 (c)(1) and (2). An improvement in this
section of the Bill is the exclusion of moratoria tracts from this
calculation. Thus, even if moratoria tracts are leased or drilled, a
state would not get more money. However, the language is ambiguous with
respect to existing leases/production on tracts inmoratoria areas.
These tracts also should be excluded. Moreover, new leasing and
drilling outside moratorium areas, including sensitive frontier areas
off Alaska would still be factored into the allocation formula, thus
providing a significant incentive for allowing such activities to
proceed.
We believe that the formula for allocating funds under Title I
should not be tied to OCS leasing and production, but instead should
rest on shoreline miles and population alone. Alternatively, if OCS
activity has to be a factor, it should be based on a fixed, flat
percentage based on historic OCS activity, not new activity that occurs
after passage of the legislation. This would acknowledge states that
have suffered OCS impacts to date, without providing an incentive for
new leasing, exploration or production.
Another major concern with the Bill concerns the method of
allocating funds to local jurisdictions. Fifty percent of a state's
share goes directly to eligible local political subdivisions. Section
103(e). Eligible political subdivisions are defined to be those that
lie within 200 miles of any leased tract (including tracts in moratoria
areas). Section 102(6). As a consequence, a locality with OCS leasing
off its coast is entitled to share in 50 percent of the state's
allocable share, with its share increasing the closer the leased
tract(s) are, localities with no leasing are not entitled to any part
of the state's allocable share. Obviously, this creates a major
incentive for localities to accept new OCS leasing.
To address this problem the definition of eligible political
subdivision should exclude tracts leased after enactment. Such tracts
should also be omitted from the calculation of how much an eligible
political subdivision receives.
USES OF THE MONEY
It is extremely important that funds distributed to state and local
governments be used to restore and enhance coastal and ocean resources
and not to cause further environmental degradation. For this reason, we
strongly recommend that uses be restricted to:
Amelioration of adverse environmental impacts resulting from the
siting, construction, expansion, or operation of OCS facilities, above
and beyond what is required of permitted under current law;
Projects and activities, including habitat acquisition, that
project or enhance air quality, water quality, fish and wildlife, or
wetlands in the coastal zone;
Administrative costs the state or local government incurs in
approving or disapproving or permitting OCS development/production
activities under any applicable law including CZMA or OCLSA; and/or
repurchase of OCS leases.
The uses of the money authorized in section 104 of H.R. 701 do not
ensure that further environmental degradation do not take place. Their
focus is not on restoring the environment or ensuring activities do not
further degrade the environment. While states may use funds for such
purposes, there is no requirement that they do so. Moreover, states and
localities would be free to use the money for a huge array of purposes,
including promoting more offshore drilling, highway construction and
the like.
We urge that our proposed language be substituted for that in the
Bill, or that the approach taken in H.R. 798, discussed below, be
utilized.
OVERSIGHT
To ensure that the Federal dollars are spent responsibly, in an
environmentally sensitive manner that complies with Federal law, it is
important that there be Federal oversight and approval of state plans
for utilization of the funds.
While the legislation requires the states to develop plans for use
of the money and to certify the plans to the Secretary of Interior, the
Secretary is given no authority to review and approve these plans. In
addition, it is the state that determines consistency of local plans
with Federal law, not the Federal Government! Section 105(c). The lack
of Federal oversight combined with the broad uses to which the funds
may be put and the large Federal dollars involved mean that
environmentally damaging projects could well be funded under this
legislation.
OFFSETS
It is essential that OCS impact assistance not be funded at the
expense of existing environmental programs.
H.R. 798, THE RESOURCES 2000 ACT
We strongly support H.R. 798 because it adheres to the principles
we support. It does not provide incentives for new offshore leasing or
drilling. The Bill specifically excludes revenues from new leasing and
production as a funding source for the entire Bill. See section 4(4)
definition of qualified OCS revenues.
The Bill also does not allocate revenues among states (or local
jurisdictions) based on proximity to leased tracts or production. Title
VI (``Living Marine Resources Conservation, Restoration, and Management
Assistance'') makes financial assistance available to coastal states
based on coastal population and shoreline miles. Section 602(B)(1).
Finally, the Bill requires that Title VI money be spent on the
conservation of living marine resources, not on activities that could
contribute to further environmental degradation. It provides
significant new funding ($300 million) specifically for marine
conservation.
We recommend that consideration be given to having some portion of
the money under Title VI go to help fund existing underfunded marine
and coastal conservation programs, such as coastal zone management,
marine sanctuaries, and essential fish habitat protection. A portion of
the funding under this Title could be used to assist in achieving the
goals of at least some of these programs; however, it would not appear
to directly fund them. Similarly, we would like the opportunity of
working with Congressman Miller and the Committee on the standards that
apply to the state conservation plans to ensure that these plans are
effective as possible and on ways to encourage states to move from the
planning phase to the implementation phase expeditiously.
We appreciate this opportunity to testify and look forward to
working with the Committee on this important legislation.
______
STATEMENT OF ALAN FRONT, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Alan Front,
and I am pleased to appear before you today representing the Trust for
Public Land (TPL)--a national nonprofit land conservation organization
that works with communities, landowners, and public agencies across the
country to secure recreational, scenic, historic, or other important
resource lands for public use and enjoyment--as you consider the much-
needed establishment of a truly dedicated Federal funding source for
land conservation.
First, I would like to express TPL's gratitude and my own to
Chairman Young and to Congressman Miller, along with their respective
cosponsors, for their leadership in introducing legislation addressing
this vital need and for their expeditious handling of these bills. We
appreciate the inclusive process the sponsors of both bills have
pursued from the outset, and particularly want to commend Chairman
Young and his staff for considering diverse input from the conservation
community. Given this cooperative spirit--and given the common threads
in both proposals, the positive budgetary climate in which you will
consider them, and the time-sensitive nature of many willing-seller
resource land conservation opportunities now confronting us--we are
extremely hopeful that today's hearing will be an important early step
on the path to enacted permanent-funding legislation.
We are encouraged that both The Permanent Protection of America's
Resources 2000 Act (H.R. 798) and The Conservation and Reinvestment Act
of 1999 (H.R. 701) propose to reinvigorate, and to amend the
distribution and uses of, the Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF),
which for 35 years has stood as the principal Federal engine for
parkland protection at all levels of government as well as for state
and local recreation projects. Both bills also restore the Federal
Government's partnership, through a revitalized and modified Urban
Parks and Recreation Recovery Act (UPARR) program, in metropolitan park
projects.
H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 differ significantly, though, in their
approaches to these programs, and in provisions regarding other
programs. Based on these differences, as I will describe further, The
Trust for Public Land supports Resources 2000 as introduced, but is
unable to support The Conservation and Reinvestment Act at this time.
From the standpoint of TPL's on-the-ground work in the real estate
marketplace, I would like to offer some perspective on the land
conservation titles of these bills and some specific modifications we
suggest, particularly regarding Title II of H.R. 701. First, I will
share a few thoughts as to why the permanent funding approach
envisioned by both bills is so urgently needed.
The Need for Increased, Improved, Permanent Conservation Funding
The Land & Water Conservation Fund was established in 1964 to
enable priority additions to Federal conservation areas and grants to
states and localities for land acquisition and recreational facilities
projects. LWCF was founded on a simple, elegant premise of finance: a
portion of Federal revenues from the sale of non-renewable assets are
reinvested in other irreplaceable assets for the nation's benefit. I
would be pleased to provide the Committee with a recitation of
statistics on annual Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) receipts and annual
LWCF levels, though I suspect these all are known to you; for today's
purpose, suffice it to say that the fund's unappropriated balance
exceeds $12 billion.
Many members of Congress have worked to sustain LWCF through
challenging budgetary times and have advocated for specific projects
and programmatic uses of the fund. But because LWCF, despite its
elegant logic, was not truly set aside from OCS receipts but rather is
addressed annually within the Interior Appropriations allocation,
funding has varied widely from year to year and has fallen far short of
the needs in America's parks, forests, refuges, and other public
landscapes. Consequently, there is an immense backlog of willing-seller
acquisition needs, support to state and local agencies essentially has
dried up, and key opportunities are lost each year.
The shortage of LWCF dollars has posed extreme challenges to
resources, effective public management, landowner needs, and community
needs. The inability to acquire lands as they become available often
leads to private inholding development that can take a toll on resource
quality and recreational opportunities of adjacent public lands. Where
inconsistent uses occur on private lands amid protected parklands, the
true costs of ``managing the holes'' in public ownership can drain
agency budgets, and in fact can far outstrip the cost of acquisition.
The paucity of purchase funding can place willing-seller property
owners in a difficult and unjust position; those who have public-
spirited aims for their lands, or face excessive controversy over
proposed private uses due to the public resources they host, often have
to wait years for the just compensation that acquisition provides. For
communities that depend on public land protection not only for
recreation but also to provide safe drinking water, support tourism, or
meet other local needs, the inability to secure public lands can have
severe economic consequences.
Revitalizing LWCF and UPARR
Recognizing these challenges, both Resources 2000 and The
Conservation and Reinvestment Act would provide reliable, permanent
funding to fulfill the original purposes and expectations of LWCF. H.R.
701 and H.R. 798 would set aside a portion of OCS revenues each year,
without further appropriation, to fund LWCF at its currently authorized
level. In both bills, this substantial, predictable annual commitment
affords the opportunity to restore LWCF's stateside program, striking
an important and overdue balance between essential funding of Federal
needs and appropriate investment in state and local conservation and
recreation. From our work with constituencies, landowners, and agencies
on both sides of this equation, the Trust for Public Land applauds this
big-picture approach.
In a number of salient details where the two bills diverge,
however, TPL has substantial concerns regarding provisions in The
Conservation and Reinvestment Act that we believe would result in undue
restrictions and delays. Among these are the following:
--H.R. 701 would limit Federal LWCF funds to lands exclusively
within exterior conservation area boundaries. But while most
acquisition currently takes place inside these lines, our work
with such agencies as the U.S. Forest Service sometimes takes
us near but outside the boundaries to secure priority lands
that contribute to established agency programs. In some cases,
single ownerships are transected by agency boundaries. Congress
and the agencies now pursue these sorts of ``outholdings'' with
LWCF funds; hemming in this already-existing flexibility would
be counterproductive.
--H.R. 701 would direct 2/3 of Federal LWCF to the eastern
United States. There are pressing needs in these states, but
the needs are no less pressing elsewhere. Currently, annual
Congressional direction of LWCF and Administration budget
proposals can focus dollars on priority projects when and where
properties become available, irrespective of geography. To
remain responsive to communities and property owners in these
priority areas, Congress needs to retain this existing
flexibility.
--H.R. 701 would require enactment of new law for any LWCF
project whose Federal cost exceeds $1 million. Such a
requirement would create enormous and often insuperable
obstacles to timely project completion. Congress routinely
deliberates and appropriates funds substantially in excess of
this proposed limit with no new enabling legislation; in fact
all acquisitions rely not only on those deliberations but also
on existing authorizing statutes that already provide for these
land purchases.
TPL firmly believes that this provision mandates duplicative
enabling legislation and threatens to overload the apple-cart
of this Committee's workload. Moreover, the resulting
inevitable delays are certain to leave landowners and
communities hanging, and in many cases to doom win-win projects
that happen (as is so often the case) to be on short fuses. We
therefore believe it is absolutely essential that you retain
the kind of project scrutiny that the Hill and the
Administration now exercise, as H.R. 798 provides for, but that
you not unnecessarily add to it.
TPL appreciates the inclusion in H.R. 701 of Indian Tribes
and Alaska Native Corporations as eligible recipients of
stateside LWCF funds. We are now working in a number of areas
on tribal land conservation projects. To foster that work, we
ask that this eligibility be extended, as it is to other
stateside recipients, to include tribal land acquisition.
Both H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 also guarantee restoration of meaningful
funding levels to the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act program.
As an organization dedicated to meeting community conservation and
recreation needs, particularly where people live and work, TPL
witnesses daily and first-hand the urgent backlog of urban park
protection and reclamation needs. We therefore strongly support the
proposed recommitment to this vital program. We also are grateful for
the prposed updating of the program to better address the facilities
and land protection demands facing our urban partners.
Given the demonstrated need across the nation for a fully-funded
LWCF and for adequate UPARR investment, we urge the Committee to fund
UPARR from OCS revenues beyond those intended for LWCF, as proposed in
Resources 2000, rather than relying on LWCF funds for both programs as
provided for in The Conservation and Reinvestment Act.
Other Conservation Provisions
Beyond LWCF and UPARR, Resources 2000 also includes a number of
other titles that TPL fully endorses, and to which we hope the
Committee will give its full attention and support. Taken together,
these provisions would establish a strong and integrated family of
funds for resource protection, restoration, and management. We
appreciate this holistic approach to the nation's environmental
infrastructure.
Among the important threads in this fabric of stewardship is Title
IV of the bill (Farmland, Ranchland, and Forestland Protection), which
extends the conservation reach of the bill in extremely important ways.
It provides for a steady investment in the Forest Legacy Program, which
TPL has participated in extensively and which has done much to preserve
working timber landscapes in a number of areas. Similarly, it provides
critically needed funding to protect agricultural lands from loss to
urban sprawl or other conversion. We hope the legislation the Committee
advances will include this exceptionally useful, voluntary mechanism
for sustaining traditional resource-based livelihoods and lifestyles.
The Road Ahead
TPL greatly appreciates the opportunity to share these perspectives
with you as you review this landmark legislation. We look forward to
providing any additional help we can to assist the Commmittee's
consideration, and we hope that the 106th Congress will take advantage
of this unprecedented chance to restore and enhance its commitment to
conservation.
______
STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. COVE, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS,
SPORTING GOODS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Thomas Cove. I am Vice
President of the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association (SGMA). SGMA
is the national trade association for producers and distributors of
athletic equipment, footwear and apparel. We have more than 2,000
member companies.
I welcome the opportunity to testify this morning and would like to
start by commending both the Chairman and Ranking Member for the
leadership they have shown in calling for greater resources to be
devoted to our nation's conservation and recreation programs. Both
bills under consideration by the Committee this morning represent bold
initiatives in an area that vitally needs visionary thinking and
commitment. My industry and the broader recreation community are deeply
encouraged by the introduction of these bills. We believe it is high
time to debate how to reestablish the promise made to the citizens of
this country 35 years ago to invest in natural, cultural and
recreational resource protection with the proceeds of offshore oil and
gas drilling. We have seen the unique promise of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund cheapened for too many years.
A well-funded and widely supported LWCF will provide the tools for
stewardship of our public lands, and, for the first time in years, is
attainable. The recreation community sees this as an unprecedented
opportunity and we intend to play whatever role we can to ensure the
legislative process results in bold, breakthrough, bipartisan
legislation that will indeed rekindle the auspicious LWCF vision. We
need to get to work.
I recognize there are substantive differences between H.R. 701 and
H.R. 798. The two proposals raise several important policy issues that
must be addressed. These hearings are serving to highlight many of
them. I share some of these concerns, and will speak to them later in
my testimony. But initially, I would like to focus on provisions of the
proposed bills that are quite similar, and are critically important to
my industry and to America's families and communities, namely the state
assistance program of the LWCF and the UPARR program.
Almost two years ago to this day, I testified before Chairman
Hansen's National Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee in an oversight
hearing on the state grants program of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund. At that time I brought a message of lament. The stateside program
had been virtually eliminated due to lack of funding. UPARR also was
getting no appropriations. The Federal side of LWCF had to scratch for
every dollar it could, and was annually funded at hundreds of millions
of dollars below authorized levels. Backlog was increasing. More
important, precious resources at the local, state, regional and Federal
levels were being lost. Never to be recovered.
Today, it is with great expectation that I come before the
Committee again. In place of lament, there is hope. In place of
indifference, there is leadership. In place of a moribund program,
there is new legislation. And, in place of tired claims of empty
coffers, there is a real possibility for mandated spending of the
incoming OCS revenues.
What has not changed, and what I would like to spend a moment
addressing this morning, is the tremendous need in America today for
the kinds of resources the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the
UPARR program can protect and make available to the people.
In inventory of America's sports and recreation infrastructure
today shows a simple equation way out of balance. The demand for
accessible, safe, clean, recreation facilities--ball fields, courts,
trails, rivers, greenways, bike paths, lakes, nature preserves and the
like--is far outstripping supply. The problem is particularly acute,
not surprisingly, near major metropolitan centers, but it is truly a
nationwide concern. It is a basic quality of life issue that full
funding of LWCF and UPARR would go a long way to alleviate.
Let me explain how the problem manifests itself around the country.
It is an urban issue. In the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota, it is
estimated that literally thousands of young girls and boys want to but
will not get to play soccer this year, due to lack of playing fields in
their neighborhood. There is only one public soccer field in the entire
city, (a second one is now under construction), while there are 341
soccer fields built and maintained in the Minneapolis suburbs.
Inner-city focused programs like Reviving Baseball in the Inner
City (RBI), Soccer in the Streets, and Boys and Girls Clubs Housing
Project program all report lack of fields and facilities as constraints
to serving greater numbers of at-risk youth. Just last month at a
meeting of mayors and large urban county executives, securing
additional Federal support for urban parks was identified as the top
priority of the group.
Images of unscathed community gardens and parks adjacent to torched
buildings after the 1992 Los Angeles riots offer a powerful
illustration of the value urban communities place on protected open
space.
It is a suburban issue. The explosion of soccer participation is
America is well established and the trend is continuing. Let me cite
the example of a single Maryland county. In this county, 25,000 girls
and boys play organized soccer, with only 74 soccer fields to serve
them. Last year in one age-specific league, 550 children were turned
away due to lack of field space. In the next two years, county
officials estimate 60-120 fields will be required to meet recreational
demand. By the year 2005, 40,000 county kids are expected to register
for soccer. This is a single, not atypical, county.
In Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, there is a waiting list of 1,000
children to play in the American Youth Soccer Organization League.
According to AYSO officials, the reason is that sub-divisions are being
constructed without zoning requiring open space and parks.
Nationally, the United States Soccer Foundation has received 1,050
formal grant applications to build soccer fields in urban, suburban and
rural areas in the past four years. The Foundation believes this
represents a small fraction of the actual demand for more fields. The
Foundation has been able to award grants to only 7 percent of the
applicants.
The problem is not unique to soccer. There is no football field in
Hopewell, New Jersey and the surrounding area. This year, after ten
years without football, Hopewell parents decided to gauge interest in
setting up a local Pop Warner league. More than 130 kids signed up at
the first call. Now this community is scrambling to find a usable space
for its youth football program, while simultaneously raising thousands
of dollars to buy equipment and supplies, hire referees and pay
operating expenses. Lack of a field may yet keep those Hopewell kids
from playing youth football.
It is a gender equity issue. In Georgia, girls and women's softball
league administrators are forced to do battle with baseball officials
over allocation of scarce fields. In one fairly typical Georgia city,
there are five fields for the 800 boys (and several girls) who play
baseball, while there is only one field for the more than 300 girls who
play softball. Already at capacity, this girls softball program would
expand substantially if more fields were made available. Such conflicts
are documented across the country.
As Title IX has opened doors for girls and women to play non-
traditional field sports like lacrosse, rugby and field hockey,
conflicts over field usage have risen. With the United States hosting
the Women's World Cup this summer, and the American women favored to
gain international soccer's ultimate prize, we envision even greater
rates of participation in girls and women's soccer, further
complicating the field dilemma.
It is a cultural issue. Field scarcity forces many youth sports
leagues to schedule games on Sundays, often from early morning until
dusk. This presents a serious conflict for many parents who want to
take their families to religious services or keep Sunday devoted to
``family time.'' Many Pop Warner football leagues use the local high
school football field for games. On any Saturday when the high school
hosts a home game, the Pop Warner kids must play on Sunday. Frazzled
league administrators are left with little choice but to schedule
Sunday games, even though they know substantial numbers of would-be
players won't be able to participate.
It is a socio-economic issue. One response to these field conflicts
among local parents and supporters has been to develop and operate
private, fee-based sports facilities. This market-based approach has
produced some of the nation's finest fields, courts and support
facilities, truly first-class athletic complexes. They are serving a
valid purpose, especially for the elite athlete. But use of these
facilities comes with a price, and often the price of admission
effectively excludes large segments of the community from
participation. The development of private fee-based facilities is
welcome news for many, but it is not the fix to the widespread
challenge of providing affordable recreation to all Americans. We
should not allow a family's financial resources to limit young people's
basic access to sports and recreation.
Economics also play a role in allocation of many public parks and
ball fields. Cash-strapped public recreation departments establish fees
for field rentals that only adult leagues can comfortably pay. Many
youth leagues, already challenged to provide registration scholarships
and equipment donations, cannot raise sufficient funds and are left
with less desirable fields, or time slots.
It is a health and safety issue. A recently-released study by the
Centers for Disease Control established that people living in
neighborhoods they perceive as unsafe are demonstrably less likely to
get outside for physical activity. Almost 40 percent of people ages 18
to 64 living in ``not at all safe'' neighborhoods reported no physical
activity or exercise the previous month. The impact on older Americans
is severe. The study found 63 percent living in unsafe areas got no
exercise, compared with 38 percent in safer areas. The provision of
safe, clean, nearby parks would provide vitally needed opportunities
for Americans of all ages to get out and appreciate their natural
environment.
Similarly, quality recreation facilities and programs offer safe
haven to thousands of at-risk urban youth and their parents. Police
Athletic League, Boys and Girls Clubs, public recreation departments in
every major city in this country--they all provide recreation
opportunities for young people during after-school and summer hours
where few desirable alternatives exist. These safe haven programs often
serve to reduce rates of violent crimes, teen pregnancy and truancy.
Just ask the local police officers and social workers.
It is an educational issue. One of LWCF's greatest legacies is the
preservation of the natural environment for generations to learn about
in a hands-on, experiential manner. Scores of LWCF sites have served to
awaken young people's awareness of, and appreciation for, the natural
world around them. We are concerned that unabated sprawl and unchecked
urban degradation may lead to generations of Americans who have no
connection to the wonders of our country's vast natural legacy. We must
ensure that refuges, parks, and nature centers are protected in places
close to where people live, thereby guaranteeing children and families
the chance to learn environmental ethics on their own terms.
I provided anecdotes to put a human face on the tremendous needs
facing America's communities. The stories truly represent a nationwide
challenge. The National Council of Youth Sports represents more than 53
national youth sport organizations, whose membership consists of more
than 45 million children participating in organized sports programs. In
its 1997 Member Survey, NCYS reported that 97 percent of its members
organizations conduct outdoor programs and believe there is an
immediate need to advocate for Federal support for LWCF-type
legislation. At the same time, NCYS reported that up to that point in
time 98 percent of its membership maintained no advocacy capability in
Washington. The National Recreation and Park Association estimates the
backlog of capital investment needs for state and local parks exceeds
$25 billion.
State and local parks are where the vast majority of Americans
recreate day in and day out. Though most Americans might love to visit
our showcase national parks regularly, they are unable to for reasons
of economics, geography, or competing leisure alternatives. Most
Americans recreate close to home--in local, regional and state parks.
Whether for toddlers in a playground, teenagers on a ball field or
senior citizens on a nature trail, easily accessible recreation
opportunities contribute significantly to quality of life for
individuals, families and communities across the country. Participation
in recreation is valued not just for enjoyment, but because Americans
know it leads to improved physical and mental health, better
appreciation of nature and the environment and stronger, shared values.
As such, the recreation industry and community regards LWCF (both
Federal and Stateside) and UPARR, when funded, as an unqualified
success story. The Land and Water Conservation Fund was a promise made
to the American people beginning in 1965 that has delivered a return on
investment that any Wall Street financier would be proud to call his/
her own, even in today's high flying market.
The problem is that the investment was drastically reduced in the
1980's and early part of this decade. Today, we are feeling the impact.
We cannot continue to pass on these needs to the next generation
without action.
Which brings me back to the bills under consideration by the
Committee.
Let me be clear. We generally support H.R. 701 because it will
provide a permanent, dedicated, sustainable funding source for Federal
and state LWCF and UPARR. This is the heart of the bill for us. SGMA
supports H.R. 798 as presented. But the provisions I am about to
address represent areas where H.R. 701 can be improved. We sincerely
hope the Committee can address these concerns before the bill is
brought to mark-up.
I want to raise specific legislative concerns we see in Title II,
as they relate to the administration of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund. The ``Allocation'' provision in Section 202 is unnecessarily
restrictive in its limitation of purchases to lands solely within the
exterior boundaries of Federal land management units. This poses a
particular problem for my community because it will exclude many
important recreation lands that fall outside a designated management
unit. We strongly believe willing sellers of land on Utah's Bonneville
Shoreline Trail or on the Ice Age Trail in Wisconsin should be able to
be accommodated in order to protect valuable recreation resources.
Similarly, we oppose the requirement that 2/3 of Federal moneys be
spent east of the 100th meridian. We believe Congress annually takes
very seriously its obligations to determine priority uses of LWCF. We
see this provision as overly constraining the flexibility of Congress
to determine the nation's land acquisition priorities.
We believe that a $1 million cap on Federal contributions to
individual projects is redundant and therefore, unnecessary. We believe
there exists adequate control over the potential expenditures, through
State Action Plans and congressional committee oversight.
With regard to Title I, my industry is strongly against the use of
coastal impact assistance as an incentive to promote increased offshore
oil and gas drilling. We are not in a position to adequately assess
what might serve as an incentive, so we urge that all consideration be
given to ensuring that final language represents as clearly as possible
the notion that any funds distributed according to the three titles be
incentive-neutral.
With regard to Title III, the sporting goods industry supports the
need to develop a dedicated revenue stream to provide funds for
wildlife and habitat management. We applaud the drafting work of this
title, particularly as it moves away from previous proposals to impose
excise taxes on sports products to produce the desired revenue stream.
This appears to be an ideal resolution to a longstanding problem.
We believe one element of Title III should be changed. We would
like to see modified the state matching requirements for the Title III
funds so as to conform to mandated state matching requirements in Title
II. It is illogical for recipient state and local park agencies to be
required to match 50 percent funding under Title II, while recipient
state wildlife agencies are required to match as little as 10 percent.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, we applaud your leadership in proposing a
bold return to the original promise of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund and UPARR. We recognize competing interests hold strong views
about how these funds should be administered. My message today is these
programs will deliver immeasurable value and enjoyment to millions of
American communities and families. We need to find a way to fund them.
We urge the Committee to work together to develop a broadly supported,
bipartisan bill that can be passed by the House and Senate, and signed
into law. We stand ready to work with you to this end.
Thank you.
______
STATEMENT OF KEVIN PAAP, VICE PRESIDENT, FOR THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU
FEDERATION
Good afternoon. My name is Kevin Paap. I am a dairy farmer from
Garden City, Minnesota, and serve as Vice President of the Minnesota
Farm Bureau Federation. Minnesota is a coastal state identified in H.R.
701. I am appearing today on behalf of the American Farm Bureau
Federation.
We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee today
to testify on H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999.
The bill provides a dedicated source of funding from revenues derived
from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leases for a variety of programs
such as OCS impact assistance, land acquisition, payment in lieu of
taxes, urban parks and recreational development, and wildlife
enhancement. We will direct our comments to those programs that involve
land acquisition and wildlife habitat enhancement.
One section of the bill provides a dedicated source of funding to
the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which has been used primarily for
the purchase of land by state and Federal Government agencies. This
Fund has a Federal component, which provides money directly to Federal
agencies, and also has a state component, which provides matching funds
for use by state agencies.
If funding is to be provided for Federal and state lands, we
strongly urge that any such funds be first earmarked for repair and
maintenance of existing lands before being authorized to purchase
additional land. The Federal land management agencies have a
significant backlog of repairs and maintenance to their lands that
totals billions of dollars. The U.S. Forest Service recently issued a
moratorium on further road building in the National Forests because it
could not keep up with maintenance of existing roads, which has an
estimated $8 billion backlog.
We should first use any funds to take care of the lands that we
have. If our national parks are considered ``American jewels,'' America
would be better served to have fewer jewels that are high quality and
polished, rather than more lower quality, unpolished and imperfect
ones.
Because farmers and ranchers own much of the remaining privately-
owned open space in the country, they are natural targets for having
their land appropriated by governmental entities for various purposes.
In addition, condemnation of private lands by governmental entities
results in the removal of those lands from the tax rolls, thereby
increasing the tax burden for the remaining private landowners in the
area. Farmers and ranchers have experienced numerous problems with
different levels of government condemning their property for whatever
purpose. We are naturally skeptical, therefore, about any bill or
action that involves or authorizes the acquisition of land by
government. We carefully review such proposals to ensure that there are
adequate safeguards for private landowners.
We are pleased that H.R. 701 contains such safeguards with respect
to the Federal component of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
amendments (LWCA). By limiting Federal purchases only to existing
inholdings and to willing sellers, the bill prevents the runaway and
uncontrolled acquisition of Federal lands that many people fear. Other
bills such as H.R. 798 do not contain these safeguards. Unlike similar
provisions in H.R. 798 and other bills, we feel that the conditions
placed on the expenditure of Federal LWCA funds in H.R. 701 adequately
protect private property interests.
The state component of the bill contains no such safeguards. We
urge that the bill be amended to incorporate the same conditions on the
use of Federal matching funds for state purchases as exist for Federal
acquisitions.
Also unlike H.R. 798 and similar bills, H.R. 701 provides that for
any money collected above the maximum authorized for the LWCA, the
excess shall be applied to the Payment In Lieu of Taxes program. This
Farm Bureau supported program, which seeks to make up for lost local
tax base resulting from the presence of Federal lands by making
payments for use in local areas, has been traditionally underfunded. We
support the effort of H.R. 701 to give this program a needed shot in
the arm.
No less significant are the provisions that seek to further the
partnership between private landowners and the government to enhance
wildlife and its habitat. Privately owned farm and ranch lands provide
a significant amount of the food and habitat for our nation's wildlife.
For example, over 90 percent of plants and animals listed under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) have some of their habitat on nonfederal
lands, with 78 percent occupying privately owned lands. Approximately
34 percent of all listed species occur entirely on nonfederal lands.
The agencies must have the cooperation of farmers, ranchers and private
property owners if the ESA is going to work. Private landowners are
clearly the key to the Act's success.
The American Farm Bureau Federation believes that an appropriate
balance between the needs of a species and the needs of people can be
struck. We agree with the basic goals of wildlife enhancement. No one
wants to see species become extinct, yet at the same time no one wants
to see people lose the capacity to produce food or to be without
essential human services. Given the proper assurances, farmers and
ranchers can play a significant role in management of species on their
property.
We are therefore very pleased that both H.R. 701 and H.R. 798
contain programs that acknowledge and seek to implement this
partnership. Both of these programs contain positive elements. Both
programs provide for agreements between agency and landowner to benefit
species on their property. H.R. 798 provides a definite source of
funding for its program, whereas H.R. 701 does not.
H.R. 701 would create the Habitat Reserve Program (HRP). The HRP is
the type of program that provides those assurances and achieves that
balance between species and landowner that is necessary for the well-
being of both. Farm Bureau is committed to making this type of program
work.
Under this section, farmers and ranchers would enter into contracts
for the protection of habitat for listed species. The private landowner
would be paid for managing and protecting species habitat, similar to
the way that the Conservation Reserve Program works. This program
effectively recognizes the public benefit that private landowners
provide for listed species, and responds in an appropriate manner. It
encourages landowners to voluntarily provide needed management for
species and habitat while at the same time allowing the landowner to
productively use the land through payments received through the
program.
This program will enhance the conservation of species because it
provides for their active on-the-ground management by affected
landowners instead of the current passive government management
practices of easements and land use restrictions. At the same time, it
provides landowners with flexibility to manage their property. The HRP
thus provides benefits for both the species and the landowner--the type
of ``win-win'' scenario that is needed.
In conclusion, we believe that H.R. 701 provides more overall
balance than H.R. 798 and similar bills thus far introduced. We also
believe that is offers the best chance of achieving any sort of
consensus on the issues contained therein, so long as appropriate
amendments as suggested in our testimony are incorporated.
We look forward to working with the Committee on the issues we have
addressed in our testimony today.
______
STATEMENT OF RALPH GROSSI, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST
Mr. Chairman, American Farmland Trust (AFT) appreciates this
opportunity to provide your Committee with our views on the merits of
H.R. 798. I am Ralph Grossi, president of AFT and the managing partner
of a family farm that has been in the dairy, cattle and grain business
in northern California for over 100 years. American Farmland Trust is a
national, non-profit organization with 31,000 members working to stop
the loss of productive farmland and to promote farming practices that
lead to a healthy environment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest that it is time that working with
private landowners be the foundation of future conservation policy.
H.R. 798 contains provisions that move us in that direction. American
Farmland Trust supports the Resources 2000 Act because this bill
recognizes the role that private landowners play in the stewardship of
our natural resources, protecting their property rights, while
compensating them for the environmental goods they produce for the
public.
My comments today will focus on the specific provisions in H.R. 798
that direct conservation incentives toward private landowners. For the
past quarter century conservation and environmental objectives in our
country have been largely achieved by either imposing regulations or
through government purchase of private land. However, these actions
have failed to resolve conflicts over important environmental problems
like species or farmland protection, for example--that rely on the
participation of thousands of private landowners. At AFT we very
strongly believe that the in the 21st century new approaches to land
conservation will be needed that address the concerns of private
landowners.
The farmland protection provisions of the Resources 2000 Act
recognize that America cannot--indeed should not--buy all the land that
needs protecting. Instead it acknowledges that America's private
landowners play a vital role in producing conservation benefits for all
Americans to enjoy, and rightfully compensates them by providing $150
million annually for the protection of America's best farmland,
ranchland and forestland while leaving it in private ownership.
The easement acquisition, or purchase of development rights,
approach proposed by the bill provides an innovative, voluntary
opportunity for appropriate local agencies to work with landowners by
offering them compensation to protect the most productive farmland--
farmland that is critical to both the agricultural economic base of our
rural and suburban communities and the environmental values provided by
well-managed farms. It would also provide important matching funds to
the many local and state efforts working to protect farmland.
Under the bill's provisions, protected lands would remain on the
local tax rolls contributing to the local economy. The value of this
approach to local communities should not be understated. AFT has
conducted more than forty Cost of Community Services Studies around the
country. In every case, these studies have shown farmland provides more
property tax revenue than it demands in public services, while
sprawling residential development almost always requires more in
services than it pays in taxes.
Conservation policy does matter to farmers and ranchers, who are
strong believers in individual freedom and private property rights.
Their support for conservation policies is absolutely critical because
they own the land that is at stake in the increasing competition for
its use. But as competition for land has increased, so has disagreement
over how to balance economic use with conservation of natural resources
and the increasing demands being placed on private landowners to
achieve objectives whose benefits accrue largely to the public. Debate
over land use has focused on private property rights and the
appropriate role of government in protecting resources while
polarization on this issue has in many cases stalemated effective
policymaking.
Landowners often complain that government regulations infringe on
their freedom and force them to bear an unfair share of the cost of
protecting the environment, while the public argues that landowners
have a duty to conserve resources for future generations.
But the fact remains that for most landowners the equity in their
land represents the hard work and savings of at least one if not
numerous generations of the farm family. Their land is their 401(k)! As
farmers we are proud of the abundant supply of food and fiber we have
provided Americans and millions of others around the world; and we are
pleased that we also ``produce'' scenic vistas, open spaces, wildlife
habitat and watershed integrity for our communities to enjoy. And in
many instances, our farms and ranches serve as crucial buffers around
our parks, battlefields and other important resources. These are
tangible environmental goods and services that farmers should be
encouraged to produce and appropriately rewarded for. It is only fair
that the cost of producing and maintaining these goods that benefit so
many Americans be shared by them.
Farmers are the caretakers of the land, and voters are starting to
realize this fact. The recent surge in local and state efforts to
protect farmland suggests rapidly rising national concern over the loss
of farmland and the environmental benefits it provides.
In last November's elections 72 percent of 240 initiatives to
protect farmland and open space were approved by voters across the
nation. In recent years Governors Engler, Voinovich, Ridge, Pataki,
Wilson, Whitman, Weld, Glendening and others have supported or
initiated farmland protection efforts to address this problem. Nearly
every day this year major newspapers have carried articles about sprawl
and ``smart growth,'' frequently citing farmland protection as one of
the key components of the latter. And the President highlighted the
need to help communities protect ``farmland and open space'' in his
State of the Union speech.
Recent studies by American Farmland Trust have documented that more
than 80 percent of this nation's fruits, vegetables and dairy products
are grown in metropolitan area counties or fast growing adjacent
counties--in the path of sprawling development. And a 1997 AFT study
found that over the past decade over 400,000 acres of prime and unique
farmland were lost to urban uses each year. The loss of soil to
asphalt--like the loss of soil to wind and water erosion--is an issue
of national importance.
But one should not get caught up in the ``numbers game.'' The fact
is that every year we continue to squander some of this nation's most
valuable farmland with the expectation that this land can be replaced
with other land in this country or abroad, or with new technologies
that promise to help maintain the productivity gains of the past half
century. The reality is that we don't know whether new technologies
will keep pace. What we do know is that whatever those technologies
will be, it is likely that they will be more efficiently applied on
productive land than on marginal land where higher levels of energy,
fertilizer, chemicals and labor per unit of output are required. Simply
put, it is in the nation's best interest to keep the best land for
farming as an insurance policy against the challenge of feeding an
expanding population in the 21st century.
However, food security is not the reason farmland protection has
emerged as a national issue. Communities all across the nation are
working to protect farmland because it produces a lot more than food
and fiber.
In many regions of the nation, enough farmland is
being paved over to place the remaining farms at risk, due to
the lack of a critical mass of land and services to support
agriculture--farm machinery, supplies, marketing outlets, etc.
Too often, while local leaders work to bring new business to a
community they overlook agriculture as a true ``wealth
generator''--an industry that brings value to the community
from renewable natural resources. In many traditional farm
communities citizens are awakening to the prospect that this
important, consistent economic base is at risk; and they
recognize that one of the solutions is to ensure that the land
base is protected. This calculus has little to do with the
global food supply and everything to do with the value of
farming to local economies.
Residents increasingly frustrated with long commutes,
deteriorating public services and a loss of the scenic views,
watershed protection and wildlife habitat, that is so much a
part of their quality of life, are among the strongest
advocates for farmland protection. The working landscape around
our cities adds value to the life and property of all the
residents of a given community. And in some cases, farms that
are far from the city add critical values; for example, the
protection of farms hundreds of miles from New York City is
helping improve the water quality and reduce water treatment
costs for the residents of Manhattan.
Increasingly, farmland protection is seen as an inexpensive way to
protect scenic vistas that enhance the community for both residents and
visitors while keeping the land in productive use on local tax roles.
Farmers are ``producing'' a valuable product for their new suburban
neighbors--environmental quality; and farmland protection programs such
as purchase of development rights and the use of conservation easements
proposed by H.R. 798 have become mechanisms to compensate them for
these ``products.''
As more communities struggle with the problems of suburban sprawl,
private lands protection is emerging as a key strategy of smart growth.
The techniques proposed by the Resources 2000 Act add an element of
fairness to the difficult challenge of achieving public goals while
balancing private property rights, by providing a means of compensation
for value received by the community at large. They are a reasonable
balance to the regulations that often lack fairness when applied alone.
The findings of a recent AFT survey show that most landowners are
willing to share the responsibility of protecting the environment with
the public through ``hybrid'' programs that combine reasonable
regulations with adequate financial incentives. The Resources 2000 Act
helps to achieve this balance by adding carrots to the sticks of
existing regulation.
This bill will help protect the working agricultural landscape of
America, and do it in a manner that shares the responsibility of
stewardship between private landowners and the public at large by
fairly compensating for value received. The Resources 2000 Act is an
excellent example of how to govern in a better way, a way that involves
communities and local and State government, a way that empowers farmers
rather than imposing on them.
Mr. Chairman, during this Congress you will have unprecedented
opportunities to develop policies to encourage and reward stewardship
on this nation's private lands; and to re-direct financial resources in
a way that shares the cost of protecting our great natural resources
between the taxpayers who enjoy them and the landowners that steward
them. While it is not the domain of this Committee, in closing I call
your attention to the Federal farm programs. At a time when the public
is demanding more of private landowners every day, I ask you and all of
Congress to consider a major shift of commodity support payments into
conservation programs such as farmland protection that help farmers
meet those demands in a way that is fair to all.
Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to testify today,
and I look forward to working with you to establish a truly farmer-
friendly conservation policy.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF WYOMING
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding two days of hearings on this
legislation. I appreciate the fact that you and the key sponsors of
H.R. 701 have shown a willingness to work with members of the Committee
and others on various provisions of this bill.
While I certainly share your interest in making sure that those
States affected by offshore resource development are provided the
necessary Federal revenues to mitigate those impacts, I remain
concerned that this legislation should be subject to annual
appropriations. In my view, if the bill does indeed create a dedicated
fund, not subject to Congressional appropriation, we will be leaving
the door open to possible land acquisitions by all levels of
government. As I understand it, that is not the specific intent of
Title I of your bill. However, absent specific barriers to land
acquisition, my fear is that it is bound to happen. For example, there
are too many instances of members on both sides of the aisle
introducing legislation to establish a national park or monument in
someone's honor. We in Congress are infamous for doing just that.
Unfortunately, we don't always provide the money to pay for these new
areas. As a result, we have a tremendous backlog of acquisitions
already on the books. And, sadly, the Federal Government has far too
difficult a time managing and maintaining the lands already in its
possession.
In my own State of Wyoming, we have an overwhelming backlog of
maintenance problems in Yellowstone National Park alone--from road
construction to sewer system repairs--and it has become a priority of
mine to address those needs. From that perspective, I'd like to
reiterate my intent to work with you, Representative Tauzin and members
of the Appropriations Committee to fashion a provision in H.R. 701
which would combat those problems. They are substantial and I
personally would feel remiss in my responsibilities to my constituents
if I failed to attempt to resolve them.
Aside from that, I would like to applaud your efforts to fund the
Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program at the fully authorized level.
This has been another priority of mine for quite some time and I am
hopeful that with your assistance we can convince the appropriators how
vitally important these funds are to local communities. As I'm sure you
are no doubt aware, the oil and gas industry throughout the West has
been experiencing a severe downturn in production, resulting in a
cumulative loss of 41,000 jobs and the shut-down of more than 136,000
oil wells and 57,000 natural gas wells since prices crashed in
November, 1997. States like Wyoming rely heavily on those royalties for
their school systems, not to mention fire and rescue and public safety
funding. Absent those revenues and a PILT program that is not
adequately funded, local counties have been struggling in recent years
to make ends meet. So I look forward to working with you on that aspect
of this legislation as well to see if we can provide some much need
economic assistance to municipal activities and programs.
Again, thank you for holding this second day of hearings. I see we
have some distinguished panels of witnesses and I welcome their
testimony and the opportunity to seek their views on how we can improve
upon H.R. 701.
______
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MALCOLM WALLOP (RET.), CHAIRMAN, FRONTIERS OF
FREEDOM
Chairman Young, thank you for inviting Frontiers of Freedom to
testify today on these important issues. My name is Malcolm Wallop, and
I am chairman of Frontiers of Freedom. From 1977 until 1995, I
represented Wyoming in the Senate, where I served on the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee. As a rancher near Big Horn, Wyoming, I
have a lifetime's experience of private stewardship and of Federal land
management practices. I founded Frontiers of Freedom to defend the
constitutional rights of all Americans and to restore constitutional
limits on government at all levels.
Frontiers of Freedom opposes enactment of the Conservation and Re-
investment Act, the Permanent Protection for America's Resource's 2000
Act, and other similar proposals, such as the Clinton-Gore
Administration's Lands Legacy Initiative. While my remarks today are
directed at H.R. 701, most of them apply just as well to H. R. 798 and
the Lands Legacy program.
Before discussing our objections to the bill, I would like to urge
you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the Committee to hold
extensive field hearings before you proceed to mark-up. This is major
legislation, which would have serious consequences far into the future
for a great many people. But from what I could see from the witness
list released last Friday, nearly all the witnesses at these hearings
represent institutions that would be financial beneficiaries of this
legislation. I really don't think you need two days of hearings to find
out that those who are to receive large sums of money from the Federal
treasury are generally in favor of it.
There are people all across the country, however, who will be the
targets rather than the beneficiaries of H.R. 701. It seems to me that
you should at least listen to them. In 1988 when this Committee
considered similar legislation, Chairman Udall's American Heritage
Trust Act, Representative Vento's subcommittee heard testimony from a
number of prominent opponents who have not been invited to testify at
these hearings. I therefore urge you to hold field hearings, not in
places such as Louisiana that stand to gain hundreds of millions of
dollars a year from Title I, but in places where you can hear from
people whose livelihoods and ways of life may be destroyed by enactment
of H.R. 701. In particular, I hope you will travel to the Northern
Forests of Maine, upstate New York, New Hampshire, and Vermont, which
are now under assault by the preservationists; and to an area in the
West, such as my own State of Wyoming, where the Committee can learn
about the negative environmental and economic consequences of massive
government land ownership.
Frontiers of Freedom agrees that revenues from Outer Continental
Shelf oil and gas production should be shared with the States. However,
we believe that it should be shared only with the States that actually
have OCS production off their shores and in the same way that revenues
from onshore Federal leases are shared with those States in which they
are located--that is, fifty-fifty. We urge you to introduce legislation
that would do that in a straightforward way and would enthusiastically
support your efforts to pass such a bill. The method that H.R. 701
adopts is in our view much less satisfactory because it will send much
less money to the six OCS States than the 50 percent that they should
be receiving and because the funds distributed will be earmarked for a
specific purpose rather than going into the States' general treasuries.
These shortcomings are insignificant compared to the way H.R. 701
ties OCS revenue sharing to a massive increase in government
acquisition of private land. Simply put, Frontiers of Freedom believes
that the land acquisition provisions are much too high a price to pay
for any benefit's the bill may contain.
I have noticed that H.R. 701's proponents, when they have mentioned
it at all, have downplayed the magnitude of land acquisitions mandated
in Title II. Thus proponents have claimed that the $378 million per
year for Federal land acquisition is only $50 or $60 million dollars
per year higher than the historic average for Land and Water
Conservation Fund acquisitions appropriated by Congress. Further, they
seem to assume that state and local acquisitions are somehow more
acceptable to private property owners. And they suggest that because
the $378 million per year for state and local acquisitions can be spent
on development projects, it therefore will be spent mostly on
development projects.
If only this line of obfuscation were true. The fact is that H.R.
701 would vastly increase the rate of socialization of private land in
this country. Title II turns the Land and Water Conservation Fund into
a dedicated fund--that is, not subject to further congressional
appropriation. Twenty-three percent of OCS revenues would be deposited
into the fund up to the authorized level of $900 million per year. Of
this $900 million, $378 million would go to the four Federal land
agencies for land acquisition and $378 million to the States (of which
50 percent would then be distributed to local governments) for land
acquisition and related development costs.
Two key facts are regularly not mentioned by H.R. 701's supporters.
First, the bill would require that all Federal funds for state and
local acquisitions be matched fifty-fifty by state and local
governments. This means that the total available for buying land is
twice times $378 million, or $756 million per year. The leveraging of
Federal grants in this way is designed to make it very attractive for
state and local governments to spend a lot of money buying private
land, regardless of what their taxpayers might think.
Add this $756 million to the $378 million for Federal acquisitions
for a grand total of $1.134 billion per year for land acquisition. But
this is not all. The second fact not mentioned by the bill's proponents
is that Title I funds can also be spent on buying land. According to
the Committee's own projections, Title I would distribute $1.24 billion
in FY 2000 to the 34 ``coastal States.'' It is likely that a large
chunk of this money will be used to buy land.
As evidence, I would point to the fate of the Exxon Valdez trust
fund. At the time that Exxon agreed to put $900 million into a fund to
remediate the harmful environmental effects of the oil spill, few
people thought that a lot of the money would be used to buy land. Yet,
this is precisely what has happened. According to Senator Frank
Murkowski, to date $380 million from the trust fund has been used to
buy over 700,000 acres of private land, some of it far removed from
Prince William Sound. Senator Murkowski recently complained that the
trust had purchased 16 percent of the private land in Alaska ``and they
aren't done yet.''
There is an obvious reason why Federal, state, and local land
management agencies like to buy land. It increases the size of their
empires, which leads to increases in agency budgets and staffs.
Thus I conclude that several hundred millions of dollars per year
from Title I will likely be spent on land acquisition. This could well
bring the total from Titles I and II to over $1.5 billion per year.
This would represent approximately a five-fold increase in funds for
land acquisition over the historic average of LWCF appropriations.
This is an appalling possibility. Before you lead Congress down
this path, I urge you to consider how much land government already
owns, the environmental condition it is in, and the political and
economic consequences of that ownership.
According to the BLM, the Federal Government controls about 676
million acres of the nation's land. This constitutes just under 30
percent of the total. I don't have any idea how much land is owned by
state and local governments, and I don't think anybody else does
either, including state and local officials. The Cascade Policy
Institute did a study of how much property just one county in Oregon
owned. The total was staggering and came as a complete surprise to the
county commissioners.
My point is this. All levels of government already own an enormous
amount of land--far too much in my view and unquestionably far more
than they can take care of adequately. Therefore, before embarking on a
land-buying spree, it seems to me that this Committee could do a great
service to the nation by initiating an inventory and assessment of the
extent and nature of government land ownership in this country. Then
the question needs to be asked, What is the public purpose for
government to own this particular piece of land? I suspect that in many
cases no plausible reason can be given.
Preservationists will undoubtedly reply that the purpose of all
this government land ownership is to protect the environment. Can
anyone who has first-hand knowledge of the poor condition of many of
the Federal lands really take this claim seriously?
Private property ownership is widely recognized as the source of
our economic well being and as the keystone of our system of limited
government and individual liberty. Insofar as H.R. 701 lessens private
property ownership, it thereby harms our prosperity and threatens our
liberty. H.R. 701 should be defeated for that reason alone.
But it must also be recognized that private property ownership
provides a higher level of environmental protection than does public or
common ownership. This is simply because private property owners have
an incentive--their own self interest--to take care of what is theirs.
That incentive is usually lacking with public or common ownership. We
had recent confirmation of this fact when the Iron Curtain fell. The
preservationists who tout government ownership as an environmental
panacea led us to believe that we would find a Garden of Eden in the
land of socialized property. Instead, we saw one environmental horror
after another--dead lakes, poisoned land, vanishing wildlife.
In this country, public accountability has prevented some of the
worst consequences of socialization. But we must not be blind to the
degradation caused by public ownership. Even Representative Ralph
Regula, a staunch defender of Federal land ownership, has opposed major
land acquisition increases simply because the Federal Government
already owns far more land than it can manage properly. Representative
Regula recently pointed to the fact that the four Federal land agencies
have themselves identified a $12 billion backlog in maintenance and
operations.
Adding land to the Federal inventory at a $378 million per year
clip can only increase this colossal figure. This in turn can only lead
to the further environmental degradation of our great national parks,
forests, and refuges. In terms of stewardship of resources, H.R. 701 is
irresponsible in the extreme. Nonetheless, proponents claim at every
turn that the opposite is true: H.R. 701 ``. . . represents a
responsible re-investment of revenue from non-renewable resources into
renewable resources of conservation and recreation.'' This claim
overlooks that fact that buying the land is just the beginning. After
buying it, government must then take care of it. And that costs a lot
of money and is annual expense in perpetuity.
Where is all the money to manage these new government lands going
to come from? As far as I am aware, none of the bill's supporters has
said a word about that crucial issue. It appears there are only two
choices: either the budget caps for Interior must be increased by
nearly two billion dollars per year; or Interior's budget must be
slashed by nearly two billion dollars per year.
The first choice would be bad news for American taxpayers. The
second choice would be catastrophic for the environmental condition of
the Federal lands. With a current backlog in maintenance and operations
of $12 billion, cutting $2 billion out of the Interior budget simply
cannot be done without destroying the Federal land agencies.
The situation with respect to the state and local land acquisition
side of Title II is even more troubling and raises serious federalism
concerns. Removing hundreds of millions of dollars of private land from
productive uses each year will significantly reduce economic activity
in many States and local jurisdictions and consequently reduce the tax
base. After all that is accomplished, these state and local governments
will then be burdened with the cost of maintaining their new public
lands. In effect, H.R. 701 encumbers state and local governments with
an unfunded liability that will never end. This should be a serious
objection to anyone who values federalism.
Finally, I would like to touch on the effects H.R. 701 will have on
people whose land is targeted for acquisition. The fact that several
provisions have been included to try to protect landowners signifies
that you, Mr. Chairman, are aware of the real nature of land
acquisition. For its advocates, the purpose of land acquisition has
little to do with preserving the environment. Rather, it has everything
to do with acquiring and using power over people and their resources.
Land acquisition is used, in conjunction with the whole panoply of
environmental regulations, to stop economic activity and to destroy
local communities, to deny recreational access and to block
transportation and utility corridors. It is also used as a weapon to
threaten and control private landowners.
Prohibiting condemnation for Federal purchases and requiring
congressional approval for acquisitions over one million dollars will
help to curb some of the worst of these abuses, and so I commend you
for including them in your bill. However, the efficacy of either of
these provisions should not be overestimated. Government agencies have
perfected techniques using environmental regulations to turn unwilling
sellers into willing sellers. Moreover, this protection is given only
to targets for acquisition by Federal agencies. State and local
governments should also be required to purchase land only from willing
sellers. Requiring congressional authorization for acquisitions over
one million dollars is fine as far as it goes for protecting the rights
of people who own property worth more than one million dollars. But I
cannot understand why one class of citizens should be given more
protection than another class of citizens. Indeed, it seems to me that
small landowners are more in need of congressional protection from
rapacious and unscrupulous land agencies than are big landowners. We
would therefore suggest that congressional authorization be required
for all acquisitions.
For all these reasons, I urge the Committee to abandon and defeat
this unfortunate relic from the era of command-and-control
environmentalism. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be
happy to answer any questions that you or other members of the
Committee may have.
______
STATEMENT OF MARK DAVIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COALITION TO RESTORE
COASTAL LOUISIANA
My name is Mark Davis and I am the executive director of the
Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana. On behalf of the Coalition, I
would like to express our appreciation to the Committee and the
Chairman for inviting us to come here today. The Coalition to Restore
Coastal Louisiana is a broad based not-for-profit organization
comprised of local governments, businesses, environmental and
conservation groups, civic groups, recreational and commercial
fishermen, and concerned individuals dedicated to the restoration and
stewardship the lower Mississippi River delta and Louisiana's chenier
plain.
We welcome this opportunity because the matters before the
Committee today are of vital concern to anyone interested in the future
and stewardship of this nation's waters, coasts, wildlife, and public
lands. They are certainly of vital concern to those of us who live at
the southern end of the Mississippi River for whom the ability to be
better stewards of our coastal resources is vital to the survival of
those things we hold most dear. Indeed for years, the Coalition has
striven to raise awareness of the need to protect and restore the vast
but threatened system of wetlands and barrier shorelines that define
coastal Louisiana culturally, ecologically, and economically. For that
reason we have followed with great hope and interest the proposals now
before this Committee and before the Senate to invest in the
stewardship of this nation's natural treasures and to address the
coast-side impacts of the production of OCS oil and gas.
In considering the bills that are the subject of this hearing, this
Committee and this Congress are undertaking the laudable task of
determining how best to invest in future of our invaluable natural
heritage--our waters and coasts, our wildlife, and our public lands.
Both bills, even with their differences, represent an important step
forward in the stewardship of those resources and we commend their
authors and sponsors for taking up this challenge. There is much hard
work ahead as the bills are refined and reconciled as they must be if
they are to deliver on the promise of better stewardship. As that work
proceeds, we believe it is essential that it be guided by clear goals
and policies so the end result is measured not primarily in dollars
devoted to issues and locales but to the achievement of positive
conservation and stewardship results.
While we strongly support the public lands and wildlife initiatives
embraced by both Chairman Young's and Representative Miller's bills, it
is the issue of coastal stewardship to which I will direct the bulk of
my comments to today. Specifically, I would like to address the issue
of the need to ameliorate the damages to coastal environments and
communities as a result of their hosting the transportation,
processing, and servicing facilities associated with OCS oil and gas
activity. Apart from a few dollars provided under the Section 8g
program, little has been done recognize those impacts, much less to
address them. It is time to take them seriously and it needs to be an
integral part of any legitimate effort to refocus the use of Federal
OCS revenues.
Before wading too far into the issues of OCS revenues and coastal
impact assistance it is important to note a couple of points. First,
the impacts are very real. To anyone who has visited coastal
Louisiana--which, along with Texas, supports in a logistical sense
virtually all of the existing OCS activity in this country--those
impacts on the natural resources, communities, and public
infrastructure are undeniable. To anyone who hasn't, they are largely
unimaginable.
The second point to be made is that those impacts deserve real
solutions, not merely money and programs. The two great fears we hear
from people who live in affected areas are (a) that nothing will be
done and (b) that the impacts will be used to justify large infusions
of cash that are not sufficiently directed toward effective solutions
and that, if fact, could further exacerbate the problem. Of course the
fear of many people who live in states that do not have OCS activity
off their shores is that the availability of impact assistance funds
could serve as an incentive to state and local governments to acquiesce
to new OCS leasing and development. The challenge facing those
wrestling with the coastal impact issue is how to define and address
those impacts legitimately associated with oil and gas activity while
not creating more problems elsewhere. We understand that will not be
easy. You must understand that it must, nonetheless, be done.
Because if it is not, areas of vital natural, cultural, and
economic importance are not to be lost forever--areas like the great
Mississippi River delta and its neighboring coastal plain. Areas of
that have already lost more than 1 million acres of coastal wetlands
and barrier islands this century and that continue to disappear at the
rate of nearly 30 square miles each year. This is serious stuff and it
demands serious attention. Indeed, a failure to act may well be judged
by not too distant generations as one of the greatest failures our
time.
But knowing that one must act and knowing what to do are very
different things. Various efforts have been mounted before, based on
everything from amorphous fairness claims to fine spun legal arguments
and none have worked. And the problems continue to get worse. If this
history teaches anything it is that solutions to this coastal crisis
will continue to be elusive until the nature of the problem and the
nature of the solutions are better explained. Indeed, to approach it is
any other way would be irresponsible.
With that in mind, the balance of my testimony will lay out in
brief terms the range and scope of coastal impacts that the coast of
Louisiana has incurred as a function of its role in serving as a
support base for the offshore oil and gas industry. Obviously, that oil
and gas activity does not occur in a vacuum. Other forces have been at
play in our coast as well and they will also be noted to provide
context. Indeed, it is probably impossible to pigeon-hole causes and
effects. Flood control, navigation and oil and gas activity have
combined to so completely alter the face of coastal Louisiana as to
render it unsustainable without major corrective action.
I have chosen to focus on Louisiana for several reasons beyond the
obvious one of it being the place that I know best. First, the vast
majority of OCS activity in this country takes place off Louisiana's
coast and is supported by on shore facilities and service providers.
Second, as home to the mouth of the Mississippi River and its
associated coastal plain, Louisiana contains the largest expanse of
coastal wetlands in the lower 48 states, comprising more than 25
percent of the nation's coastal wetlands and 40 percent of its salt
marshes. In short, the area most impacted by the OCS activity is also
the most unique and productive wetland and estuarine system in North
America. Any effort to address coastal impacts that does work for this
case is fatally flawed, as is any effort to earmark a portion of OCS
revenues for environmental and conservation purposes that fails to
address the impacts associated with the generation of those revenues.
Nature and Coastal Louisiana
To understand what is happening in coastal Louisiana it is crucial
to have some understanding of its natural and geologic history. The
geology, biology, and culture of coastal Louisiana are defined by the
Mississippi River and the deltas it has built over the years. The
eastern half of Louisiana's coastal zone is a deltaic plain comprised
of deltas created over thousands of years of seasonal flooding by the
river. The western half of the coastal zone, the chenier plain, was
built in large part by river borne sediments that were transported west
by Gulf currents and deposited along the coast. The result of this
process is a vast area of coastal wetlands unmatched in size and
productivity anywhere in this nation. To put this in perspective
consider the following:
Coastal Louisiana contains over 25 percent of the
nation's coastal wetlands and 40 percent of its salt marshes.
Louisiana's coastal wetlands support the largest
fisheries in the lower forty-eight states.
Its coastal wetlands are a vital nursery and feeding
area for millions of birds and waterfowl that traverse the
Mississippi flyway.
Even under the best of conditions, land tends to be ephemeral stuff
in Louisiana's coastal region. Through compaction and subsidence it, in
essence, sinks. Only through the natural process of freshwater influx
and deposition of new sediment from the Mississippi which would spread
in a sheet-flow manner across the vast swamps and marshes was it
possible to offset the losses attributable to compaction and
subsidence. Coastal Louisiana is in fact not so much a place as it is a
process, a process in which land building must balance land loss just
to maintain a ``no net loss'' situation.
The Causes of Coastal Impacts on Coastal Louisiana
The fundamental problem facing the region today is the loss of that
balance. Human activities such as levee construction, and
channelization have to a large extent shut down the land building part
of the process. Millions of tons of land-building sediment are now
dumped into the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico rather than into the
marsh where they could create or stabilize land.
At the same time the land-building process was effectively halted,
human activities were also altering or stressing existing wetlands to
the point that, during the twentieth century, more than one million
acres have been lost. Lost not primarily to actual development but to
open water. Thousands of miles of oil and gas canals and navigation
channels have carved up the coastal marshes, changing their hydrology
and making them vulnerable to saltwater intrusion.
It is critical to highlight these impacts in order to counter two
widely held misconceptions. First, that land loss in coastal Louisiana
is primarily a natural phenomenon. It is not. The pace and scale of
coastal collapse is entirely out of synch with the natural cycles of
even a geologically dynamic area such as the Mississippi River delta.
And second, that the human induced impacts were largely the doings of
local residents for their enrichment or benefit. They aren't. The vast
bulk of navigation, flood control and oil and gas activity in the
region have been pursued as part of national programs to facilitate
interstate commerce, develop oil and gas resources, and control
Mississippi River flooding. To be sure, locals benefited to some
extent, but, without a doubt, the primary beneficiaries of all this
activity lay outside of the state of Louisiana.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the area of oil and gas
activity. Oil and gas exploration and production have been part of
Louisiana's history for more than a century. It developed over the
course of many years. It began in an era when wetlands were considered
``worthless'' and continues today in an era when many now view them as
priceless. It saw the very first successful OCS rig erected 10 miles
off its coast by Kerr-McGee in 1947. No one knew how to drill for oil
in such depths then, much less how to manage the impacts--not that such
impacts were at that time even really been much of a concern. And in
the 25 years between the first production from that rig and the First
Earth Day in 1970 (and the Santa Barbara spill that preceded it) more
than 8,800 wells were in place in the Federal OCS waters off
Louisiana's coast. By last count, Louisiana had more than 30,000 oil
and gas wells in its coastal zone with another 20,000 in its offshore
OCS area. The Federal OCS of its shores area are more than 50 percent
leased and its coastal area is criss-crossed by tens of thousands of
miles of pipelines that serve coastal and OCS facilities (more than
20,000 miles of pipelines offshore alone). Pipelines that run through
its marshes, swamps and barrier islands. Pipelines that leave behind
canals up to 70 feet wide and run for miles. Pipelines whose spoil
banks serve as dams that disrupt the natural sheet-flow that is
essential to the survival of the wetlands. Pipelines whose canals serve
as conduits for salt water to penetrate deep into fresh water habitats.
Pipelines that, in the case of a 24 inch pipe, can spill 2.5 million
gallons of oil in an hour if ruptured.
In many other parts of the country, the effect of this scale of
activity would be significant but limited in time and space. That is
not the case in the coastal regions of Louisiana. Here they accumulate
and magnify. That is why today, when the annual direct impacts of newly
permitted projects measure often only in the hundreds of acres, the
overall landloss rate continues to exceed 25 square miles per year.
That is why the risk of major oil spills increases as the coast
deteriorates thereby exposing literally thousands of older wells,
pipelines, and production facilities that once were protected by miles
of buffering marsh and barrier islands to open bay and open Gulf
conditions. The impact genie is out of the bottle.
And it is critical to emphasize that even with the protection
afforded by the Clean Water Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act the
impacts continue. Indeed, new pipelines are being laid each day.
Crewboats and immense platforms ply the dredged bayous and canals to
service and expand the OCS industry. Waterways that were once fifty
feet wide now span hundreds of feet from the wakes of these boats. The
Calcasieu Ship Channel long has been identified as one of the main
causes of the loss of nearly 80,000 acres of wetlands in southwestern
Louisiana. And for the residents of the coastal zone, the worst part is
that they get little or nothing from this OCS related activity. It
produces relatively few jobs (and even fewer with growth potential), it
produces no direct revenue for the state or local governments although
it does require them to support the industry with roads, police and
emergency services, and--when the inevitable down times come--to cope
with the social cost of unemployment and family stress.
It has also become dramatically clear, as demonstrated during the
1998 hurricane season, that the future effects of these landscape and
community pressures will be worse than in the past unless action is
taken soon. The combined effects of subsidence, sea level rise and
coastal wetland loss will directly threaten population centers such as
New Orleans, transportation arteries, and the viability of the greatest
estuarine fishery in the nation. Tropical Storm Francis, which did not
even make landfall in Louisiana, left the main east-west highway in
coastal Louisiana--a major evacuation corridor--under water for more
than a week. Gulf waters that once were kept at bay by miles of marsh,
lapped at the base of levees in towns such as Golden Meadow and
Leeville. Indeed, so much has changed in recent years that the children
of the Isle de Jean Charles community now miss as much as two weeks of
school each year because the road to their town is too flooded to pass.
Conclusions and Solutions
In offering this testimony my purpose is not to sound a Cassandra
warning, cast blame, or merely stake a claim to a pot of money. Rather
it is to make the simple point that a coastal crisis is at hand as is
the opportunity do something significant about it. And both deserve
very serious attention. This is especially true since, for most
Americans, the impacts to the Louisiana and Gulf coasts are
abstractions if they are aware of them at all. And one cannot
prioritize that which one is not aware of.
Because once one comes to terms with the extent of the unremedied
impacts to coastal regions that support our nation's coastal and
offshore petroleum activity, it should become clear that delay is not
an option and that without prompt action the next generation of impacts
will only be worse in terms of ecological, cultural, and economic
consequences.
It should also become clear that these impacts deserve a committed
national response--not merely a Federal or state response. The impacts
resulted from activities that benefited the entire nation and that, by
and large, reflected national priorities and values.
And finally, it should be clear that responses to the problems
should be aimed at restoring sustainable function to our natural
coastal ecosystems and addressing essential storm protection, drinking
water, and transportation infrastructure that is already compromised.
Elevating an evacuation route that now floods and serves to impede
natural water flows is one thing, widening a road to allow new
development in flood prone areas is something else. In sum, any
response that puts more people in harms way, encourages more
destructive impacts, or becomes essentially a general purpose block
grant is not a solution. While we do not understand either of the bills
being heard today to intend such an interpretation, additional
clarification may be necessary. We would urge that the best way to
ensure that any coastal impact assistance is used in the way the
drafters intend would be to expressly build upon any existing
watershed, coastal management plans, or restoration plans that may
already be in existence. Many hours and taxpayer dollars have been
spent under a multitude of authorities such as the Coastal Zone
Management Act, the National Estuary Program, the Coastal Wetlands
Planning, Protection and Restoration Act, and others to produce
strategies and plans for improving coastal resources and waters. The
planning provisions of any new legislation should build on that history
rather than competing with them.
These suggestions are offered in the spirit of advancing this
historic opportunity to safeguard our posterity. We may never have such
a good opportunity again. We appreciate the efforts of the bills
sponsors--we are particularly grateful to the members of Louisiana's
delegation--who have taken up this cause. The Coalition to Restore
Coastal Louisiana pledges to be of whatever assistance we can be in
this effort.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to appear here today and share
our thoughts with the Committee.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.243
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.244
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.245
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.246
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.247
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.248
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.249
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.250
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6081.251
STATEMENT OF PIETRO PARRAVANO, PRESIDENT, PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF
FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Congressman Miller. My name
is Pietro Parravano and I am a commercial fisherman from
HalfMoonBay, California and president of the Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA), representing
working men and women in the west coast commercial fishing
fleet. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today
to talk about Resources 2000 and other legislation drafted to
use offshore oil and gas receipts to protect marine resources
and endangered species.
The lives of the fishing men and women my organization
represents are impacted every day by the health of our nation's
fisheries and, in particular, the many species of salmon, a
number of which have been listed or are now candidates for
listing under the Endangered Species Act. Salmon, as you know,
has historically been the single most important fishery for
commercial, recreational and tribal purposes along the Pacific
Coast from Santa Barbara to Southeast Alaska. It has become
readily apparent to me and my membership that a source of
permanent funding is needed for the conservation and recovery
of many salmon and marine fish stocks. For those of us who are
coastal family fishermen, there are no foreign fisheries for us
to buy quotas for, there are no fish for us to import; we
depend directly on the fish stocks off our shores.
My industry--America's oldest industry--depends directly on
the health of our nation's fish stocks. Healthy fish
populations and their habitats for us is not about ``being
green,'' it's about greenbacks in our wallets and our bank
accounts. And it is high time we begin looking at our fish
resources as a financial investment. It is time we begin
putting money in, instead of just taking it out of, fisheries;
it is time we begin funding fish habitat restoration, instead
of destroying it. That is why my organization is vitally
interested in the legislation being addressed here today and,
specifically, Resources 2000.
Resources 2000 has two titles that are of particular
importance to the fishing industry. The first is the title that
establishes a permanent trust fund for the conservation and
restoration of living marine resources and fish habitat. Much
of this money will be allocated to the states to develop and
implement conservation and management programs for living
marine resources and their habitats. This will be especially
important to states developing conservation and management
plans for the myriad of non-federally managed fisheries.
One example, is the Dungeness crab fishery, which last
year, you Mr. Chairman and you Congressman Miller co-authored
successful legislation, supported by the states of California,
Oregon and Washington and the fishing industry, to extend state
jurisdiction over this fishery into Federal waters. This first
title in Resources 2000 could augment state funding for the
management of this fishery. And, in the past two years, the
State of California, for example, has embarked on an ambitious
program with the passage of state legislation (SB 346 and AB
1241) to develop a research, conservation and management
program for its fisheries beginning with squid, nearshore
rockfish, white sea bass, and emerging fisheries. This fund in
Resources 2000 could assist states such as California that have
begun working for sustainable fisheries.
We strongly support the way the funding for this program in
Resources 2000 is designed to get money out to the states and
on the ground where it is needed. We do not want this money to
be used to fund existing Federal programs. Instead, we think it
should compliment existing programs. In California, for
example, these funds could compliment programs, such as
CalFed--aimed at restoring the state's Bay-Delta ecosystem and
fisheries (Central Valley fall-run chinook are now the main
population of salmon harvested offshore California, Oregon and
Washington) and providing the state a safe water supply, as
well as the President's proposed $100 million program for
coastal salmon stocks in Alaska, Washington, Oregon and
California. These funds would also compliment state funding
programs, such as the California Commercial Salmon Stamp
program, which uses money from an industry derived--and
supported--fee to fund necessary salmon propagation and
restoration efforts. It is important to remember, too, that
while salmon is finally beginning to get the funding it needs,
many other fisheries also need attention.
Mr. Chairman we appreciate the fact that some of the money
allocated to the states in your bill could also be used for the
purposes I have mentioned above, but we are concerned that
there is no guarantee that the money would be targeted directly
to salmon and other marine fisheries and their habitats. We
feel that this could once again force fisheries to compete with
numerous other state programs and get the short end of the
stick as they have for so many years. Therefore, we believe
that it is imperative that the marine resources fund found in
Resources 2000, that allocates $300 million for marine species
and their habitat be part of any legislation that is supported
by this Committee. Only then, can we guarantee these resources
will get the funding they so desperately need and deserve.
The second title of Resources 2000, also of great
importance to us, is the one which establishes the endangered
and threatened species recovery fund. Listing species under the
Endangered Species Act by itself does not guarantee species
protection or recovery. Species protection and recovery, as we
have seen on the west coast with a number of salmon and other
anadromous fish listings, requires political will on the part
of the agencies to enforce the law and funding to implement
protection and recovery programs. As you know, Mr. Chairman and
Mr. Miller, listed species are not just snail darters and
spotted owls. In the west, species such as coho salmon, that
once supported major economic activities, are now listed in
California and Oregon. It is not enough that we merely
stabilize the populations or get them to some threshold above
listing qualification, but that we fully recover these fish so
they may once again support commercial and recreational
fisheries, fish processing, tourism and coastal communities.
But to do this will take political will and money.
Let me also point out that the funding in Resources 2000
for threatened and endangered species is not just important to
the fishing industry. Many private landowners, water districts,
farmers and others are seeing the use of their land or
resources restricted in order to provide some measure of
protection for listed species. The problem is not the
Endangered Species Act, but our failure to fund recovery of
listed species. The quicker we develop and fund recovery, the
sooner we can lift restrictions on other interests. Moreover,
this fund will be invaluable for assisting landowners and water
districts in making changes or taking actions, such as
installing effective fish screens or fencing riparian areas, to
help protect and recover listed fish.
We appreciate the fact, Mr. Chairman, that your bill
includes a provision that addresses endangered species, however
our preference is for the current language in Resources 2000
for a number of reasons. First, it provides an identified
source and dedicated amount ($100 million) of money that will
be spent annually to contribute to the recovery of endangered
species. The current language in the proposed Conservation &
Reinvestment Act, does not do this.
Second, Resources 2000 uses this money specifically for
recovery of species, a focus that has been missing all too long
from existing ESA programs. If we do not recover salmon on the
west coast, they will never be removed from the Endangered
Species list and our industry itself will never recover.
Third, Resources 2000 will only provide grants for recovery
activities that are beyond the requirements of the law. The
provision in your bill, Mr. Chairman, could potentially pay
landowners to merely comply with the law. We do not think this
is fair. As fishermen, we do not get paid when we are told we
cannot harvest endangered salmon and we do not think others
should be paid to merely comply with the law. Resources 2000
provides incentives to those who want to go beyond the law to
recover our threatened and endangered species. We think this is
the right approach.
I want to express the gratitude of the working fishing men
and women I represent to you Mr. Chairman and you Congressman
Miller for your vision in introducing your two bills. Utilizing
receipts from non-renewable resource extraction from the marine
environment to reinvest in renewable marine and fish resources,
is we believe, good public policy. Fishing is America's oldest
industry. It is a wonderful calling. The members of my
organization take pleasure in deriving our livelihoods on the
beauty and bounty of the ocean; we take pride in providing the
public wonderful and wild sources of healthy food. But our fish
stocks and their habitats need investment desperately to be
conserved and rebuilt. Members of my organization have dug deep
in their own pockets to pay for fishery programs, but we cannot
do it all by ourselves; we cannot pay for damage done by
others. That is why we need a permanent source of public
funding to invest in and recover our public fishery resources.
Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions Committee
members of staff may have.