    [House Hearing, 106 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                             H.R. 701 AND H.R. 798

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

                                 FIELD 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 (COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS
      THE PITTMAN-ROBERTSON ACT) TO ESTABLISH A FUND TO MEET THE OUTDOOR
    CONSERVATION AND RECREATION NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND FOR OTHER
                                    PURPOSES

     H.R. 798, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PERMANENT PROTECTION OF THE RESOURCES OF
                 THE UNITED STATES IN THE YEAR 2000 AND BEYOND

                                   __________

        MARCH 31, 1999 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA AND MAY 3, 1999, NEW ORLEANS,
                                   LOUISIANA

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 106-18

                                   __________

               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

                                     ______

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    56-598 CC        WASHINGTON : 1999

                             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 31, 1999......................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Alaska..................................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     4

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Angapak, Nelson, Alaska Federation of Natives, Anchorage,
          Alaska.....................................................    21
        Bailey, Cindy, Director for Local Governmental Affairs, BP
          Exploration-Alaska.........................................    26
            Prepared statement of....................................    60
        Borell, Steve, Alaska Miners Association, Anchorage, Alaska..    22
            Prepared statement of....................................    53
        Childers, Dorothy, Executive Director, Alaska Marine
          Conservation Council.......................................    27
            Prepared statement of....................................    61
        Kreig, Ray, Anchorage, Alaska................................    29
            Prepared statement of....................................   190
        Regelin, Wayne, Director of Division of Wildlife
          Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Juneau.....     8
            Prepared statement of....................................    38
        Rosier, Carl, Board Member, Alaska Outdoor Council, Juneau,
          Alaska.....................................................    20
            Prepared statement of....................................    53
        Schoen, John, Executive Director, Alaska State Office,
          National Audubon Society...................................    30
            Prepared statement of....................................    62
        Selby, Jerome, Chairman, OCS Policy Committee, Anchorage,
          Alaska.....................................................    12
        Shively, John, Commissioner of the Department of Natural
          Resources, Anchorage, Alaska...............................     6
            Prepared statement of....................................    35
        Taylor, State Senator Robin, Alaska State Legislature, Alaska
          for State Senate President, Robin Taylor and State Speaker.    10
            Prepared statement of....................................    39

    Additional material supplied:
        Briefing Paper on H.R. 701 and H.R. 798......................   364
        Letter to Mr. Young from Myron Ebell, National Policy
          Director, Frontiers for Freedom, Arlington, Virginia.......   200
        Text of H.R. 701.............................................    66
        Text of H.R. 798.............................................   114

    Communications submitted:
        Dennerlein, Chip, Director, Alaska Regional Office of the
          National Parks and Conservation Association, Anchorage,
          Alaska, prepared statement of..............................    56
        Further testimony will be kept on file at Committee office in
          Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC: H.R. 701,
          Testimony Submitted from March 31 through May 2, 1999 and
          May 3 through June 11, 1999................................   363

    Hearing held May 3, 1999.........................................   207

    Statement of Members:
        DeFazio, Hon. Peter, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Oregon............................................   208
        Jefferson, William J., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Louisiana.........................................   213
        John, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Louisiana...............................................   210
            Prepared statement of....................................   211
        Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California, prepared statement of.................   209
        Tauzin, Hon. W.J. (Billy), a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Louisiana.....................................   207
        Udall, Hon. Thomas, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of New Mexico........................................   213

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Anderson, Ronald, President, Louisiana Farm Bureau, Baton
          Rouge, Louisiana...........................................   322
            Prepared statement of....................................   325
        Camardelle, Hon. David, Mayor of Grand Isle, Grand Isle,
          Louisiana..................................................   268
        Davidson, Paul, Executive Director, Black Bear Conservation
          Committee, Baton Rouge, Louisiana..........................   317
            Prepared statement of....................................   319
        Davis, Mark, Executive Director, Coalition to Restore Coastal
          Louisiana, Baton Rouge, Louisiana..........................   303
            Prepared statement of....................................   304
        Downer, Hon. Hunt, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
          President of State Senate, Baton Rouge, Louisiana..........   226
            Prepared statement of....................................   228
        Ewing, Hon. Randy, President of the State Senate, Baton
          Rouge, Louisiana...........................................   229
            Prepared statement of....................................   231
        Falgout, Ted M., Executive Director, Greater Lafourche Port
          Commission, Galliano, Louisiana............................   278
            Prepared statement of....................................   281
        Foster, Hon. Mike, Governor, State of Louisiana..............   217
            Prepared statement of....................................   220
        Gay, Patricia H., Executive Director, Preservation Resource
          Center, New Orleans, Louisiana.............................   325
            Prepared statement of....................................   328
        Kohl, Barry, Director and Past President, Louisiana Audubon
          Council, New Orleans, Louisiana............................   273
            Prepared statement of....................................   275
        Lanctot, Randy, Executive Director, Louisiana Wildlife
          Federation, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.........................   341
            Prepared statement of....................................   344
        Morial, Hon. Marc, Mayor, City of New Orleans, Louisiana.....   237
        Mount, Hon. Willie T., Mayor, City of Lake Charles, Louisiana   314
            Prepared statement of....................................   315
        Rousselle, Benny, President, Plaquemines Parish, Belle
          Chasse, Louisiana..........................................   251
            Prepared statement of....................................   255
        Sarthou, Cynthia M., Executive Director, Gulf Restoration
          Network, New Orleans, Louisiana............................   294
            Prepared statement of....................................   297
        Smith, William Clifford, President, T. Baker Smith and Son,
          Houma, Louisiana...........................................   354
            Prepared statement of....................................   355
        Snyder, Daniel, Student, (Oak Lawn) Junior High School.......   215
            Prepared statement of....................................   216
        Wentz, Dr. Alan, Group Manager for Conservation, Ducks
          Unlimited, Memphis, Tennessee..............................   291
            Prepared statement of....................................   292
        Westphal, Hon. Joseph W., Assistant Secretary of the Army,
          Washington, DC.............................................   242
            Prepared statement of....................................   245

    Additional material supplied:
        Jenkins, James H., Jr., Secretary, Department of Wildlife &
          Fisheries, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, prepared statement of...   361

    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 (COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS
      THE PITTMAN-ROBERTSON ACT) TO ESTABLISH A FUND TO MEET THE OUTDOOR
    CONSERVATION AND RECREATION NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND FOR OTHER
    PURPOSES; AND H.R. 798, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PERMANENT PROTECTION OF THE
           RESOURCES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE YEAR 2000 AND BEYOND

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 1999

                              House of Representatives,
                                        Committee on Resources,
                                                      Anchorage, Alaska
        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11 a.m. in Z.J.
    Loussac Library, Assembly Chambers, 3600 Denali Street,
    Anchorage, Alaska, Hon. Don Young [chairman of the Committee]
    presiding.

    STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
                          THE STATE OF ALASKA

        Mr. Young. The hearing will come to order. You notice I'm
    starting right on time, and I try to make a habit of doing
    that. And I do appreciate all of you for coming today and
    taking time from your busy workday for our first Congressional
    field hearing on these two conservation initiatives. Today we
    will be receiving testimony from a variety of witnesses
    covering two bills. This is not the only hearing we will have
    on this legislation process. We have a hearing on Congressman
    George Miller's Permanent Protection for Resources 2000 Act,
    also known as Resources 2000, and my Conservation and
    Reinvestment Act of 1999, which we call CARA.
        This is an official Congressional hearing held by the House
    Resources Committee. Some of you may not be familiar with our
    procedures, so let me take a second to explain. The Committee
    has invited 12 witnesses, representing all areas contained
    within these bills, to testify on the two measures, H.R. 701
    and H.R. 798. Each witness has prepared a written statement and
    will summarize that statement. There are lights on the witness
    table that will turn red when the witness' five minutes expire.
        For those interested in participating in this procedure, I
    will keep the record open for ten days and you may submit
    written testimony. This written testimony will be part of the
    official record, and I sincerely hope many choose to submit
    written comments and suggestions. Your input is very important
    as both bills move through the committee process.
        CARA was first introduced in the 105th Congress, and I
    along with more than 30 other Members of Congress reintroduced
    it on February 10, 1999 for consideration by the 106th
    Congress. CARA is a bipartisan bill with broad geographical
    support. In a few short months, we have reached 70
    Congressional supporters. These members range from the very
    urban members, such as Charlie Rangel of Manhattan, to very
    rural members, such as Saxby Chambliss of southern Georgia. The
    bill is also supported by the Western Governors Association,
    Southern Governors Association, National Governors Association,
    National Association of Counties, and the U.S. Conference of
    Mayors. Most importantly, I have received countless letters of
    support from Alaskans and Alaskan groups.
        The main reason we are finding such broad support for CARA
    is that this bill redistributes Federal reserves created from
    oil and gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf.
    Currently, these revenues go directly to the Federal treasury
    without any revenue sharing with states impacted by
    development. This is unusual as onshore Federal oil and gas
    revenues are shared with the host state. CARA addresses this
    inequity while providing revenue from offshore activity for
    valuable conservation programs. Quite frankly, this revenue,
    which is created by the development of a nonrenewable resource,
    should provide lasting benefit to the coastal states and
    provide for conservation efforts in all the states.
        The first title of CARA will provide direct revenue sharing
    in coastal states and territories; 35 in all, including Alaska.
    CARA gives each state the flexibility to provide the greatest
    benefit to its residents. In Louisiana, the coastal wetlands
    are deteriorating at an alarming rate. At the Committee's
    Washington, DC hearing, we heard from the Secretary of Natural
    Resources from the state of Louisiana, Jack Caldwell. Secretary
    Caldwell informed the Committee that Louisiana loses 35 square
    miles of land every year from erosion. CARA provides funding to
    address what is becoming a national problem.
        In Alaska, CARA funds will be used in meeting the state's
    water and sewer needs, education funding, and other
    conservation, infrastructure and public service needs. In
    total, the state of Alaska is projected to receive
    approximately $100 million or more dollars each year in direct
    revenue sharing. With the state's current billion dollar
    shortfall, CARA will provide a needed shot in the arm,
    especially in the conservation area.
        Title II provides annual and dedicated funding to the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund. CARA will fund both the state and
    Federal components of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and
    also provide for urban parks and recreation. Many folks think
    of the LWCF as a Federal land acquisition slush fund, and that
    is understandable. Each year the LWCF has $900 million
    available for Federal land acquisition through the
    Congressional appropriations process. On average, our
    appropriators provide the administration with $300 million to
    acquire private land. Last year it was nearly $700 million.
    These sums typically have little oversight and few strings.
    CARA changes the nature of this practice by adding sensible
    restrictions to the Federal Government while limiting the total
    amount of funds available each year.
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund was developed to
    reinvest nonrenewable oil and gas revenues into conservation
    and recreation. Congress and the administration have not
    followed this original intent. CARA reforms the current
    practice by providing annual funding and placing sensible
    restrictions on Federal purchases. At the same time, our bill
    funds the state component of the LWCF. The state of Alaska will
    have over $15 million available for conservation and recreation
    projects. These funds are available to meet the state's needs
    established by the priorities.
        This state-based funding has not been available the past
    five years. Without these funds having been available in the
    past, we may not have been able to develop projects like
    Alaskaland in Fairbanks and the coastal trail in Anchorage. My
    legislation would guarantee that we can count on developing
    conservation and recreation areas for our enjoyment and for the
    benefit of the tourism industry in this state. However, these
    big projects are not good examples for the quiet winners who
    stand to benefit by CARA being passed into law. Under Title II,
    CARA will provide soccer fields, state parks for urban areas
    and projects like basketball courts, hockey rinks, and softball
    fields. Each of these small projects provides outdoor
    experiences that can benefit everyone, no matter where they
    live.
        Title III is what we call the wildlife conservation
    component. These funds will be distributed through the Federal
    Aid in Wildlife Restoration Fund, known as Pittman-Robertson.
    Pittman-Robertson has collected and disbursed more than $3
    billion for wildlife conservation and recreation projects
    across America. Made possible entirely through the efforts and
    taxes paid by sportsmen, the funds are derived from an excise
    tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment sold
    specifically for bowhunting.
        This component will allow states the flexibility to use
    this new revenue for wildlife conservation through the proven
    mechanisms of Pittman-Robertson. Alaska is expected to receive
    nearly $20 million for state-based wildlife conservation each
    year. CARA is my counterproposal to the Teaming With Wildlife
    Initiative, which wanted to create a broad tax on sporting
    goods ranging from sport utility vehicles to hiking boots. This
    program was one that I could not support, but funding is
    necessary to provide for wildlife, and CARA accomplishes this
    goal without creating a new tax.
        Each year scores of tourists come north to Alaska. Often
    they either do not have the opportunity and access to view
    wildlife. For tourism to remain a strong segment of our
    economy, we must continue to provide new opportunities to our
    visitors. CARA provides needed funding to do that. CARA will
    provide recreational projects to help ensure that our wildlife
    remains abundant. This is good for us as Alaskans and good for
    the tourists we count on.
        Congressman Miller's bill, Resource 2000, is well
    intentioned but contains significant differences from my bill
    CARA. There is no direct revenue sharing component within his
    bill. This is absolutely vital for any legislation which
    ultimately must move through my Committee. While several of the
    programs have similar goals, they come from a federalist
    approach and with many Federal strings. I hope to work with Mr.
    Miller in passing a good state-based bill which includes a
    strong revenue sharing component. The Federal Government should
    have been sharing this offshore revenue for decades and should
    not place the burden of an overwhelming Federal bureaucracy
    while making a reinvestment in sound conservation and
    recreational programs.
        This is only the beginning of the legislative process--and
    I want to stress that--for these bills. I plan to have more
    field hearings, as I mentioned before, from across this nation.
    I look forward to hearing from the diverse witnesses assembled
    here today. It is very important that Alaskans have an
    opportunity to shape this national legislation. With our
    abundance of resources and public lands, Alaskans should have
    the opportunity to voice their concerns so that they can be
    heard here as well as in Washington, DC.
        Our legislation is not complete, and this Committee will
    continue to receive comments and suggestions on these bills. I
    look forward to the insights of my fellow Alaskans which will
    be brought forward today. Ultimately, we must answer the
    question of if we are to make this lasting investment in our
    coastal communities and for sound national conservation. I
    frankly think we should be doing that.
        And I thank you for bearing with me for reading my opening
    statement.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]

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

        Thank you for coming today and taking time from your busy
    workday for our first Congressional field hearing on these two
    conservation initiatives. Today, we will be receiving testimony
    from a variety of witnesses covering two bills: Congressman
    George Miller's Permanent Protection for Resources 2000 Act
    also known as Resources 2000 and my Conservation and
    Reinvestment Act of 1999 which we call CARA.
        This is an official Congressional hearing, held by the
    House Resources Committee. Some of you may not be familiar with
    our procedures, so let me take a second to explain. The
    Committee has invited 12 witnesses, representing all areas
    contained within these bills, to testify on the two measures--
    H.R. 701 and H.R. 798. Each witness has prepared a written
    statement and will summarize that statement. There are lights
    at the witness table that will turn red when the witness's five
    minutes expire.
        For those interested in participating in this procedure, I
    will keep the record open for ten days and you may submit
    written testimony. This written testimony will be a part of the
    official record and I sincerely hope many choose to submit
    written comments and suggestions. Your input is very important
    as both bills move through our Committee process.
        CARA was first introduced in the 105th Congress and I along
    with more than 30 other Members of Congress reintroduced it on
    February 10, 1999, for consideration by the 106th Congress.
    CARA is a bipartisan bill with broad geographical support. In a
    few short months, we have reached 70 Congressional supporters.
    These Members range from the very urban Members, such as
    Charlie Rangel of Manhattan, to very rural, such as Saxby
    Chambliss of southern Georgia. The bill is also supported by
    the Western Governors Association, Southern Governors
    Association, National Governors Association, National
    Association of Counties, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
    Most importantly, I have received countless letters of support
    from Alaskans and Alaskan groups.
        The main reason we are finding such broad support for CARA
    is that this bill will redistribute Federal revenue created
    from oil and gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf
    (OCS). Currently, these revenues go directly to the Federal
    treasury without any revenue sharing with states impacted by
    development. This is unusual as onshore Federal oil and gas
    revenues are shared with the host state. CARA addresses this
    inequity while providing revenue from offshore activity for
    valuable conservation programs. Quite frankly, this revenue
    which is created by the development of a nonrenewable resource,
    should provide lasting benefit to the coastal states and
    provide for conservation efforts.
        The first title of CARA will provide direct revenue sharing
    to coastal states and territories, 35 in all--including Alaska.
    CARA gives each state the flexibility to provide the greatest
    benefit to its' residents. In Louisiana, the coastal wetlands
    are deteriorating at an alarming rate. At the Committee's
    Washington, DC hearing, we heard from the Secretary of Natural
    Resources from the State of Louisiana--Jack Caldwell. Secretary
    Caldewell informed the Committee that Louisiana loses 35 square
    miles of land every year from erosion. CARA provides funding to
    address what is a national problem.
        In Alaska, CARA funds will be used in meeting the State's
    water and sewer needs, education funding, and other
    conservation, infrastructure, and public service needs. In
    total, the State of Alaska is projected to receive
    approximately $100 million each year in direct revenue sharing.
    With the State's current billion dollar shortfall, CARA will
    provide a needed shot in the arm to our economy.
        Title Two provides annual and dedicated funding to the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). CARA will fund both the
    state and Federal components of the LWCF and also provide for
    urban parks and recreation. Many folks think of the LWCF as a
    Federal land acquisition slush fund, and that is
    understandable. Each year, the LWCF has $900 million available
    for Federal land acquisition through the Congressional
    appropriations process. On average, our appropriators provide
    the Administration with $300 million dollars to acquire private
    land--last year it was nearly $700 million dollars. These sums
    typically have little oversight and few strings. CARA changes
    the nature of this practice by adding sensible restrictions to
    the Federal Government--while limiting the total amount of
    funds available each year.
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund was developed to
    reinvest nonrenewable oil and gas revenue into conservation and
    recreation--Congress and the Administration have not followed
    this original intent. CARA reforms the current practice by
    providing annual funding and placing sensible restrictions on
    Federal purchases. At the same time, our bill funds the state
    component of the LWCF. The state of Alaska will have over $15
    million available for conservation and recreation projects.
    These funds are available to meet the State's needs established
    by their priorities.
        This state-based funding has not been available in the past
    five years. Without these funds having been available in the
    past, we may not have been able to develop projects like
    Alaskaland in Fairbanks, or the Coastal Trail here in
    Anchorage. My legislation would guarantee that we can count on
    developing conservation and recreation areas for our enjoyment
    and to the benefit of our tourism. However, these big projects
    are not good examples for the quiet winners who stand to
    benefit by CARA being passed into law. Under Title Two, CARA
    will provide soccer fields, city parks for urban areas and
    projects like, basketball courts, hockey rinks, and softball
    fields. Each of these small projects provides outdoor
    experiences that can benefit everyone, no matter where they
    live.
        Title Three is what we call the wildlife conservation
    component. These funds will be distributed through the Federal
    Aid in Wildlife Restoration Fund also known as Pittman-
    Robertson (P-R). PR has collected and disbursed more than $3
    billion for wildlife conservation and recreation projects
    across America. Made possible entirely through the efforts and
    taxes paid by sportsmen, the funds are derived from an excise
    tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment sold
    specifically for bowhunting.
        This component will allow states to have the flexibility to
    use this new revenue for wildlife conservation through the
    proven mechanisms of PR. Alaska is expected to receive nearly
    $20 million for state-based wildlife conservation each year.
    CARA is my counter proposal to the ``Teaming With Wildlife''
    initiative which wanted to create a broad tax on sporting goods
    ranging from sport utility vehicles to hiking boots. This
    program was one that I could not support, but funding is
    necessary to provide for wildlife, and CARA accomplishes this
    goal without creating a tax.
        Each year scores of tourists come north to Alaska. Often
    they either did not have the opportunity and access to view
    wildlife. For tourism to remain a strong segment of our
    economy, we must continue to provide new opportunities to our
    visitors. CARA provides needed funding to do just that. CARA
    will provide recreational projects and help ensure that our
    wildlife remains abundant. This is good for us as Alaskans and
    good for the tourism we count on.
        Congressman Miller's bill, ``Resources 2000,'' is well
    intentioned but contains significant differences from CARA.
    There is no direct revenue sharing component within his bill.
    This is absolutely vital to any legislation which ultimately
    must move through my Committee. And while several of the
    programs are directed at similar goals, they come from a
    federalist approach and with many Federal strings. I hope to
    work with Mr. Miller in passing a good state-based bill which
    includes a strong revenue sharing component. The Federal
    Government should have been sharing this OCS revenue for
    decades and should not place the burden of an overwhelming
    Federal bureaucracy while making a reinvestment in sound
    conservation and recreation programs.
        This is only the beginning of the legislative process for
    these bills. I plan to have more field hearings to hear from
    the public on these historic measures. I look forward to
    hearing from the diverse witness assembled here today, is it is
    very important that Alaskans have an opportunity to shape this
    national legislation. With our abundance of resources and
    public lands Alaskans should have the opportunity to voice
    their concerns so that they are heard in Washington, DC.
        Our legislation is not complete and this Committee will
    continue to receive comments and suggestions on these bills. I
    personally look forward to the insights from my fellow Alaskans
    that will be brought forward today. Ultimately, we must answer
    the question of if we are to make this lasting investment in
    our coastal communities and for sound national conservation? I
    think we should.

        Mr. Young. The first panel we have is Mr. John Shively,
    Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage,
    Alaska; Mr. Wayne Regelin, Director of Division of Wildlife
    Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Juneau; Senator
    Robin Taylor, Alaska State Senate, Wrangell, Alaska; and Mr.
    Jerome Selby, Chairman of OCS Policy Committee, Anchorage,
    Alaska.
        For the audience, we will have three panels, and this is
    the first panel. And I hope you have enough room, gentlemen.
    With your permission, we will go right down the line with Mr.
    Shively, Mr. Regelin, Senator Taylor, and Mr. Selby.

     STATEMENT OF JOHN SHIVELY, COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
                  NATURAL RESOURCES, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA

        Mr. Shively. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And first
    of all, welcome home. We got a little fresh snow for you just
    so you can remember what it looks like.
        Mr. Young. Remember to pull the mike a little closer to
    you, too. Go ahead.
        Mr. Shively. I assume my written statement will be
    submitted for the record, and I'm just going to highlight a
    couple things. We do appreciate you giving the state an
    opportunity to testify, and we are going to testify only on
    H.R. 701 today. I'm going to do Title I and Title II, and Wayne
    will do Title III.
        We strongly support the provisions of this bill. We believe
    it's important that Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas
    revenues be shared with state and local governments. Governor
    Knowles firmly believes that state and local governments
    subjected to the risks of the impacts of OCS development should
    share in some of the benefits and particularly the revenue
    benefits.
        As you know, we have already received some money as a
    result of section 8(g) of the OCS Lands Act. This bill would
    increase the amount of revenues and allow us to have that
    revenue outside the six mile limit.
        Jerome will probably talk about the OCS policy committee. I
    didn't realize he was going to be on my panel. I also sit as an
    alternate on that panel for the governor, and I was there at
    the meeting where a similar proposal was adopted. It's a very
    broad based group to support a proposal like this, and I think
    that your introducing legislation is commendable, and I think
    that what they have to say is an important message.
        Let me talk first a little bit about Title I. This title,
    of course, provides a remedy to a longstanding problem where we
    have not shared in major revenues--a number of states that have
    received impacts from OCS development have not received the
    kind of revenues that I think they need to address as far as
    impact. Alaska is a very diverse place with some particularly
    important social and environmental and economic needs. And I
    think that one of the things that we like most about this bill
    is that you provide the flexibility in terms of how the funds
    are going to come so we can address our particular problems
    which may be a little different than, let's say, Louisiana or
    Texas.
        We think funds here could be used to plan for OCS
    development, review any proposed developments on offshore,
    complete research to important questions relating to
    development, conduct monitoring once development takes place,
    improve oil spill response and training and improve much needed
    community services and infrastructure.
        I think that how funds are distributed between the stated
    communities is an issue that is somewhat complicated, and I
    think there is a variety of proposals--we don't have a specific
    proposal on this at this point, but I think the state later on
    may want to communicate something directly with you. It is
    important to us that the communities that are impacted receive
    the bulk of the funds. We need to put the funds where the
    impact is.
        A little bit on Title II. We also support this title,
    although I think it has been somewhat controversial, as you
    mentioned in your opening statement. We don't have any major
    concerns with the provision of this title. The Land and Water
    Conservation Act funds have been useful in Alaska. We have had
    over $28 million of them. You mentioned a couple projects in
    Anchorage and Fairbanks. Forty-four different communities have
    received funds in the past under the provisions of this fund,
    places as diverse as Klawock, Nondalton and Old Harbor as well
    as some of our major cities. So this is an important fund, and
    we would like to see money go back into it for the state part
    of this.
        We already have a granting procedure that's in place so
    that we could make use of these funds. And we have just
    completed our statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan
    which is a requirement to get these funds so we can prepare to
    use them if they are available.
        I recognize some people are concerned with private property
    rights and what effect it might have. We think you provided
    some real protection here, first of all, that lands can't be
    taken by condemnation. And of course, we sort of like the fact
    that you are moving most of the funds east of the 100th
    meridian, which is real close to where my in-laws live, but the
    East Coast could use some larger parks, I'm sure. And we think
    that the Congressional check on major expenditures and on lands
    that aren't part of existing conservation system units are
    important checks that should remain in the legislation. We also
    would like to see some consideration perhaps given to funding
    for historic preservation projects which some people have
    proposed. Also, while we traditionally have not been eligible
    for urban parks funding, we are now big enough to do that, so
    if there is funding available there, that would also be of
    assistance to the state.
        In conclusion, I would like to say that, once again, on
    behalf of Governor Knowles, we strongly support this
    legislation and we commend you for introducing it and trying to
    work in a bipartisan way to get this legislation passed. We
    look forward to working with you and providing any information
    you might need. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Shively may be found at the
    end of the hearing.]
        Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Shively. And you kept it right
    within the five minutes. I'm not as hard as some members are,
    but I do appreciate that.
        Mr. Shively. I wanted to behave, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Young. Wayne, you are up next.

     STATEMENT OF WAYNE REGELIN, DIRECTOR OF DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
         CONSERVATION, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME, JUNEAU

        Mr. Regelin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate
    the opportunity to testify before your Committee today. It's a
    great pleasure to express our strong support for H.R. 701 and
    to thank you for your foresight and leadership in introducing
    this landmark legislation. I commend you for addressing the
    needs to fund state wildlife management programs and for
    recognizing the critical need for wildlife education programs.
    It's really gratifying to see such strong bipartisan support
    for this bill, and the long list of co-sponsors is really
    impressive. And I know that it's growing every day.
        Many Alaskans have long recognized the need for this bill
    and have worked to support its introduction. Alaska's coalition
    of over 400 groups includes numerous sportman's associations,
    business organizations, and many cities, boroughs and Native
    groups that supported the concepts in the old Teaming With
    Wildlife Initiative. And only two or three of these groups
    dropped their support when the funding sources changed from an
    excise tax to offshore drilling revenue, and several others
    have come on board.
        I'm going to focus my comments on Title III of your bill
    because it provides the greatest benefits to wildlife
    management, but I do recognize that both Titles I and II will
    also benefit wildlife users.
        Title III will provide funds to all 50 states plus our
    territories, and this funding can be used for management of all
    wildlife species, for wildlife education and for wildlife
    related outdoor recreation. In Alaska, this funding is going to
    provide substantial economic benefits in many ways. Knowledge
    about wildlife species can prevent them from becoming listed as
    threatened or endangered through the Federal Endangered Species
    Act. Often groups petition the Fish & Wildlife Service to list
    a species that's not hunted because its population status is
    not well known. And this bill will provide the funding needed
    to help prevent this from occurring and avoiding the tremendous
    economic and social disruptions that an ESA listing causes.
        Over one million tourists visit Alaska each summer, and one
    of their top priorities is to see wildlife. This bill will
    provide the funding to develop a first class watchable wildlife
    program to meet the needs of the growing tourism industry. We
    will build new trails and other types of access that can be
    used by wildlife watchers in the summer and hunters in the
    fall. Wildlife viewing can be done in ways that are compatible
    with hunting through time and space planning and zoning.
        Additionally, millions of dollars can be generated if
    tourists add only a single day to their Alaska vacation. And we
    will develop a watchable wildlife program second to none that
    would attract more tourists and keep them in Alaska longer. One
    of the things that's most important to me is it's vital to the
    long-term continuation of hunting, trapping and effective
    wildlife management that will do more to educate the public
    about wildlife management. This bill will provide the funds for
    the states to develop educational programs that have a balanced
    message about the benefits of wildlife management and
    sustainable development of all of our natural resources. In
    Alaska we have plans to work with local school districts to
    provide such plans to students.
        I'm going to take just a couple minutes to talk about--
    address the H.R. 798 that was introduced by Congressman Miller.
    This bill contains some of the same elements in H.R. 701, and
    I'm pleased that he recognizes the need for more funding for
    wildlife management. However, H.R. 789 omits several elements
    that concern me and the other leaders of wildlife agencies
    throughout the United States.
        H.R. 798 would require a new mechanism to administer the
    program and would provide far less funding for wildlife
    management. I see no need to create another bureaucracy to
    distribute funds to states when the existing Federal Aid in
    Wildlife Restoration program can easily accomplish this job at
    little additional cost. In its current form, H.R. 798 would not
    provide any funding for wildlife education or for wildlife
    related recreational programs, and I think funding for both of
    these is very essential.
        In conclusion, I want to reiterate the state of Alaska's
    strong support for H.R. 701. And I'd also like to express my
    sincere appreciation to you as chairman and to your staff for
    your willingness to listen to all points of view during the
    formative stages of this legislation and for their tireless
    efforts to reach consensus with an incredibly wide array of
    interests. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Regelin may be found at the
    end of the hearing.]
        Mr. Young. Thank you, Wayne. Senator Taylor, before you go,
    can anybody hear the witnesses in the back of the room? You can
    hear them all right? Because I'm having a little problem
    hearing you up here. Maybe it's my seniorship. Senator, you are
    up.

        STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, ALASKA STATE SENATE,
                            WRANGELL, ALASKA

        Mr. Taylor. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I'm
    Senator Robin Taylor, Alaska State Legislature, and I, too,
    want to thank you for coming home and having a chance to talk
    with us about this. I have prepared remarks and I have also
    submitted for the record testimony, or remarks, I should say,
    that represent the majority of the members of the Alaska State
    Senate. And I'm speaking on my own behalf today and submitting
    their testimony on their behalf.
        First I'm going to try to abbreviate some of these comments
    because those that were prepared were a bit longer. The framers
    of our Constitution created three distinct branches, both on
    the Federal level and all 50 states. And I'm doing this for the
    purpose of recommending amendments to you to this legislation.
        First, each of the bills, both two in the House and two in
    the Senate, to date provide for a direct off budget
    appropriation that is perpetual, and the appropriation goes
    directly to a politically appointed Secretary of the Interior,
    and through that office directly to the governor of each state.
    Our Alaska Constitution, just like yours, provides that our
    governor does not have the power to appropriate one thin dime,
    nor does Bill Clinton. Some of us consider that a blessing. Yet
    in all four of these bills, our governor would have the total
    authority to approve all planned expenditures, to write his own
    unilateral plan which would need only the approval of the
    Secretary of the Interior.
        These bills could generate up to a maximum of well over
    $100 million for expenditure by Alaska's governor with, other
    than the matching grant aspects, no control by the legislature.
    And so we recommend strongly to you that the word governor in
    each of the bills be replaced with the word the state
    legislature. It's how we appropriate money up here. I can
    understand why the governors associations, both national and
    southern and western, would support this legislation because
    they get to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and they
    don't have to worry about those pesky legislators. So I would
    recommend that amendment strongly.
        We are concerned, too, about the prioritization that occurs
    within this legislation by going off budget with it. I
    understand that the access to these funds is important, that
    people are anxious to have them, but isn't national defense an
    essential priority of our government? And if national defense
    is an essential priority, why is it national defense has to
    have an annual appropriation and be reviewed by the Congress,
    but these expenditures of what could be well over $1 billion
    will not be reviewed by Congress but this one time? We would
    ask that you think about that prioritization.
        Some of us in Alaska can recall very clearly we are a state
    that was invaded and occupied. We now have the situation going
    on in Kosovo. We are very concerned about that shifting in
    prioritization for the purposes of these bills.
        Wildlife is a concept that we all support. We all are
    concerned about good conservation, but after talking with Mr.
    Henry of your staff yesterday, it became apparent to me that,
    though the term wildlife is often used when we talk about this
    legislation, the public is not aware that this definition will
    now extend wildlife management and fund wildlife management
    down to. It will fund the wildlife management of alleged green
    tree frogs south of Petersburg, Alaska. It will provide funding
    for wildlife management for a subspecies of housefly that today
    prevents the building of a $16 million medical clinic just
    outside of Sacramento. I drove by it a few months ago. That is
    not anything that any Alaskan has ever asked me to appropriate
    monies for.
        And to bring us back to just the impact on Alaska, because
    that's my purpose here, I've provided today a map to the
    membership, and also we have a map here. It's very difficult to
    see from where you are seated, but there is a very thin, pie-
    shaped piece of Alaska. That's the total private ownership of
    land in this state. It represents less than one-third of 1
    percent of the total land mass. Now, of course, that little pie
    includes all the residential homes in Anchorage, property we
    are sitting in today which is owned by the municipality. But if
    you look at every single home in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau,
    Ketchikan, Petersburg, Wrangell, they are all right there. So
    let's take them out because this legislation isn't targeted to
    them. And let's talk about what small portion of that less than
    one million acres in Alaska is remote parcels. I actually
    happen to be an inholder. I have 78 acres of fee simple
    property that's an old homestead I acquired on the Stikine
    River. I'm dead center in the middle of the Stikine LeConte
    Wilderness Area.
        Congressman, if only 50 percent of the funds appropriated
    under this legislation is used for the acquisition of property,
    my property would go to the value of $936,000. Since that's the
    purchase of a willing seller of less than one million under
    your bill, Congress would never hear about it. I guarantee you
    that those of us that own remote parcels, as I do, those of us
    who are inholders are very concerned about this legislation,
    and we pray that you would put additional restrictions on it.
        The mere removal of condemnation does not give us much
    comfort because that only takes condemnation out of this bill.
    It doesn't prevent them from condemning and taking our property
    in another. And willing seller, I submit to you that every
    Member of Congress, every home they own, every ranch they own,
    every condominium is available for sale if the price is right.
    Unfortunately, the price might get right on my property, and my
    grandkids will never have a chance to play on it if the
    government truly wants to buy it and run me off of it.
        It's with those concerns I came today. I'm sorry I'm going
    a couple moments over, but I have submitted the bill--the map
    to the Committee, and in addition to that, the amendments that
    have been suggested. But my primary concern is that the impacts
    on our state where we have such a very, very small portion of
    private land ownership could be distorted as opposed to the
    impact of this legislation on other states.
        Congressman, thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor may be found at the
    end of the hearing.]
        Mr. Young. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Selby.

      STATEMENT OF JEROME SELBY, CHAIRMAN, OCS POLICY COMMITTEE,
                           ANCHORAGE, ALASKA

        Mr. Selby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm here today
    representing the Outer Continental Shelf Policy Committee. I
    also serve as a chair of the working group that prepared the
    report that came to you folks. And needless to say, we are
    delighted with the amount of material that you folks found to
    have been well thought out and included in the bills from the
    policy committee.
        As Mr. Shively pointed out, the committee is a broad ranged
    group. It represents all of the states on the coastal part of
    the United States as well as the environmental interests on the
    one extreme, of course, and oil companies and other inholders,
    land holders on the other, and a lot of folks in the middle;
    we've got fishing interests, local governments, and those folks
    represented. And so it does represent a broad section of the
    United States in terms of the thinking and the input into what
    was recommended to you.
        Just a couple of points on Title I. The committee discussed
    and was very careful to try to craft something that made sense
    in terms of where impacts are occurring and who have impacts in
    terms of the recommendations. And that's why one-half is based
    on the impact or the cost of actual activity in the oil and gas
    operations, 25 percent based on shoreline and 25 percent based
    on population. And because those are three different groups in
    discussing this, the committee got the input from the various
    states, and that seemed to provide a base for virtually all of
    our coastal states and our coastal communities and counties to
    be able to deal with--If nothing else, there is a fiduciary
    responsibility there to be stewards of that shoreline and that
    Outer Continental Shelf. Whether there is development or not,
    there is impact. And so what we were trying to do is find a way
    for folks to manage to be proactive about looking at that
    portion of the Outer Continental Shelf that's adjacent to their
    political jurisdiction.
        Secondly, the split between the state and local funds was
    very important to us. Our recommendation was a direct payment
    to the local governments, and we strongly support that from the
    committee. We think that has worked well with the PILT program,
    and therefore we would recommend the same approach on this, and
    you have adopted that. We would suggest and request that you
    take another look at the distribution to the local governments.
    And here we would suggest you take a look maybe at the Senate
    language in Senate Bill 25. Right now the way that this is
    crafted, it distributes only to folks with direct impact.
        Having been mayor of a borough that probably wouldn't be
    getting any direct impact monies, we still were responding to
    the five year leasing schedules to proposed lease sales
    offshore of Kodiak Island. So there was a fair amount of
    expense to the Kodiak Island Borough, even though we wouldn't
    be receiving those monies under the way that it is proposed to
    be distributed under the House Bill.
        So we would ask that you take a look because the committee
    had crafted that very carefully with that very idea in mind
    that coastal communities who do need to be responding to things
    that are happening to them need a funding source to help pay
    for that so they can do the job of managing that. So that was
    why that recommendation was there. Again, there are checks and
    balances that are placed in that, and those are, I think, in
    there for good cause.
        Under Title II, the conservation recreation, the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund, the discussion from the states and the
    folks of the committee, we were concerned about the fact that
    there seemed to be very little oversight of Land and Water
    Conservation Fund, and you summed that up very well, Mr.
    Chairman, in your opening comments. For that reason we asked
    for a lot of input from local government and state governments
    in discussion that a public process about selecting what
    parcels are going to be acquired and how that's going to happen
    and really taking a look at that. And you have incorporated
    that, I think, in a very positive way.
        Again, the two-thirds east of the Mississippi or east of
    the 100th parallel is excellent. Removing condemnation--these
    are all things that we felt made this a public process and put
    some emphasis perhaps on where--what is identified by some of
    the states; whereas the problem really lies primarily on the
    eastern half of the country more so than here in the west, as
    you well know, where there is a lot of Federal ownership
    already.
        But there are still some land issues that a lot of us are
    familiar with-- even here in Alaska there are a lot of little
    land issues. That's why I think we were focused more on
    resolving a lot of the little boundary things that are a few
    acres here and there that square up boundaries, that remove
    conflicts on boundaries of existing ownership. And that's what
    we were thinking more of rather than large acquisitions because
    realistically we're only talking $20 million a state. So that's
    not going to be very many large acquisitions obviously with
    that kind of money.
        So again, with the million dollar threshold, Congressional
    oversight and a lot more public oversight, the not more than 25
    percent of a county can go into reserves, trying to make sure
    that there wasn't negative impact. And that's a lot from the
    western states that that particular input came. We felt it was
    a coordinative approach.
        We didn't have the wildlife piece on our recommendation,
    but we think that's a brilliant addition to the bill because it
    takes it from the land management part to the actual management
    on an ongoing basis in operations and the impact on the
    wildlife. Again, a lot of public input into that section and a
    lot of public drive about how those funds and trying to keep
    hunting and fishing open. And that would be our recommendation.
        State parks, represented tourism, development opportunity,
    state parks need a lot of money right now for development,
    cabins for trails, for those sorts of things. And they just
    don't have that funding available to them. This provides a way
    that we can do that. From our perspective, Mr. Chairman, we
    felt that that meant that we would use the public lands that we
    have to better use by the public as opposed to right now a lot
    of the public can't get access. If these funds can be used to
    actually use the public lands we have, we felt that took a lot
    of pressure off the demand to buy yet more public property
    because if we go out and really develop and use to the maximum
    benefit public lands that are already owned by Federal and
    state governments and really do a nice job with that, then we
    could have a place where the public can go out and recreate and
    really enjoy the outdoors without having to buy more and more
    and more land for the future. So it was kind of intended to be
    a stopgap and put to good use.
        I've overrun, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for that. Our view
    is this is an outstanding bill because it shares the revenues
    back to states and local governments. I think it puts the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund in a very public process, and funds
    fish and game enhancement projects. And those are all very
    positive things for the American public.
        Mr. Young. Thank you. I want to thank the panel. I
    appreciate the testimony. Wayne, some groups are suggesting
    that the dollars in Title III should be dedicated only to the
    management of the species that are not hunted, nongame. What is
    your answer to that?
        Mr. Regelin. Mr. Chairman, I feel that the needs of state
    and wildlife agencies--their needs are in the area of nongame
    species, the species that are not hunted. We don't have a real
    problem with state agencies with funding for species that we--
    that are hunted because the hunters pay their way through
    license fees and excise tax, but I think that we do need more
    funding for the--most of the--most of the state agencies will
    use their money to collect information on species that aren't
    hunted, but I like the way your bill leaves us the flexibility
    so each state director can dedicate the money to what he feels
    in that state are the highest priorities. So I think that it
    would at this time probably be counterproductive to dedicate it
    just to nongame.
        We don't want to get into this argument about whether it's
    benefiting species that are hunted or species that aren't
    hunted and try to argue about how the money from each
    subaccount should be spent.
        Mr. Young. The bill as written is pretty flexible.
        Mr. Regelin. It's very flexible, and I think that's very
    good for us.
        Mr. Young. One of the things that concerns me the most is
    because we have been dealing with endangered species, and if my
    interpretation of my bill is correct, it would allow the states
    to manage other species other than the hunting game to keep
    them from being endangered, thus really keeping access to
    public lands. One of our biggest problems we have is in the
    Endangered Species Act because of the petition process. And
    once the Federal Fish & Game or other agency identifies a
    species that's threatened, the state is pretty much isolated
    from improving the species habitat. And that's really what I'm
    trying to get at is we want to make sure that the state has the
    ability to avoid listing of a species through activity.
        Mr. Regelin. I'm sure that will happen. Each state will
    have money to look at species that are of concern that we don't
    have any data on. As soon as we start looking and have the
    money to have a program to evaluate and look at the
    distribution and the status of that species, most often you
    don't need to list it. But right now we don't have the funding
    to put those programs in place.
        Mr. Young. Mr. Shively, first I want to thank you for
    supporting the legislation, the administration, and thank
    Governor Knowles. Do you want to expand on some of the projects
    you think that

    would benefit from these funds in the state? Do you have any
    concept what you would be spending the money on?
        Mr. Shively. I think, Mr. Chairman, there are several
    things. First of all, in the initial stages of OCS development,
    clearly planning and community development, community input,
    often the smaller communities--take Kaktovik, for instance--
    feel they are really under the gun and they have to respond to
    major development projects, so getting them some money so they
    can sort of deal with some of their concerns up front, they
    feel they need to hire independent expertise to get that.
        Once developments take place, monitoring systems
    particularly in this state for subsistence in rural areas is
    important, and I think both the state, our own leases and the
    Federal Government, which is primarily offshore--the Federal
    Government hasn't done much onshore leasing--We hope to change
    that with NPRA, but we think that subsistence--groups that can
    look at subsistence have been a very good model effect of how
    local people are overseeing the subsistence impacts. It gives
    them more confidence in the development.
        Then if you look at other community impacts as people come
    into small communities like Kaktovik, improving even the school
    or other community infrastructure, airports, things like that
    also are projects that we think could be funded.
        Mr. Young. You heard Senator Taylor mention the fact that
    he would like to have the legislature approval of expenditure
    of dollars. I take it the administration would not support
    that?
        Mr. Shively. I'm not sure I would categorically say we
    wouldn't support it. I think in this state, to be perfectly
    frank, as we look at--as the state has become more urban, I
    think there's become less of a recognition by the legislature
    about what's going on in rural Alaska. So I am somewhat
    concerned, since I think most of the impact of OCS development
    is in rural areas, whether the legislature wouldn't find that
    most of the impact was in the Mat Valley and Anchorage and not
    where it really was. I'm not saying the legislature shouldn't
    necessarily have a role, but if you give them a role, I think
    it's perhaps more important that you set pretty stringent
    guidelines on what communities are impacted and how they get
    their funds.
        Mr. Young. I listened to Mr. Selby, and he was talking
    about money going directly to the communities. There may be a
    method here that we can work together because I know--not just
    in the state of Alaska--there is a great deal of mistrust
    between the administration and the legislative branch, and I
    agree with the senator that the appropriation process on the
    state level at least--by the way, Senator, why we are not
    appropriating the money is because the monies were originally
    developed from an offshore development for the investment in
    conservation, and it hasn't done so. It's been going into the
    general treasury and been spent on all kinds of silly programs
    outside of what it was intended for. That's the reason I don't
    trust our appropriators in the Congress.
        It's just the same thing Mr. Shively said; the
    appropriators in Congress are all from big cities and they
    don't have the slightest idea about habitat or reestablishment
    of game or the education of individuals involved in it, so
    that's the reason it was put in it.
        I think we can work out a formative system that would maybe
    make it more equitable. The main thing is to get it into the
    communities without much red tape. That's really what we would
    like to try to do.
        Mr. Selby, you were a former mayor. I think you answered in
    your testimony, but you--what do you see would be the benefits
    with this increased funding as far as state-based conservation
    and recreational purposes in the city of Kodiak?
        Mr. Selby. Well, yes, Mr. Chairman. I tried to address that
    a little bit, but basically it's an opportunity to go out and
    build the enhancements, build the trails and cabins in the
    state parks. Shuyak is a good example where we did--The trustee
    council acquired the entire island that represents an economic
    growth opportunity for the Kodiak community, and that is
    happening as we speak. We are developing a multi-million dollar
    tourism industry based in Kodiak that that park is the focus of
    those folks. The fact that it's going to be there now means
    they can go out and get loans and buy boats, buy kayaks, get a
    base under developing that and turning it into something that's
    really used by the public.
        So it does represent an opportunity for outlying
    communities in particular where things can be enhanced and
    really used to the maximum for the local community.
        Mr. Young. You heard Senator Taylor made a point about the
    amount of control the governor has. What did your committee
    discuss about the distribution of funds? If I interpret it
    correctly, the governor didn't have that much control in your
    recommendation.
        Mr. Selby. There's two pieces, Mr. Chairman. One is a piece
    to the locals. Our feeling is that that goes directly to the
    locals and the locals have their own hearing process, and
    they'll do their own planning process as far as how they use
    the local monies. Similarly, then, for the state there is a
    state plan that has to be developed; the intent being it's not
    just the governor saying I like this, this, this, and don't
    have to listen to anybody, but quite to the opposite is there
    should be a very public process involved in developing that
    state plan and talking about which parcels are going to be
    impacted and how those state monies would be used.
        I guess we were assuming that the legislature would have to
    be involved in that portion of the appropriation of the state
    monies based on that plan, and so we didn't really see it
    necessarily as the governor gets this personal slush fund to go
    out and do things because that's counter to what we were trying
    to do with the whole recommendation on all of those monies,
    which was to make it much more of a public process, and have a
    lot of public input into the planning and a lot of discussion
    about what's going to be done and how those funds could be
    used.
        Mr. Young. My staff just asked me a question about the
    constitutionality of decreasing the control of the governor to
    put it into the local communities. I don't know why that would
    be a problem as long as we define it in the legislation.
        Mr. Shively. Mr. Chairman, there is sort of an existing
    model now with the NPRA funds where the Congress agreed to
    share NPRA funds with the state of Alaska, and they said the
    first shot for those funds goes to the local community, and
    they come up with impact projects and those get funded. And
    anything that's remaining, they spend it. That goes into the
    state treasury and that would, in turn, be appropriated by the
    legislature. So you might want to look a little at that model.
        Mr. Selby. There are two other models. That's the old
    Federal revenue sharing process as well as the PILT program,
    which is an ongoing program that's directly funded to the
    municipalities. And those are both revenue sharing sorts of
    things, just like this one, and that's the model that was used.
    And just as a point, it's not outside of the governor because,
    as you have written into the bill, the governor--there has to
    be a plan developed by the local government and reviewed by the
    governor before any money gets spent. So again, we try to put
    checks and balances into all of these things to assure there is
    a very public process involved in making determination about
    how these monies are going to be spent. So we intentionally
    tried to make sure that no little group could get off and plan
    and scheme and spend the money before anybody else knew what
    was going on.
        Mr. Young. Senator, I do thank you for offering your
    suggestion. The biggest problem I've had with this bill is
    those that are concerning private property. And we have tried
    to write the bill as well as we could concerning private
    property because I happen to agree, the state of Alaska is in a
    serious condition. There is no private property other than
    Native owned land. I would like to see the state relinquish
    some of its property to the citizens of this great state
    because it's not a healthy situation. But I'm willing to listen
    to anything that you put forward, regardless of what my good
    friend says on e-mail.
        I've always been a private property advocate because I
    believe it's the strength of our society, but we have now a
    problem under the present system with condemnation and with the
    appropriation process. We spent $700 million last year through
    the appropriations process that really nobody supported but the
    President of the United States. And this is an attempt to at
    least get it into the legislative branch, into the governors'
    branch and into the Pittman-Robertson fund, which the governor
    doesn't have anything to say about. At least to make it more
    fair and equitable because the present system is being misused,
    and that was the intent of my bill to try to make it more
    equitable for the private property rights. I know people don't
    believe that, but that's really the way the bill has been
    written.
        Mr. Taylor. Thank you for letting me comment on that. I
    agree with you 100 percent on that and I think others would,
    too, that there has been a significant appropriation of Federal
    funds for the acquisition to the government's estate of private
    property. And it's not my philosophy, and I know it isn't
    yours. I do agree with you, there are many salient portions of
    the legislation. I didn't comment on those. I wanted to bring
    to you concerns that I felt you would want to address. It's for
    that reason I was here today.
        I did want to also indicate to you that under Title III,
    the definition of wildlife, as Mr. Regelin has commented, does
    allow them to go in and to do some of the proactive things that
    you and I would support. Unfortunately, we all have to remember
    that's a two-edged sword. Depending upon the attitude within
    the department, they can also utilize those same funds to go in
    and create surrogate species for their friends within the
    environmental community to then shut down corridors of access
    for utilities, to shut down highway projects--and we have seen
    a great deal of that activity with this department.
        That's why my only recommendation was that you provide for
    significant legislative oversight of any funds going to the
    department that are allegedly going to be used for conservation
    purposes. Conservation purposes right now--and I only mention
    this because Mr. Henry asked me to--I wish you could just
    review with me the ``experiment'' done on wolves on the Kenai
    last year where we used helicopters to capture over 30 of them
    up on the 40 Mile, flew them down to the Kenai for purposes of
    finding out whether or not the new wolves introduced would
    acquire lice as fast as the lice infected wolves that live
    there. These wolves were brought into an area where we have a
    very small caribou population struggling to survive. Is that
    good conservation? Is that what you and I would mean by it? I
    don't think so.
        So you see, I have concerns about how the allocation of
    many of those funds have gone on, and the idea of just giving
    them additional Federal funds for additional projects like that
    without some review I think would be--would be inappropriate.
    That's why I wanted to bring that to your attention and say we
    would like to have legislative oversight.
        Mr. Young. Wayne, I know you are chomping to respond.
        Mr. Regelin. All I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that every
    dollar of Federal aid money that the state has gotten since
    it's been a state is appropriated by the legislature. And this
    money that would come to wildlife would be part of the Federal
    Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. And that money comes to the
    state, and we cannot spend it unless it's appropriated by the
    legislature. And that would not change. And I have no comment
    on the situation on the Kenai, but we didn't move them down
    there for that reason. We moved them to save a caribou herd in
    another place. That's just where we happened to put them.
        Mr. Young. Would you have the same problem with--the
    Pittman-Robertson fund, that's not appropriated money, is it?
        Mr. Regelin. Mr. Chairman, that money comes to the state of
    Alaska as a block grant, and the legislature appropriates it,
    yes.
        Mr. Young. They do appropriate it, but it has to be
    appropriated for fish and wildlife conservation.
        Mr. Regelin. It's restricted and can only be spent on fish
    and wildlife. The current Federal Aid Act allows us to spend it
    on species that aren't hunted. We haven't done that in Alaska,
    but we have--the law allows that.
        Mr. Young. Well, again, my interest isn't in--I'm a big
    supporter in species that are hunted, but I also recognize that
    you can't separate the other species off of those because the
    problem we have now under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish
    & Wildlife, if they identify a species, then the state is
    precluded from trying to rehabilitate that species from being
    threatened or endangered. And under my understanding, the way I
    tried to write this bill is that you would have the money
    available to offset that and take it out of Fish & Wildlife's
    hands and save the species and keep it from being listed
    endangered or threatened, so it does impede other activities.
        And I can very frankly see it down the road with all this
    problem we have of interest down the road that there is a
    possibility that someone will file a petition on a species
    within an area that's used for recreational purposes for
    fishing and hunting, and if the Fish & Wildlife take it up they
    can preclude Alaskans from doing anything, including
    subsistence or sport hunting or sport fishing or snowmobiling
    or anything else because it might disturb that species.
        What I want to do is give the state more latitude to avoid
    that so you have some science behind you and ability to
    understand that really what they are saying is nonsense. And
    come back--a lot of times it's misuse of the Endangered Species
    Act.
        This bill is broader than one might think. It's a chance to
    make the states more actively involved. Any other comments
    before I excuse the panel?
        Mr. Taylor. Let me say this in passing: We do support that
    on your last thought. It's just, as you and I both know, in
    drafting legislation you can't control how that will be
    applied, nor can I control on a day-to-day basis how the funds
    even I appropriate apply through the legislature. So the stated
    purpose, if that can be an additional amendment within the
    legislation giving guidance and direction to both departments
    and legislatures would be beneficial, Congressman, and we
    appreciate that.
        Mr. Selby. Just one point, Mr. Chairman, and that's I did
    want to comment on H.R. 798 since that is actually part of the
    hearing process as well. Just from the committee's perspective,
    I think it's fairly obvious the comments I made that we would
    have some real concerns with H.R. 798 because it's kind of
    opposite of what we were trying to accomplish with our
    recommendations, and that's that you make this much more of a
    local and state government open public process as opposed to
    the very Federal process that's proposed in H.R. 798 or really
    the agencies--Federal agencies are totally in control, don't
    have to answer to anybody, and counter to public process, from
    our perspective. And I realize you are going to have to deal
    with that politically, and we'll leave that in your very
    capable hands. But that's our concern with the other approach.
        Mr. Young. I want to thank the panel and thank you for your
    testimony in answering the questions. We are going to take a
    five minute break and start at 12 p.m. Anybody that eats lunch
    around here, you are in bad shape because I don't eat lunch.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Young. We have our second panel. Mr. Chip Dennerlein
    cannot make it, will not be on the panel. We have Carl Rosier,
    Board Member, Alaska Outdoor Council, Juneau, Alaska; Mr.
    Nelson Angapak, Alaska Federation of Natives, Anchorage,
    Alaska; Mr. Steve Borrel, Alaska Miners Association, Anchorage,
    Alaska. If each one of you will take the position, all three of
    you, I'd deeply appreciate it. Gentlemen, we will go through
    the way I gave. Mr. Rosier, you will be the first one up.

    STATEMENT OF CARL ROSIER, BOARD MEMBER, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL,
                             JUNEAU, ALASKA

        Mr. Rosier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr.
    Chairman, members of the House Committee on Resources. My name
    is Carl Rosier, and I'm here today testifying on behalf of
    Alaska's fish and wildlife resources, as a retired commissioner
    of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game that's been involved in
    management and development of those resources since 1955. In
    retirement I'm also a board member of the Alaska Outdoor
    Council. The AOC is an umbrella organization representing a
    diverse group of sport and recreational folks. We number 47
    around the state, with an annual membership of approximately
    12,000 individuals.
        Before beginning, I'd like to express my appreciation to
    you, Chairman Young, and the Committee for holding its field
    hearing in Alaska and inviting me to testify.
        I've carefully reviewed both H.R. 701 and H.R. 798, and I
    strongly prefer the approach in H.R. 701. It appears to me that
    endangered species are dealt with after listing in H.R. 798,
    rather than encouraging action before listing occurs. It also
    seems that the absence of an impacted assistance program within
    H.R. 798 conflicts somewhat with the basic concept of sharing
    OCS funding. Further, H.R. 701 appears to give considerably
    more flexibility to the states and their political subdivisions
    to design needed programs and identify priorities. H.R. 798
    appears to be a top down Federal approach to substantially more
    Federal agency involvement.
        For the above reasons, my comments are being confined to
    H.R. 701 and, due to my wildlife background, largely Title III.
    H.R. 701 is landmark legislation. It promotes a wildlife legacy
    for all citizens for many years to come. Sponsors of this bill
    can truly be proud of their efforts. This bill provides for
    stabilizing funding for wildlife, fish, land and water
    conservation programs. H.R. 701 builds on the long-term
    financial support states have received for many years from
    hunters and fishermen.
        The bill utilizes the successful distribution system of the
    existing Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration program to
    minimize costs. It enables states to take preventative measures
    early on to address needs and habitat requirements of declining
    fish and wildlife species that may be listed under endangered
    species.
        H.R. 701 provides funding for addressing the needs and
    habitat requirements of the so-called nongame species. Little
    funding is directed to these species today. It provides funding
    for increasing public education about fish and wildlife through
    outreach programs that sponsor responsible resource
    stewardship.
        Finally, the bill provides funding to the states cited in
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund program, ensuring improved
    public access to areas used by hunters, anglers, and other
    outdoor interests. There are other positives about H.R. 701,
    but those listed above are my primary reasons for strongly
    supporting this bill.
        Alaskans have a strong commitment to sustainable use of the
    state's fish and wildlife resources. Over 75 percent of Alaska
    voters in a 1994 statewide poll indicated a preference for
    eating wild game. A 1996 study by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
    Service indicated that Alaskans spent $1.7 billion in 1996 to
    participate in wildlife related activities.
        In addition, I believe the Committee has been supplied with
    the statistics on support from Alaska business organizations,
    individuals, and elected officials for increased funding for
    wildlife under the Teaming With Wildlife proposal in recent
    times.
        Congressman, I believe you have a winner here, and I'm sure
    the wildlife I speak for today will appreciate the additional
    management support provided by H.R. 701. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rosier may be found at the
    end of the hearing.]
        Mr. Young. Thank you Carl, for your testimony. Nelson, you
    are up.

      STATEMENT OF NELSON ANGAPAK, ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES,
                           ANCHORAGE, ALASKA

        Mr. Angapak. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Members of the
    Committee, thank you very much for coming to Alaska to hold the
    field hearing on this particular--on H.R. 701 and H.R. 798. For
    the record, my name is Nelson Angapak. I'm vice president of
    the Alaska Federation of Natives. We have reviewed H.R. 701,
    and we are finding that it's a fairly complex bill, that it
    addresses a number of bills, number of existing statutes. But I
    think that insofar as establishment of a national policy that
    leads to sharing of offshore Federal funds with the states
    affected and the communities most affected, we feel it's a step
    in the right direction.
        Insofar as an expanded statement, Mr. Chairman, we will be
    reading--submitting our statement.
        Another point that I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman,
    is that the lands that are owned by the Native corporations,
    all 44.5 million acres are private lands. And having stated
    that, we support the concept that those lands would never be
    taken away by condemnation, if my understanding of H.R. 701 is
    right. You know, it took us years to get the 44 million acres.
    And Mr. Chairman, there has been from time to time condemnation
    of ANCSA lands, and I think that that safeguard is a safeguard
    that we welcome.
        Insofar as this bill addresses subsistence, I think that
    it's addressed in Title III in that portion called cultural.
    And we do believe, Mr. Chairman, that when we look at the
    resources that are used for subsistence purposes, those
    resources need protection. And I think that-- you know, you
    know that unemployment in rural Alaska is 60 to about 80
    percent on the average. And they are not working not because
    they don't want to work, but because there is a lack of
    economic and employment opportunities. So subsistence is a
    major portion of life in rural Alaska. And I think that
    protection of those resources is one of the things that we feel
    is paramount in this--in H.R. 701.
        So Mr. Chairman, with that, I want to thank you for coming
    up to Alaska, and I do hope that you will give our membership
    and the state of Alaska an opportunity to make their own
    individual comments on both of these two bills. Thank you very
    much.
        Mr. Young. Thank you, Nelson. And again, we are in the
    process of hearing as many people as we possibly can and for
    constructive suggestions because the philosophy of these bills
    are, I think, in

    the right direction, as you mentioned. So the record will be
    open and we will be more than willing to take all comments,
    suggestions, advice, as we try to go forth with this process.
        Mr.--Steve, you are up next.

         STATEMENT OF STEVE BORELL, ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION,
                           ANCHORAGE, ALASKA

        Mr. Borell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting
    us to participate today. My name is Steve Borell. I am
    executive director of the Alaska Miners Association. I am
    testifying on behalf of the association. First, just a couple
    of comments about H.R. 798. We cannot support this bill. This
    bill is not in the best interest, in our opinion, of American
    business, of the mining industry, of private property owners,
    or the general public.
        The rest of my comments will focus on H.R. 701,
    Conservation and Reinvestment Act. We support the primary goal
    of this bill, which is to pass revenues from offshore leasing
    to the state's local communities where revenues are generated.
    Local states and communities are better able to properly
    allocate and use these funds and to do so with significantly
    less administrative overhead than Federal agencies. We do have
    concerns with this bill regarding Title II.
        Specifically we are concerned with any program that gives
    Federal agencies additional funds to purchase private property.
    We recognize that H.R. 701 contains some restrictions and
    limitations, for example, on the amount that can be expended
    without Congressional approval; however, this does not assuage
    our concerns. Alaskan miners are possibly the single group of
    U.S. citizens most severely impacted by Federal agencies intent
    on obtaining and controlling private property.
        Being an inholder has been a terrible problem for many
    miners in this state. Many Alaskan families have lost their
    equipment, their property, their life savings and their
    livelihood because of passage of ANILCA in 1980 that made them
    inholders. ANILCA contained all manner of promises for access
    and protection of valid existing rights. With 18 plus years of
    experience, we can say that those promises have not been
    honored by the Federal agencies and that the relentless efforts
    of the agencies to control the property have made a sham of the
    promises.
        Additionally, harassment by the agencies reduces the value
    of the property so that the owner has no viable alternative
    than to settle at a greatly discounted amount. It is with this
    background that we cannot support Title II of H.R. 701 as
    currently drafted.
        Our concerns with Title II include the following: Title II
    creates a dedicated fund that can be used for purchase of
    private property by government agencies. This fund will become
    an entitlement, and once the entitlement is established, it is
    nearly impossible to change it. Agencies will set up new
    programs to administer and spend the money, lease new office
    space, hire new employees, all of which establishes new
    dependencies on the continued receipt and perpetual increase of
    the amount of money needed.
        This dedicated fund will be off budget, and as a result not
    subject to annual Congressional oversight. The availability of
    huge amounts of money to purchase private lands will provide a
    tremendous motivation for government agencies to use the money
    to buy more private land than is necessary. This will place
    private property owners in jeopardy. For private lands or
    inholdings within Federal conservation system units, agencies
    are able to withhold the issuance of various permits or require
    outrageous amounts of money as ``mitigation,'' thereby
    rendering the private land of little value, forcing the owner
    to sell his property for a song. The existence of a trust fund
    to purchase inholdings will also become an argument for new
    congressionally designated parks and refuges, et cetera,
    because money exists to buy-out inholdings.
        As written, the funds can be used to purchase private
    property within the boundaries of national forests. National
    forest boundaries often encompass huge areas of private hand.
    Every mining claim and operating mine will become a target for
    purchase by the U.S. Forest Service. Farms, ranches, resorts,
    homes, small towns, and private land around these towns will be
    placed in jeopardy. The availability of huge amounts of money
    for purchase of private lands will provide a tremendous
    motivation for government agencies to find new ways to use the
    money. The EVOS (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill) funds have been used
    to separate the Native peoples from their lands and their
    heritage. The Natives have been given promises of continued use
    for subsistence and other traditional purposes; however, if 18
    years from now they believe those promises, we will be
    surprised. Native allotments will also be in jeopardy.
        There are four areas that we feel need to be changed or we
    cannot accept the bill. Number one, require a hard cap on the
    national acreage of land owned by the Federal Government and
    set this at the same acreage as presently owned. This will
    ensure that there is no ``net loss of private land'' for the
    nation.
        Secondly, require that in states where Federal land
    ownership exceeds some threshold--possibly 10 percent--for
    every acre of private land purchased, not less than one acre of
    Federal land be sold into private hands. This will ensure that
    there is ``no net loss of private land'' on a state by state
    basis. Additionally, standards should be established for
    determining valuation so reduction in value brought about by
    agency harassment of inholders will not be effective in
    reducing property values.
        We have various other comments within our letter, and we
    will be submitting all of these for the record. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Borell may be found at the
    end of the hearing.]
        Mr. Young. Thank you, Steve. You were reciting the attack
    on private property. That's under present law. That's occurring
    right now. And there is no safeguards.
        Mr. Borell. We agree.
        Mr. Young. Under my bill, we take away the condemnation
    proceedings where they cannot condemn land. And the intent of
    our bill, frankly, is to put the money in to fish and wildlife.
    That's our biggest intent. The reason we had the idea of
    purchase of inholdings, there are a lot of inholdings that have
    been condemned under present law, and there has been no money
    appropriated to purchase the land from those that have been
    condemned, but there were not willing sellers. Under my bill,
    it has to be a willing seller, willing buyer, and has to be
    also--they cannot condemn the land to require one to sell. So
    I'm hoping that we can write a bill that you can look at and
    say this is a better system than we have now. And because the
    way--what we have now, I agree with you, has been terribly
    misused. But I want you to keep that in the back of your head.
    And hopefully we will have some constructive suggestions out of
    it.
        Carl, how would the Outdoor Council interreact with this
    CARA bill if it became a reality? Would you be directing or
    suggesting to the state how the money should be spent, or is
    there a way that you think there would be more hands-on type
    approach? I'm just running this by you because you have been a
    commissioner and now you are in the Outdoor Council position
    and you are part of the users of our lands in this state, over
    a billion dollars, as you mentioned. Just how do you think the
    benefit would be?
        Mr. Rosier. Well, Mr. Chairman, to begin with, I think the
    Outdoor Council certainly tries to work hand in hand with
    ADF&G. We certainly don't always agree, but on the other hand,
    we make every effort to work through the Department of Fish &
    Game. I think we would certainly make an effort to make our
    views known to the department in terms of what we see as
    priorities on this.
        As you know, one of the great concerns that's associated
    with this is kind of the mix that we come up with, the balance
    that we come up with out of this particular program when we
    have the consumptive user versus the nonconsumptive user versus
    ultimately what I consider to be the far right, the animal
    rights people as far as this is concerned. And the protection
    of the--you know, of the sports community that's, in fact,
    utilizing these fish and wildlife resources, we don't want to
    see that undermined. We want to be sure that the personal use
    fisherman, the sports hunter, the users of that wildlife as
    part of a--of the good management program, we want to be sure
    that that's protected as far as the legislation is concerned.
        As I see it, you know, we would certainly--we would
    certainly benefit. I think you have given the opportunity here
    with the public process that you are trying to build into this
    in terms of that involvement of other interests. I think we
    have to be very careful in terms of the--some of the
    definitions. I think, as I read the bill, there is a couple of
    things that are a little soft in my estimation where we talk
    about definition of conservation. We begin to talk about such
    things as necessary or desirable to sustain healthy
    populations. Those are the kind of fuzzy things that get us
    into a little bit of difficulty down the road in terms of
    people's interpretation exactly what they mean.
        Mr. Young. I happen to agree with you. If you have any
    suggestions how we can tighten it up, I'm more than willing to
    have that submitted to us. Most of the time when we write laws,
    we write them so open-ended that there can be a
    misinterpretation or this is what was meant. I know we didn't
    mean to do that, but then the legal beagle is going to get
    involved and we have all kinds of problems.
        Mr. Rosier. I think you made a good step on it here, Mr.
    Chairman, and you will hear from us on these kinds of concerns
    within the bill. But my way of thinking, these are things that
    will be worked out along the way and I'm fairly confident that
    these are not items that are going to jeopardize the bill as
    far as we are concerned.
        Mr. Young. Nelson, you mentioned subsistence, and that is
    an issue that is very hot. And under this program, I think the
    main thing you have to keep in mind is the abundance of game--
    this would be helpful in making sure there is game available
    for whatever use it has to be and not a lack of game. Quite a
    bit of dollars go into the Federal offices fund and the
    legislative branch to make sure that that occurs. Comment, if
    you would like to.
        Mr. Angapak. Mr. Chairman, I think that you put it quite
    broadly. I don't believe any more comments from me will make it
    any more clear. You understand exactly what we mean when we
    talk that, having lived in Fort Yukon and in rural Alaska, you
    know. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Young. I'm not going to argue with you, Steve, at all,
    but I want you to look on the positive side of this bill, what
    it does do. And, you know, my bill funds PILT, for instance,
    which is crucially important. It is, in fact, only Federal
    lands that can be purchased or inholdings within existing
    boundaries. They can't buy land outside of those boundaries.
    And we can make that very clear. It does not preclude the
    states--I will say this: There is some legitimate concern by
    those who don't want any more land taken out of private
    ownership. It does not preclude the states because I will not
    direct the states if they wish to try to pursue that effort
    themselves. And we might be able to tighten that up. And the
    excess of $1 million, that could be discussed. That was a
    figure that we thought would be really the minimum to have to
    come back. You can't buy a lot for a million dollars nowadays,
    and it has to come back to Congress.
        And I want you to know right now the present system isn't
    working correctly for land conservation as far as I'm
    concerned, and it's also being misused for the condemnation of
    private property. So if we work with this as we go through
    this, I'd deeply appreciate it because we are--we have a
    challenge here that I think is badly needed for this country. I
    think we ought to have more private land. I said that up front.
    I don't want to use this vehicle, though, to fight the total
    battle over private and public lands. My ultimate goal is to
    get involved in the fish and wildlife conservation and the
    perpetuation of species instead of decline of species. That to
    me is important after the year 2000. We will work with you.
        I want to thank the panel. Appreciate you being here and
    appreciate your comments. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Dennerlein may be found at
    the end of the hearing.]
        Mr. Young. Now we will have panel three. Ms. Cindy Bailey,
    Director for Local Governmental Affairs, BP Exploration-Alaska;
    Ms. Dorothy Childers, Executive Director, Alaska Marine
    Conservation Council; Mr. Ray Kreig, Anchorage, Alaska; and Mr.
    John Schoen, Executive Director, Alaska Office of the National
    Audubon Society, Anchorage, Alaska.
        We'll go right down the line. You're up, Ms. Bailey.

      STATEMENT OF CINDY BAILEY, DIRECTOR FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL
                     AFFAIRS, BP EXPLORATION-ALASKA

        Ms. Bailey. Good afternoon. My name is Cindy Bailey. I'm
    with BP Exploration. I work as the Director of Local Government
    Affairs with primary responsibility for community relations on
    the North Slope. I'd also like to express my thanks to you for
    this opportunity to be here today and also for having this
    hearing in Alaska.
        I'd like to express congratulations to you, Mr. Chairman,
    for your leadership in developing this bipartisan legislation,
    which will go a long way toward enabling a more equitable
    allocation of revenues from offshore oil and gas development.
    We know that you and your colleagues have worked very hard to
    get to this point, and we are pleased to support this long
    overdue legislation.
        On behalf of BP Exploration, I would like to take this
    opportunity to very briefly comment on Title I, the impact
    assistance provisions of H.R. 701, the Conservation and
    Reinvestment Act of 1999.
        Your legislation creates a mechanism to allocate offshore
    oil and gas revenues to states and local communities. As you
    know, BP Exploration has been operating on the North Slope of
    Alaska for over 20 years, and we hope to continue operating for
    many more years. Our long-term commitment to Alaska is
    demonstrated by our continued investment program and commitment
    to developing a resource base without adverse impact to the
    environment. As you know, we take these responsibilities very
    seriously. We view the people of Alaska and the North Slope
    residents as partners in many of the decisions we make. While
    Alaska does not yet have production from Federal OCS leases on
    the North Slope, we fully expect and hope it will begin when
    Northstar and Liberty become operational after the year 2000.
        To the merits of H.R. 701, Mr. Chairman, you are well aware
    of the immense needs which exist in many of the rural
    communities in Alaska. Many of these communities lack basic
    infrastructure like clean water and sewer systems and safe
    roads on which to travel. Unfortunately, state, local and
    Federal budgets cannot always fully address those needs. That
    is why H.R. 701 is so important. It will provide much needed
    resources and flexibility for the state and local communities
    to deal with these very real problems. Furthermore, this
    legislation will also benefit coastal communities in the Gulf
    of Mexico region where we also operate.
        Finally, there has been discussion about this legislation
    creating incentives for offshore development. And I want to
    state clearly that such statements could not be farther from
    the truth. The fact is, this legislation will in no way provide
    an incentive for BP Exploration or any other company to invest
    in offshore development in Alaska or elsewhere throughout the
    U.S. Our investment decisions are made on environmental and
    economic merits, not on the basis of how Federal revenues will
    be distributed to states and local communities. I hope you will
    share these views with your colleagues who may view this
    differently.
        We stand ready to support you in advancing this legislation
    which will invest Federal OCS revenues to states and local
    communities which play host to offshore operations and
    activity.
        Again, I thank you for this opportunity to present the
    views of BP Exploration before the Committee.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Bailey may be found at the
    end of the hearing.]
        Mr. Young. Thank you for good testimony. Dorothy.

       STATEMENT OF DOROTHY CHILDERS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA
                      MARINE CONSERVATION COUNCIL

        Ms. Childers. Thank you. My name, for the record, is
    Dorothy Childers. I'm the executive director of the Alaska
    Marine Conservation Council. We are a broad-based, community-
    based organization. Our members are over 600 now. They come
    from diverse cultural and economic backgrounds. What we have in
    common is that our livelihoods and ways of life are closely
    tied to coastal and marine resources. Our members include
    commercial fishermen, recreational fishermen, subsistence
    hunters, small business owners, guides, marine biologists,
    fishery observers, parents and tribal leaders. In preparing for
    this hearing, I spoke to one of my members who said to me, ``We
    wouldn't live here and we can't stay here without abundant
    resources. They make us who we are.''
        I would first like to thank you for the important work you
    have done in the past in the protection of Bristol Bay through
    the annual OCS moratorium, and we also want to thank the
    Resources Committee for considering new legislation for funding
    coastal conservation and giving us the opportunity to testify
    today.
        Mr. Chairman, you are well aware of the many changes that
    are occurring in the ocean environment in the north Pacific
    today that are cause for great concern: Seabird die-offs;
    marine mammal and seabird declines; killer whales preying on
    sea otters which was not done before; thinning sea ice, which
    changes the habitat for ice-dependent marine mammals and
    presents dangers for subsistence hunters who travel on ice; new
    algae blooms are taking over large water masses in the Bering
    Sea; and some of our commercially harvested fish stocks are
    lower in abundance at a time when markets are poor and
    fishermen are struggling. In the western Gulf of Alaska, the
    once prized red king crab population collapsed in the early
    '80s. It has yet to show signs of recovery at the same time
    that the bycatch of these crabs goes unchecked. These changes
    in management problems call for a better scientific
    understanding and conservation initiatives to guide long-term
    management of our resources.
        So in looking at these two bills, we find very good
    elements in both of them that we think can help meet some of
    these needs effectively. There are two aspects to the
    legislation that we would like to address. The first is
    dedicated funds for marine conservation, and the second is the
    OCS revenue sharing provisions.
        AMCC believes that OCS legislation would serve our
    communities well by including dedicated funds for the
    conservation of living marine resources and their habitat. For
    this reason, we strongly support the approach taken in H.R.
    798. Title VI of this bill dedicates $300 million for living
    marine resources and their habitat. We realize, Mr. Chairman,
    that your bill H.R. 701 allows for these funds to be spent for
    such purposes, but we believe that OCS legislation should
    include a dedicated permanent fund, if you will, for these
    purposes.
        We think that such a fund would support the state of Alaska
    in the development and execution of plans to meet these
    management challenges both for state managed species and for
    Federal managed species that are deferred to the state. The
    state also has responsibilities related to the essential fish
    habitat and bycatch production requirements in the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act and we think this fund can help support those--
    implementation of those things. We are not suggesting this
    money be used to fund existing Federal programs, but rather to
    complement efforts for which the state is responsible.
        We feel strongly that without some dedicated fund,
    effective implementation of some of the provisions that you,
    Mr. Chairman, championed--and we thank you--in the last
    reauthorization of the Magnuson Act are in some danger of
    slipping through the cracks, because many of these things are
    going unfunded. So we would like to see a portion of the OCS
    funds focused on maintaining marine fisheries and their habitat
    that are important to our communities, and we urge you to look
    at the approach taken in H.R. 798.
        On the OCS revenue sharing, the second area of interest we
    have in this legislation, AMCC supports the intent in both
    bills to share a percentage of revenues from OCS activities
    with coastal states and communities simply as matter of public
    policy. We recommend, however, that the Committee eliminate
    provisions that function as inducements to local governments to
    choose new OCS leasing. Many of our communities have
    longstanding concerns about offshore oil and gas development
    that may affect valuable fishing grounds and traditional
    subsistence hunting areas. Last week was the Exxon Valdez tenth
    anniversary, was a reminder of the risk that we take and the
    values we have to weigh in our communities when faced with
    potential offshore drilling. We appreciate the stated intent of
    your bill, Mr. Chairman, that it shall not function as an
    incentive to new leasing, but we wish to recommend some changes
    to ensure that this intent is clearly met.
        H.R. 701 currently drafted provides for the amount of
    revenue for communities to be tied to the community's proximity
    to new leases. It is our view that offering financial reward in
    this way for new leasing undermines the ability of our
    communities to participate without bias in the OCS decision
    making process. So we recommend that this link be modified to
    provide for the best process at the community level that does
    not place one industry over another. It is up to each of our
    communities to chart our own future course, but to do so the
    various economic options available to our community need to be
    considered on a level playing field.
        So it's my honor to provide my members' views to you, Mr.
    Chairman, and we are happy to work with you further on the
    development of the bills.
        Mr. Young. Thank you, Dorothy, for your testimony. And we
    will take them into deep consideration.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Childers may be found at end
    of hearing.]
        Mr. Young. Mr. Kreig.

               STATEMENT OF RAY KREIG, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA

        Mr. Kreig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Ray Kreig. I came
    to Alaska in 1970. I'm an inholder in four different units. I'm
    chairman of the Kantishna Inholders Association, and I'm
    chairman of the Arkansas Scenic Rivers Landowners Association.
    And today I'm here testifying in an individual capacity,
    however.
        Before proceeding, Mr. Chairman, even though my time before
    you is limited, I want to recognize the three decades' long
    career that you have had in service to the people of Alaska.
    You and your family's roots go deep in our state. You served as
    a boat captain on the mighty rivers of our interior. You know
    the land, and you have used that knowledge to defend the land,
    mining claims, businesses and rights of rural Alaskans that
    have continued to be under siege since the D-2 struggles of the
    '70s. And I thank you. I'm sincere for that.
        What I want to talk to you about today is the
    implementation of ANILCA as a prologue to landowners' future
    under a dedicated off budget land trust. President Carter
    declared national monuments across Alaska in 1979, and the
    conflict raged between those who wanted to lock up as much of
    the state as possible and those who had a more balanced
    perspective that included human habitation and economic
    activity as part of the landscape.
        ANILCA was a grand compromise. No party received everything
    that it wanted, but the deal crafted by Congress incorporated
    guarantees of access and valid existing rights for communities,
    landowners and residents who were enveloped in the new
    conservation system units.
        But Mr. Chairman, as you well know, the intent of Congress
    codified in ANILCA was not followed. Since then you have seen
    how promises made to inholders of the conservation system units
    to preserve our existing rights of access and economic activity
    have been abridged, undermined, and disregarded by the Federal
    Government. You have been a champion for Alaska's rural
    residents, and I think you know very well from this experience
    the difficulties of designing protections in legislation that
    will self execute properly, without unintended consequences, in
    the face of a well-financed and determined bureaucracy working
    with special interest groups that do not agree with the
    objectives embodied in an original legislative compromise.
        Where I'm going with this is that the private property
    protections in H.R. 701 are weak and will be ineffective in
    protecting landowners from these same special interests and
    agencies who really want Congress to give them the unchecked
    condemnation powers under H.R. 798. As long as you supply the
    trust fund money, the ultimate result will be the same as under
    H.R. 798.
        Let me mention just one example of many. Mining. Within
    only seven years of passage of ANILCA, the National Park
    Service acquiesced in a friendly lawsuit filed by environmental
    organizations, and mining in all of Alaska's national parks was
    shut down by injunction. The miners then suffered years of
    flagrant abuse as they were dragged through biased validity
    determinations and ever increasing Park Service demands for
    more and more detailed mining plans of operations, all designed
    to exhaust the resources of claim holders and increase their
    risk and expense, ultimately driving many of them into
    bankruptcy.
        As for my position on the bills, H.R. 798 is similar in
    concept to the massive land acquisition agenda of the American
    Heritage Trust Act of 10 years ago. Both are based on the
    unappropriated trust fund concept, and I don't believe this was
    good public policy in 1988, nor do I believe it is now. It
    should be rejected (as it was by Congress in 1990 after an
    outcry by Americans across the country).
        H.R. 701 has the desirable feature of sharing revenue from
    Outer Continental Shelf leasing funds with affected coastal
    states and communities.
        If enacted and signed into law, Mr. Chairman, you may think
    that H.R. 701 will have the properties of a grand Congressional
    compromise similar to ANILCA. But, also similar to ANILCA there
    will be those powerful interest groups and agencies that will
    not be satisfied with your compromise and that will actively
    start undermining it with confederates in the resource agencies
    the day after it's signed. The trust fund properties of Title
    II will be an open invitation to abuse by those that want to
    thwart and circumvent the will of Congress and you, Mr.
    Chairman, in this legislation. The recent history lessons from
    ANILCA demonstrate that ways have not be perfected to
    effectively manage agencies that are dissatisfied with the
    direction they receive from Congress, and this is going to be
    especially so with funding not subject to annual appropriation
    and review.
        My written comment--I'm running out of time here----will go
    into this in more detail. And I thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kreig may be found at the
    end of the hearing.]
        Mr. Young. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        Mr.--John, you are up next.

      STATEMENT OF JOHN SCHOEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA STATE
                    OFFICE, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY

        Mr. Schoen. Mr. Chairman and Committee staff, thank you for
    the invitation to testify today on H.R. 701 and H.R. 798. My
    name is John Schoen. I am the director of the Alaska Office of
    the National Audubon Society. I've worked as a wildlife
    biologist here in Alaska for over 20 years. Before I get
    started, I want to take this opportunity to thank you on behalf
    of the National Audubon Society for sponsoring the Neotropical
    Migratory Bird Conservation Act. We appreciate that.
        Mr. Chairman, I believe that the concepts embodied in H.R.
    701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, and H.R. 798, the
    Permanent Protection for America's Resources 2000 Act, can
    bring tremendous benefits to conservation programs throughout
    the United States. There are elements of both bills that
    Audubon strongly supports. Each would establish permanent
    funding mechanisms for the purchase of conservation and
    recreation lands, as well as much needed wildlife conservation
    and outdoor recreation programs.
        We are especially pleased to see the cooperation between
    you and Congressman Miller in looking for the common ground
    between your bills. We encourage you to continue working
    constructively together to craft legislation that will
    significantly enhance fish and wildlife conservation and
    outdoor recreation across America.
        As you know, Mr. Chairman, Alaska assembled the largest
    state coalition supporting the original Teaming With Wildlife
    Initiative. Both of these bills include major funding for
    conservation and recreation programs, which were the foundation
    of the Teaming Initiative, and they have enormous potential for
    benefiting Alaska. As a former state wildlife biologist, I know
    how important this funding is for our state.
        For example, there is little funding currently available in
    Alaska for state nongame conservation or wildlife viewing and
    education programs. An investment in these programs will bring
    important conservation, recreation and economic benefits to the
    state of Alaska.
        As you work to refine and improve this legislation, Mr.
    Chairman, the National Audubon Society believes there are four
    principles that need to be adhered to in a final bill. First,
    this legislation should not provide incentives for new OCS oil
    and gas development. Additionally, funding for coastal impact
    assistance should focus on environmental protection and marine
    conservation while avoiding deleterious environmental impacts.
        Second, new funding for state based conservation should be
    substantially focused on nongame species of fish and wildlife.
    Traditionally, most state conservation funding has been
    directed toward the species that are hunted and fished. This
    legislation needs to fill that missing link in our nation's
    wildlife conservation work. We strongly encourage you and your
    Committee to craft a bill that clearly addresses the
    significant funding needs for nongame wildlife conservation,
    wildlife education, and wildlife related education.
        Third, annual funding should be made available on a
    permanent basis and should not be required to go through the
    normal appropriations process.
        And fourth, the Land and Water Conservation Fund should
    receive a minimum of $900 million each year divided equally
    between Federal and stateside programs. We also recommend
    against geographic restrictions placed on expenditure of
    Federal funds.
        The National Audubon Society has previously endorsed H.R.
    798. However, we recognize and appreciate many of the positive
    elements of your bill H.R. 701 and are interested in working
    constructively with you as this legislation is further
    developed and refined.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased and heartened that
    you and Congressman Miller have been working hard to find the
    common ground between your two bills. This is good news for the
    American public and the wildlife and wild lands we all enjoy. I
    firmly believe that by working constructively together, you and
    your Committee will succeed in crafting a truly landmark
    legislation benefiting wildlife conservation and outdoor
    recreation across America.
        Thank you for your work on this significant legislation and
    considering our recommendations.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Schoen may be found at the
    end of the hearing.]
        Mr. Young. Thank you very much, John. Ms. Bailey, in
    Washington, DC we have heard a lot about incentives, and Ms.
    Childers mentioned it, too. But I can't find any incentives in
    the bill. And you have read this legislation. Can you find any
    incentives?
        Ms. Bailey. No, Mr. Chairman, we have not found any
    incentives. And as I stated in my testimony, the cost of
    developing oil and gas reserves are tremendous, and the
    decisions are made on the economics of each project.
        Mr. Young. Okay. And Ms. Childers, there is a relation,
    because you said there was incentives in the bill primarily
    because of the proximity of the production. How could you not
    reward or distribute money according to the proximity of a
    community or village? I mean, what's wrong with that?
        Ms. Childers. Mr. Chairman, my organization supports impact
    aid to communities that are affected by OCS activities. What we
    are concerned about, though, in this bill is how--how the funds
    will be distributed at the lease sale stage, and it's our
    concern that promises of funding at the lease sale stage will
    change how local people in a community and a local government
    participate in the decision making process because they will be
    facing rewards for making a decision that--to accept OCS
    development.
        Mr. Young. The funding in both pieces of legislation are
    directly related to activities already occurred. It is not--
    there is no incentives for any future. It's the--the revenue
    being generated right now primarily in the Gulf of Mexico has
    been put in a general fund. We are saying we want to take that
    money and put it into areas that are impacted by that action.
        Ms. Childers. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Our concerns are not--our
    concerns are strictly about incentives to new leasing around
    our communities.
        Mr. Young. That was your concern, too.
        Ms. Childers. Not with regard to existing activities.
        Mr. Young. All right. That's a fair discussion. Mr. Kreig,
    I happen to agree with you 100 percent on the ANILCA. We wrote
    that bill as well as we could, and I voted against it, and I
    worked against it. It had 90 amendments adopted to it. We never
    intended for the agencies to go beyond the intent of the
    Congress. And I can assure you as we go through this bill we
    are going to try to tighten it so there is a definite goal,
    there is water, land, fish and wildlife conservation and
    promotion. And it's not to be used as a sledgehammer as very
    frankly Kantishna, Glacier Gay, aircraft, things that were
    never intended in ANILCA are now being reinterpreted 20 years
    later by the agencies incorrectly. And that's one of the
    responsibilities I have to face up to that we didn't write it
    tight enough. So I'm going to do everything I can to write it
    tight to make sure this works.
        Mr. Kreig. Well, I think that far more effort had gone into
    ANILCA in trying to put forward a compromise that made it
    possible for economic activity to continue, but as long as the
    funding mechanism is there and the money is supplied, it's
    devilishly difficult to control a situation. And I just think
    that far more work has got to be done in this area. And it may
    be insurmountable (as long as that amount of unreviewed money
    is supplied every year) to try to come up with mechanisms to
    ensure that your intent is carried out.
        Mr. Young. One of the things, again--I will repeat what I'm
    saying. The present system isn't working. And my goal is to get
    the monies from offshore development, nonrenewable resources
    into fish and wildlife conservation. That's the ultimate desire
    that I have. And then of course, allowing the states to make
    decisions on how they would like to spend the money on
    ballparks, whatever they want to do. But my goal personally is
    to make sure that we have species that will not endangered and
    that we have species available for hunting, fishing, whatever
    it may be, and there is no shortage. And I think we have to
    address that.
        I've said all along that our society today is in probably
    greater jeopardy because of urban tyranny than anything else. I
    say that with respect to everybody in this room. The lack of
    knowledge about what this life is all about is created because
    there isn't the availability nor the abundance of actually
    experiencing wildlife. It's not there. And if we don't improve
    that, it becomes worse. People become insensitive. That's why
    they got away with ANILCA regulations. People were insensitive
    to its effect upon individuals and not understanding the intent
    of the law. I'm trying to write legislation to achieve that
    goal. It is difficult. But I do not shirk it because it's
    difficult, because I do think this has to be addressed. I just
    want you to know that.
        Mr. Kreig. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think you have stated
    that very well. There is a couple of questions that are very
    basic, though--Why can't the LWCF funds be freed up to address
    the maintenance backlog to get more flexibility? Why are they
    restricted to the use of land purchases only?
        Mr. Young. I don't think my bill does that. And that's what
    we are going to work--we are going to have maintenance in the
    bill, by the way. That's one of the things that's under H.R.
    798 or whatever it is. We are going to have a maintenance
    provision. We think that is crucial. It was never the intent
    for this bill to be the purchaser of a great body of land. I
    will say, though, you have some inholders that would like to
    sell their land, willing sellers, but there is no money
    available.
        Mr. Kreig. If I might address that, Mr. Chairman, because
    there is this idea that there are a lot of hardships out there
    waiting to be purchased. The trust fund, we feel very strongly,
    is going to create many more new hardship cases than are ever
    bought out, and that the hardships that are there--we feel that
    they are relatively rare--the hardships that are there should
    be bought out through the normal appropriations process. You
    have got the Court of Claims. You have got----
        Mr. Young. It's not happening. It's not happening. That's
    what I'm saying. And it's hard for us to appropriate dollars.
    Again, it goes back to a Congress that does not see the justice
    in appropriating monies to buy someone's private land, ergo
    they have condemned it. That's why I'm trying to rectify that.
    It's a matter of opinion, but I'm trying to solve a problem
    instead of creating a problem. And that's why we have to make
    sure we write it so we see that that happens.
        Mr. Schoen, John, we want to work with you. The Audubon
    Society and I have fought over these years, sometimes on one
    side, sometimes on the other side. But the main thing for
    everybody to understand is we are willing--and I want everybody
    to look at the possibility of drafting legislation that will
    solve most people's concerns, but ultimately achieve the goal
    which I've spoken of, and that is the preservation and
    conservation of species, and for the good of the society. And
    to me that's crucially important.
        Mr. Schoen. If I may, we very much appreciate that. We
    appreciate your hard work, and we see this as a tremendous
    opportunity. We are willing to work quite actively----
        Mr. Young. I will tell you I have to be a little careful
    being complimented about working with Mr. Miller very much.
    What happens when they occur, everybody's eyebrow rises and
    they wonder what kind of devilment are we up to. And the truth
    of the matter is we are trying to achieve a goal. He has to
    give a little. I may have to give a little. And we are going to
    try to do this. But it's going to take a lot of participation
    of people like Mr. Kreig, Ms. Childers, Ms. Bailey--all of you
    have to participate in this program to solve one of the crucial
    things facing society, and that's the lack of awareness about
    real life. You cannot get your direction from that boob tube.
        And the more we become urbanized, the more we are directed
    and the more we are actually brainwashed into thinking in
    certain directions. But if you have access to a fishing pole,
    you have access to a hunting weapon, you have access to
    viewing, you become a self thinker. You are not wedded to that
    what I call propaganda machine that it's becoming now because
    we are not aware of what life is all about. I'm from a rural
    area, and I think I still have my hand on the pulse pretty well
    as far as life goes. This nation as our society as known is in
    direct jeopardy because of the constant concentration of people
    and a lack of accessibility to open spaces and availability to
    participate in fish and wildlife.
        I want to thank the panel. I appreciate you being here. And
    we will continue to work with everybody. I believe that's the
    last of my witnesses.
        And with that we will adjourn this hearing. And it lasted
    two hours. I want you to understand that.
        [Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
     Statement of John Shively, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Natural
                                   Resources

        Mr. Chairman, my name is John Shively. I am the
    Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify on The Conservation
    and Reinvestment Act, H.R. 701. On behalf of the State of
    Alaska, I will testify on Titles I and II of the bill. Wayne
    Regelin, Director of the Division of Wildlife Conservation of
    the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, will provide the
    state's testimony on Title III.
        The State of Alaska strongly supports provisions in this
    bill to increase Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas
    revenues to state and local governments as well as provisions
    to invest in wildlife and land conservation. Alaska's Governor
    Tony Knowles firmly believes that states and local governments
    subjected to the risks of offshore exploration and development
    should also share the revenues collected from those activities.
    This bill reinvests revenue from oil and gas, a nonrenewable
    resource, into renewable resources. It increases revenues to
    states and communities, provides funding for land-based
    conservation and recreation programs, and establishes a
    wildlife-based conservation and education program.
        Under section 8(g) of the OCS Lands Act, 27 percent of the
    Federal revenues received from oil and gas activities in the
    area three to six miles from shore currently return to the
    state. This bill, however, would provide revenue to the state
    and local governments from activities in the entire OCS. The
    distribution of revenues authorized by section 8(g) has been an
    important source of income to states including Alaska.
    Expansion of this revenue sharing provision to the entire OCS
    will ensure that states and localities that receive or could
    receive the impacts of oil and gas activities share the
    benefits. States and localities have not received any of the
    revenues from activities occurring outside the ``8(g)'' zone.
        Increased revenues to state and local governments will
    provide much-needed funds to plan for upcoming OCS development
    proposals, ensure adequate reviews of proposed developments
    continue, and provide research funds to answer important
    questions about the effects of oil and gas development. In
    addition, these funds will help states and communities respond
    to increased needs for infrastructure resulting from oil and
    gas activities, maintain adequate response equipment and
    readiness, and mitigate for other environmental, social and
    infrastructure impacts of OCS activities.
        We are aware of opposition to this bill by some groups
    because of the perception that it will provide incentives for
    states and local governments to support OCS oil and gas
    development. For Alaska, this legislation would clearly provide
    additional revenues to the state and local governments, but
    rather than providing an incentive for OCS development, it
    would provide a more equitable distribution of the revenues to
    those who face the impacts and risks of development. The State
    of Alaska, local governments, and the people of Alaska will
    continue to demand adequate environmental protection for all
    OCS exploration and development proposals. These protections
    include careful consideration of subsistence resources and
    uses, substantive efforts to prevent oil spills, state-of-the-
    art leak detection for pipelines and storage tanks, adequate
    capabilities to respond to an oil spill, prevention of habitat
    damage, adequate control of air contaminants, and proper
    disposal of wastes. Receiving funds from OCS leasing to help
    address these issues seems logical to us.
        My testimony begins with a brief history of efforts to
    expand the distribution of OCS revenues to state and local
    governments. It continues with a description of impacts facing
    states and localities. Then I will present the State of
    Alaska's specific comments on Titles I and II followed by
    concluding remarks.

    History

        Since the first lease sales in the OCS, states and local
    governments have consistently requested a greater share of OCS
    revenues. For Alaska, the first OCS sale occurred in 1979 with
    the joint Federal-state Beaufort Sea Sale.
        During the early years of OCS leasing, states focussed
    their energy on retaining the right to review Federal offshore
    lease sales for consistency with state coastal management
    programs. Congress substantiated the rights of states to review
    OCS lease sales in 1990 with the reauthorization of the Federal
    Coastal Zone Management Act.
        Also in 1990, a presidential declaration required
    preparation of a legislative initiative to provide a greater
    share of revenues to communities directly affected by OCS
    development. In response to this declaration, the Department of
    the Interior submitted an impact assistance proposal to the
    102nd Congress. Congress has considered several proposals to
    increase OCS revenue sharing, but none of these bills have been
    passed into law.
        The OCS Policy Committee, a committee of state and private
    members that advises the Secretary of the Interior on OCS
    matters, supported increased revenue sharing with states and
    local communities. The October 1993 report of the OCS Policy
    Committee's Subcommittee on OCS Legislation: The Outer
    Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Program: Moving Beyond Conflict
    to Consensus outlines the Committee's revenue sharing
    recommendations. The OCS Policy Committee includes a
    representative from the State of Alaska as well as
    representatives from other coastal states.
        The OCS Policy Committee continued its support for revenue
    sharing after it approved the 1997 Coastal Impact Assistance
    report to the OCS Policy Committee from the Coastal Impact
    Assistance Working Group. Many of the recommendations in that
    report are reflected in the bill before the Committee today.

    Impacts Facing State and Local Governments

        States and communities adjacent to OCS oil and gas
    activities receive many types of impacts both large and small.
    While OCS oil and gas development can provide substantial
    benefits to Alaskans, these benefits do not come without costs.
        During construction, increased demand for infrastructure
    and services occurs throughout the state. An influx of workers
    to an area results in increased demand for facilities and
    municipal services such as housing, schools, roads, water and
    sewer facilities, recreational facilities, and health services.
    Private businesses in local communities and larger urban
    centers that are dependent on oil money, such as restaurants
    and support business, would be affected when construction
    ceases or when fields decline.
        Facilities solely within the OCS, such as production
    islands, escape taxation because they are outside state and
    municipal boundaries. As related onshore facilities age, income
    to communities decreases as depreciation of those facilities
    reduces the local tax base.
        Perhaps one of the most serious impacts of offshore oil and
    gas development is the threat of an oil spill. Proper planning
    and vigilant oversight by Federal and state regulators will
    prevent a major oil spill from occurring. Although the ability
    to prevent and respond to oil spills has greatly improved in
    recent years, the threat of oil spills continues to be an
    important issue for many Alaskans.
        State and local governments need to play active roles in
    oversight of exploration and development activities to minimize
    the likelihood of a major oil spill.
        Other environmental effects of OCS development include
    increased air pollution, short-term water quality problems,
    possible displacement of fish and wildlife, and alteration of
    habitat. Pipelines and associated roads can cover large
    distances and result in impacts from traffic and access to
    areas previously inaccessible.
        A sometimes-overlooked effect of OCS development relates to
    government oversight and monitoring. Local and state
    governments must work closely with applicants during the
    planning process for the development. Once project applications
    have been submitted, government agencies must complete rigorous
    reviews of project proposals. Throughout the life of the
    project, local and state government staff provide oversight and
    monitoring. Even a revenue sharing program will require hiring
    of trained staff to oversee the program.
        Some cultural concerns about OCS oil and gas development
    exist in Alaska. OCS activities could have cultural effects by
    temporarily disrupting subsistence activities or bringing
    additional pressure on fish and wildlife resources because of
    non-local harvesters. Inadvertent damage to cultural, historic
    or archaeological sites could occur including exposure of sites
    that will require further protection.
        Obviously revenue sharing funds could assist the state and
    local governments in mitigating these concerns. This support is
    important because these governments are the front line troops
    in dealing with these risks and opportunities.

    Title I: Impact Assistance

        This title of the bill provides a remedy for a long-
    standing inequity in distribution of OCS revenues. It increases
    current revenue sharing provisions for activities occurring in
    the area three to six miles from shore to the entire OCS. Other
    than revenues received under the ``8(g)'' provisions of the OCS
    Lands Act, state and local governments have few means to
    recover costs of OCS activities other than taxation of shore-
    based facilities. The State of Alaska supports the intent of
    the bill and many of its provisions.
        Considering the wide diversity of needs in Alaska and the
    various types of environmental, social and economic impacts
    facing the people of the state, the State of Alaska supports
    increasing the revenue sharing provisions for oil and gas
    activities in the OCS. We appreciate the flexibility in the
    bill that would enable communities to use the funds for
    purposes that best suit their needs.
        Revenues received from states and local governments from
    this provision could be used to plan for OCS development,
    review proposed developments, complete research to answer
    pertinent questions, and conduct monitoring. Funds could be
    used to improve oil spill response equipment and training and
    improve much needed community services or facilities. For
    example, in his recent comments on the offshore Northstar
    Development Project, Kaktovik Mayor Lon Sonsalla identified a
    number of facilities for his community in the North Slope
    Borough that could be improved using impact assistance funds.
    He noted the need for expansion of the community center and
    improvements to school facilities. These kinds of basic
    facilities could be funded through the revenue sharing
    provisions of the bill.
        Because of the immense size of the State of Alaska and the
    wide geographic areas affected by oil and gas transportation
    systems, many communities either experience or could experience
    impacts from OCS leasing. For the foreseeable future, OCS
    developments in Alaska would likely tie into existing pipeline
    and marine transportation systems in Cook Inlet or in the North
    Slope. Existing oil and gas transportation systems in Alaska
    include pipelines located in and around Cook Inlet, pipelines
    on the North Slope including the network of pipelines from the
    Alpine Development Project to the east to the Badami
    Development in the west, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, and
    tanker travel out of Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet.
        The State of Alaska may submit more specific comments about
    the revenue sharing provisions of the bill in the near future.
    Because of Alaska's unique circumstances, we hope to work with
    you and the Committee staff to devise appropriate means to
    identify and target communities impacted by OCS oil and gas
    development.

    Title II: Land and Water Conservation

        The State of Alaska supports this title of the bill and has
    no major concern over provisions within this title. The Land
    and Water Conservation Act funds such programs as state and
    local parks, green space expansion and park facilities for
    urban and nonurban areas. It also provides funds for
    acquisition of lands and waters for the National Park System,
    National Wildlife Refuge System, and other land conservation
    units. We support this stable and predictable funding program.
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund Stateside Program has
    provided $28,138,463 to the State of Alaska since the program
    began in 1965. Half of the funds have been granted to 44 local
    Alaskan municipalities and villages and half have been invested
    into 44 different units of the Alaska State Park system. A
    total of 450 different grants were made between 1965 and 1995,
    the last year there was money distributed to the state for this
    program. A number of examples of the uses of these funds
    illustrate how important they are to the State of Alaska.

             Chester Creek Park and Greenbelt in Anchorage:
            $1,272,127 for land acquisition for the trail through town,
            tennis courts, a hockey and softball complex, a picnic area,
            and a playground.
             Eaglecrest Recreation Area in Juneau: $743,698 for a
            ski lift, the lodge, a warming hut, trail construction, and
            facilities such as the maintenance buildings.
             Alaskaland in Fairbanks: $400,000 for the marina and
            theme park.
             Klawock Ballfield: $64,900 for construction of the
            ballfield.
             City of Old Harbor/Glacier View Park: $45,056 for
            playground, basketball/volleyball court, picnic area, and
            parking.
             City of Nondalton Community Park: $61,391 for
            playground, ballfield, picnic area, and a shelter.
             Chugach State Park: $2,352,260 for trails, restrooms,
            parking, campgrounds, water wells, and land acquisition.
        We note that the State of Alaska has in place a granting procedure
    to administer this program including staff already trained in the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund stateside granting process. Therefore, no
    start-up time is needed to get the funds distributed to municipalities
    and villages. The state has just completed its Statewide Comprehensive
    Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) as required by existing Land and Water
    Conservation Fund regulations. We appreciate the provisions within the
    bill that allow these plans to stand for five years until a new state
    action plan is developed.
        The state appreciates concerns about possible effects of the bill
    to private property rights. Congressman Young recognizes concerns about
    possible abuse of this purchasing authority by Federal agencies by
    including four controls in the bill. First, no lands can be taken
    through condemnation--there must be a willing seller before lands may
    be purchased. Second, two-thirds of the Federal Land and Water
    Conservation Fund money must be spent east of the 100th meridian.
    Third, any expenditure for Federal land acquisition over one million
    dollars must have approval of the Resources Committee. Lastly, no
    Federal purchase outside of CSUs may be made without congressional
    authorization.
        The state supports a provision for funding historic preservation
    projects through the National Historic Preservation Act. This program
    has historically been funded through OCS revenues. We support continued
    use of these revenues to support historic preservation projects and
    respectfully suggest this provision be added to H.R. 701.
        Alaska has historically not been eligible for Urban Parks funding.
    Its population has grown so that it would now be eligible, but funding
    possibilities are extremely low as the program is targeted for inner-
    city blight and redevelopment on the eastern seaboard. Therefore, H.R.
    701, which bases 20 percent of the funding on the ratio of a state's
    acreage to the total U.S. acreage, would benefit Alaska.

    Conclusion

        In conclusion, the State of Alaska strongly supports this
    legislation. It is only right that the people who receive the impacts
    and risks of OCS oil and gas development also receive an adequate share
    of the rewards. This bill recognizes the importance of providing
    revenue to both state and local governments. Revenues passed through to
    state and local governments could be used for a wide variety of uses
    that would improve the standard of life for Alaska's residents and
    respond to environmental and economic impacts of OCS development.
        We view this legislation not as an incentive to OCS development,
    but as a more equitable distribution of revenues to the people who
    receive the impacts of OCS oil and gas development. Increased revenues
    to the State of Alaska and local governments will not diminish the
    interest of the residents of Alaska to ``do it right.'' We will
    continue our vigilance to ensure that oil and gas development provides
    the maximum benefits to the economy with the least amount of negative
    environmental, social, and economic impacts.
        The State of Alaska supports provisions in the bill to promote
    land-based conservation and recreation programs such as the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund and the urban parks. Also, we support
    provisions in the bill to establish a wildlife-based conservation and
    education program.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony on Titles I and Il of
    H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. As I stated
    previously, Wayne Regelin of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
    will provide the State of Alaska's testimony on Title III of the bill.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this important
    legislation. I am prepared at this time to answer any questions the
    Committee may have on my testimony.
                                     ______

          Statement of Wayne Regelin, Director, Division of Wildlife
                Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Wayne Regelin.
    I am the Director of the Alaska Division of Wildlife Conservation.
        It is a great pleasure to express strong support for H.R. 701 and
    to thank you for your foresight and leadership in introducing this
    landmark legislation.
        I commend you for recognizing the need for greater funding for
    state wildlife management programs. You realize the benefits of
    increasing our knowledge about all wildlife species and recognize the
    need for wildlife education programs that give a balanced message to
    the public, especially to children.
        It is gratifying to see the bipartisan support this bill has
    generated. The large number of congressmen cosponsoring the bill is
    impressive, but it is more impressive to see that the cosponsors are
    divided among Republicans and Democrats.
        Many Alaskans recognize the need for this bill. We have a broad
    coalition of over 400 groups, including businesses, sportsmen's groups,
    environmental organizations, Native associations, and many cities and
    boroughs that supported the concepts in the old Teaming with Wildlife
    initiative. Only 2 or 3 of these groups dropped their support when the
    funding sources changed from an excise tax to offshore oil revenue.
        I will focus my comments on Title III of your bill because it
    provides the greatest benefit to wildlife management, but I do
    recognize that Titles I and II will also benefit wildlife users.
        Title III will provide funds to all 50 states plus our territories
    that can be used for:

        1. management of all wildlife species.
        2. wildlife education and
        3. wild life-related outdoor recreation.
        In Alaska, this funding will provide substantial economic benefit
    in several ways.
        Knowledge about wildlife species can prevent them from being listed
    as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Often
    groups petition the FWS to list a species that is not hunted because
    the population status and distribution is not well known or is unknown.
    This bill will provide funding to make sure this does not occur and
    reduce the tremendous economic and social disruption that an ESA
    listing causes.
        In Alaska over 1 million tourists visit each summer and one of
    their priorities is to see wildlife, especially moose and bears. This
    bill will provide funds that will allow us to develop a watchable
    wildlife program to increase viewing opportunities and keep the
    tourists coming. We will build new trails and other types of access
    that can be used by wildlife watchers in the summer and hunters in the
    fall. Wildlife viewing can be done in ways that are compatible with
    hunting through time and space planning and zoning.
        Additional millions of dollars can be generated if tourists add
    only one day to their Alaska vacation. We will develop a watchable
    wildlife program, second to none, that will attract more tourists and
    keep them in Alaska longer.
        It is vital to the long-term continuation of hunting, trapping and
    effective wildlife management that we effectively educate the public
    about wildlife management.
        This bill will provide the funds for the states to develop
    effective educational programs that have a balanced message about the
    benefits of wildlife management and sustainable use of all of our
    natural resources. In Alaska we have plans to work with all of the
    local school districts to provide such a program to students.
        I know that Congressman Miller has introduced H.R. 798 that
    contains some elements in H.R. 701. H.R. 798 omits several elements
    that concern me and other wildlife agencies throughout the U.S.
        H.R. 798 would create an entire new bureaucracy to provide far less
    funding for wildlife management. I see no need to create another
    expensive bureaucracy to distribute funds to states when the existing
    Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration program can easily accomplish the
    job at little additional cost.
        H.R. 798 would not provide any funding for wildlife education or
    wildlife-related recreation such as wildlife viewing programs. Funding
    for both of these uses is essential. Also, it is unlikely to gain
    enough support to pass Congress without some form of impact assistance
    related to offshore drilling.
        In conclusion, I want to reiterate the State of Alaska's strong
    support for H.R. 701. Thank you
                                     ______

     Statement of Hon. Robin Taylor, Alaska State Senate, Wrangell, Alaska
        Good Morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the House Resources
    Committee. My name is Robin Taylor and I am here testifying today on
    behalf of State Senate President Drue Pearce and the Alaska State
    Senate and Alaska State House Speaker Brian Porter and the Alaska State
    House. I am a member of the Alaska State Senate from Wrangell, Alaska
    and serve as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
        I am here today to talk specifically about the impacts of offshore
    oil and gas development activities on Alaska and its coastal
    communities and provide comments on H.R. 701 and H.R. 798--both of
    which deal with the sharing of Outer Continental Shelf revenues. I want
    to begin, however, by expressing my appreciation to Chairman Young and
    the Committee for holding this field hearing in Alaska.
        Since we have been provided only a brief period for our oral
    presentation, I will summarize our testimony. I do request, however,
    that the entire written testimony be entered into the hearing record.

    Introduction

        As you will gather from this testimony, the Alaska Legislature is
    fully supportive of the concept of revenue sharing from Federal
    resource development within or adjacent to our state. That principal is
    embodied in our statehood Act in recognition of anticipated challenges
    in maintaining viable economies in our fledgling state. Quite frankly,
    the challenges are equally as great today considering that our state is
    still struggling to establish many of the basic amenities taken for
    granted in the lower 49 states. We are a state rich in resource, much
    of which are still untapped, unavailable or economically nonviable. We
    suffer from expensive transportation costs, the lack of basic
    infrastructures, near third world living conditions in many rural
    communities and an uncle that is loving us to death.
        We are concerned, however, that the strings attached and the
    potential disadvantages associated with the proposed revenue sharing
    programs could eventually outweigh the benefits. It is difficult for
    us, for instance, to enthusiastically embrace the concept in any
    program which is designed to transfer significant amounts of private
    lands in Alaska into Federal ownership--regardless of the benefits.
    Over 50 percent of our state is already owned by Uncle Sam and the vast
    majority of it contributes very little to the economy of our state and
    that which it used to contribute is dwindling rapidly.
        Mr. Chairman, put simply, we are not interested in expanding the
    amount of Federal land ownership in Alaska. We are not interested in
    giving the Secretary of Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture more
    authority and influence over our lives and the economy of our state. We
    are sympathetic to the cries of abuse by inholders who have been
    harassed unmercifully by the Federal agencies in pursuit of their own
    agendas. It should be no surprise that the Legislature is unalterably
    opposed to continued or expanded authorities of the Federal agencies
    which rob us of our Constitutional and statutory rights to manage our
    own resources, claim title to our statehood grant of lands and waters
    and provide basic services and benefits to our state citizens.
        We are interested in pursuing, however, the true partnership with
    the Federal Government that was envisioned when Alaska became a state
    in 1959. It was our dream that the vast majority of Federal lands in
    Alaska would contribute to the viability of our economies rather than
    provide roadblocks designed to hinder reasonable economic growth. It
    was our dream that this partnership would provide the residents in
    remote areas of our state the same basic life services enjoyed and
    taken for granted everywhere else in America.
        It is our hope that we can still fulfill that dream and one of the
    mechanisms is to encourage the sound and orderly development of some
    portion of the Federal lands and resources in our state and provide
    some form of consistent revenue flow to the state to compensate for the
    associated impacts and to share in any economic benefits. Mr. Chairman,
    we believe that it was this philosophy that you wished to present in
    any proposed OCS revenue sharing bill. With that in mind, we have
    prepared some suggestions that we hope the Committee will seriously
    consider as these bills proceed.

    Background

        For the last three decades Alaska has been one of the primary
    sources of this country's domestic energy supply. It is no secret that
    the oil and gas industry has brought many benefits to Alaska. At the
    same time, however, it has also created responsibilities and burdens
    which have economic costs throughout the State.
        Alaska is also one of the several states which has active Federal
    Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas development taking place off
    its shores. More importantly, the level of production from Federal OCS
    oil and gas leases in Alaska is likely to increase significantly as new
    development is brought on line. Hundreds of millions of dollars in
    revenues will be produced from Federal OCS development in Alaska. Yet
    unlike Federal onshore activities, Alaska and the individual
    communities which are most proximate to Federal OCS development will
    receive no direct benefits from it even while we shoulder the burdens
    and responsibilities that arises from development.
        As in the case of onshore development, Federal OCS activities are
    major industrial undertakings which inevitably impact the State and
    particularly the communities nearest to them. Federal OCS oil and gas
    activities place increased demands on infrastructures, such as roads,
    ports, airports and not just those in the immediate area. Anchorage,
    our largest city, which is itself a coastal community, feels such
    affects from activities all over the State. In Alaska, much OCS-related
    equipment and facilities must come through the Port of Anchorage
    whether it is destined for the nearby waters of Cook Inlet or those
    much further north. The Anchorage and Fairbanks airports both
    experience significantly higher traffic, both cargo and passengers, as
    a direct results of onshore development and offshore activities will
    bring further increases. Federal OCS activities also place increased
    demands on local public services, such as fire protection, search and
    rescue, and law enforcement, as well as the utility systems of nearby
    communities, such as Barrow, Kaktovik, Kodiak and communities around
    Cook Inlet. Equally important are the increased environmental
    monitoring and regulatory functions that must be performed by the State
    and local governments. Under the current Federal system, however, we
    derive no direct economic benefits from Federal OCS oil and gas
    development to assist us in dealing with the impacts which these same
    activities create.
        Not only is this unfair, it is also at odds with the historical
    practice and policy in the United States of allowing affected states
    and communities to share in the benefits of the development of
    federally-owned resources. The Alaska Statehood Act and, in other
    states, the Mineral Leasing Act, provide that we are entitled to
    receive a significant portion of the revenues derived from Federal oil
    and gas leases on lands within our boundaries. This policy exists both
    as a matter of fairness and in recognition of the very real impacts
    which such activities create. Similarly the Federal payments in lieu of
    taxes or PILT program seeks to account for the economic impacts of
    Federal lands on the local tax base. But the rules suddenly and
    inexplicably change when those very same Federal activities occur right
    off our shores. That, we believe you'll agree, is simply not right and
    makes no sense.
        Nevertheless, this is not simply a matter of sharing the wealth,
    but also about addressing very real needs. As I mentioned earlier, many
    of the smaller coastal communities in Alaska are struggling under what
    can best be described as third world conditions. Most are still trying
    to address basic community needs like education and water and sewer
    service. Many of the residents in these villages exist below the
    poverty line and are forced to rely on subsistence activities for
    survival. I have included as an exhibit to our written testimony a
    chart with income and poverty information for some of our coastal
    communities. The social and cultural problems that accompany poverty
    are often rampant. Money will not solve all of these problems. But
    providing some form of OCS community impact assistance will help
    improve the quality of life for such communities and their residents.
        Allowing Alaska and other coastal states to share in the economic
    benefits of Federal OCS development will also assist us in addressing
    other important needs and functions. As a coastal state Alaska has an
    extensive Coastal Zone Management Plan and Program which is concerned
    not just with OCS oil and gas activities but all activities which
    impact the coastal environment. Federal OCS revenues would better
    enable Alaska and its communities to implement adequate monitoring and
    planning programs. The monitoring and collection of data regarding
    marine species and habitat could be significantly expanded. Local
    communities would be able to participate more fully and address their
    concerns in the extensive Federal and state environmental planning
    process which precedes OCS development.
        With this in mind, Mr. Chairman, we offer the following specific
    comments on H.R. 701 and H.R. 798.

    General Comments

        From the perspective of the Alaska Legislature, the general
    approach in H.R. 701 is much preferred over what is in H.R. 798. The
    legislation sponsored by Representative Miller does not recognize the
    need for impact assistance funding--an essential component of any
    revenue sharing concept. H.R. 798 places more emphasis on Federal land
    purchases and environmental protection than on balancing those with
    legitimate human needs of the coastal states. We are seriously
    concerned about the long term economic impacts of the programs being
    promoted in his legislation. For those reasons, our suggested changes
    will be focused on the legislation sponsored by the Chairman.
        From our perspective no OCS revenue sharing bill is acceptable
    unless all funds are subject to legislative appropriation just as now
    exits for onshore oil and gas revenue sharing, Land and Water
    Conservation Funds expenditures and Pittman/Robertson programs. It is
    imperative that such vast amounts of money be subjected to full public
    review and planning processes and legislative prioritization. Bypassing
    the legislative appropriation process in favor of unilateral and
    politically motivated actions by either the Federal or State
    Administrations would violate the intent of our Constitution and create
    major fiscal conflicts. Any other method of allocating funds would be
    inappropriate. We insist that this requirement be incorporated into all
    three titles in H.R. 701.
        The ``no net loss'' conversion program will strike the Alaska
    public as a bad idea. I refer you to our introductory comments about
    the excessive Federal ownership in our state. Perhaps a more palatable
    approach would be to establish a ``no net loss'' policy favoring
    private land ownership in Alaska.

    Title I

        The qualification formula for distributing OCS revenues to local
    communities is not clear to us. It appears that very few coastal
    communities in Alaska could qualify and we don't believe that this was
    the intent of the sponsors. Given the wide ranging effects of OCS
    development across Alaska, we would recommend that the community
    qualification criteria be as broad as possible.
        The term ``political subdivisions'' needs to be more clearly
    defined. For example, under the terms of the present legislation, the
    Secretary(s) may have authority to designate any existing or yet to be
    established governmental entity as a qualified ``political
    subdivision'' of the state regardless of what has been established in
    state law. We strongly urge the Committee to require that any eligible
    ``political subdivision'' must be specifically recognized in state
    statute.
        The purposes and use of the revenue sharing funds should be broad.
    Although we agree that some of the funds could and should be used for
    planning and mitigating environmental concerns, we strongly recommend
    that providing basic public services and infrastructures should be a
    primary goal of these shared revenues. Certainly, providing public
    education, water, sewers, roads, airports and public protection should
    be justifiable uses of these funds.
        We also recommend that any fiscal planning processes incorporated
    into this proposal be subject to legislative approval. It is
    inconceivable that large sums of Federal funds would be allocated based
    on administrative planning processes without full public disclosure and
    legislative concurrence.
        We also object to the provision that allows the Secretary to
    unilaterally approve or disapprove plans that have been rejected
    through the normal state process.

    Title II

        Provisions in this title providing for the acquisition of private
    inholdings within Federal management units are frightening. As we have
    mentioned earlier, we are opposed to an expansion of Federal land
    ownership in Alaska. We would favor a provision which states that no
    additional Federal lands could be purchased in states where over 50
    percent of the state land mass is already owned by the Federal
    Government.
        We are aware that there is some interest amongst Native
    Corporations to sell and the Federal agencies to buy some inholdings
    within Conservation Units in Alaska. Since some of the Native land
    selections were mandated by the provisions of the Native Claims
    Settlement Act rather than being selected for its economic values, it
    is understandable that some Native stockholders would wish to sell
    lands that have national interest values but provide little or no
    profit to the Corporate shareholders. We would recommend that serious
    consideration be given to land exchanges in those instances or the sale
    of Federal holdings elsewhere to maintain at least the existing
    proportion of Federal, state and private lands.
        We are uncomfortable with the provision in Section 203 which
    permits local governments to transfer funds to local non-profit
    organizations without strict criteria being applied as to the use of
    those funds. Formal accountability procedures must be applied as are
    required presently under state law.
        It is imperative that this legislation clearly prohibit
    condemnation of private lands and provide for only purchases from
    willing sellers at fair market value.
        Serious consideration should also be given to using some of these
    funds to compensate inholders who do not wish to sell their lands yet
    suffer the loss of land and resource values due to restrictive
    regulations of the adjacent Federal land manager.

    Title III

        Since this Title creates a subaccount in the Pittman/Robertson
    account for distribution to the states, we strongly recommend that
    every effort be made to clearly establish that provision applying to
    this subaccount do not apply to the other portion of the account
    dealing with excise taxes on sporting goods and ammunition.
        The legislature would strongly recommend that Section 307 be
    eliminated. This provision unnecessarily restricts the appropriation
    prerogatives of the legislature. Although it is not anticipated that
    new funds will only replace funding from other sources, the legislature
    must retain some authority to prioritize use of public funds. The
    existing restrictions on use of Pittman/Robertson funds already protect
    those associated Federal and state matching monies from abuse.

    Conclusion

        In closing let me emphasize that the Legislature and the citizens
    of Alaska overwhelmingly support responsible OCS development. Alaska
    has been blessed with a wealth of natural resources and their orderly
    development is a crucial element in our economy. At the same time,
    however, it is important that the United States recognize the necessity
    and equity of allowing Alaska and other coastal states to share
    directly in the benefits of the developing OCS resources so as to
    better enable them to deal with the very real impacts and
    responsibilities which they create.
        Most of our suggestions are designed to encourage the concept of
    revenue sharing with the states while at the same time enhancing the
    public benefits by integrating these Federal monies into the planning
    and appropriation processes already in place in our state.
        Thank you again Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for the
    opportunity to appear here to express the Legislature's concerns and
    offer constructive suggestions.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.010

    Statement of Carl L. Rosier, Retired Commissioner, Alaska Department of
             Fish and Game and Alaska Outdoor Council Board Member
        Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the House Committee on
    Resources. My name is Carl L. Rosier and I am here today testifying on
    behalf of Alaska fish and wildlife resources as a retired Commissioner
    of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game that has been involved with
    management and development of those resources since 1955. In
    retirement, I am also a Board member of the Alaska Outdoor Council. The
    AOC is an umbrella organization representing a diverse group of sport
    and recreation clubs that number 47 and have a membership of
    approximately 12,000 individuals. I am representing the views of AOC in
    my testimony today.
        Before beginning, I would like tu express my appreciation to
    Chairman Young and the Committee for holding this field hearing in
    Alaska and inviting me to testify.
        I have carefully reviewed both H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 and I strongly
    prefer the approach in H.R. 701. It appears to me that endangered
    species are dealt with after listing in H.R. 798 rather than
    encouraging action before listing occurs. It also seems that absence of
    an impact assistance program within H.R. 798 conflicts somewhat with
    the basic concept of sharing OCS funds. Further H.R. 701 appears to
    give considerably more flexibility to the States and their political
    sub-divisions to design needed programs and identify priorities. H.R.
    798 appears to be a top down Federal approach with substantially more
    Federal agency involvement. For the above reasons my comments are being
    confined to H.R. 701 and due to my wildlife back-ground largely Title
    III.
        It is my view that H.R. 701 is ``land mark'' legislation that
    promotes a wildlife legacy for all citizens for many years to come. The
    sponsors of this bill can truly be proud of their efforts as this bill
    provides for increasing and stabilizing funding for wildlife, fish,
    land and water conservation programs.
        Further, H.R. 701 builds on the long term financial support states
    have received for many years from hunters and fishermen and utilizes
    the successful distribution system of the existing Federal Aid in
    Wildlife Restoration program to minimize costs.
        Provision of H.R. 701 that enable States to initiate preventative
    measures early on to address needs and habitat requirements of
    declining fish and wildlife species that may be listed under Endangered
    Species are exceedingly important. This ability to develop information
    about a species, especially non-game species, will help tremendously in
    avoiding listing and design of recovery programs if listing occurs.
    Non-game funding is tough dollars to come by in today's climate of
    tight budgets at all level of government.
        With today's increased urbanization of our population and shrinking
    wildlife habitat the need for providing good balanced public education
    and outreach programs regarding fish and wildlife is exceptionally
    important. Public understanding of management programs to avoid the
    emotional ballot box approach to wildlife issues is essential to
    responsible resource stewardship, H.R. 701 goes a long way toward
    bolstering available funding in this critical area.
        As our population grows, maintenance and creation of access to
    lands and water is critical to the use and enjoyment of fish and
    wildlife resources. H.R. 701 provisions that finally fund the State
    side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund program is a welcome
    provision. This will help insure the improvement of public access to
    areas used by hunters, anglers and other outdoor interests.
        There are numerous other positives within H.R. 701 but those listed
    above are the primary reasons for our support of this bill today.
        At this time, with the bill draft before us there are several
    specific changes we would recommend to H.R. 701  In Title III Section
    301, Findings paragraph (2)(7) and (8) the use of ``fish and wildlife''
    rather than just ``wildlife'' insures equal consideration for all
    species. We make the same comment on Section 302 paragraph (1).
        Title III Section 303(d), we are concerned with the definition of
    ``Conservation'' being somewhat vague. It is suggested that wording be
    inserted in lines 13, 14, and 15 that read ``methods and procedures
    necessary to restore, sustain, and enhance wildlife populations
    including.'' Further, in (d) paragraph, line 20 and 21 insert ``as well
    as the historical harvest levels of individuals within a wildlife
    stock,'' etc. Finally in (d) paragraph the definition of wildlife
    conservation education be enlarged to read on line 21 ``resource
    stewardship among consumptive and non-consumptive users.'' Your
    consideration of these preliminary proposed changes is appreciated.
        Alaskans have a strong commitment to sustainable use of the states
    fish and wildlife resources. Over 75 percent of Alaska voters in a
    statewide poll indicated a preference for eating wild game. A study by
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicated that Alaskans spent $1.7
    billion in 1996 to participate in wildlife related activities. In
    addition, I believe the Committee has been supplied with the statistics
    on support from Alaska business, organizations, individuals and elected
    officials for increased funding for wildlife under the Teaming With
    Wildlife proposals of recent times.
        Congressman, I believe you have a winner here and I am sure the
    wildlife I speak for today will appreciate the additional management
    support provided by H.R. 701. We look forward to working with you as
    the bill proceeds through Congress.
        Thank you!
                                     ______

    Statement of Steven C. Borell, P.E., Executive Director, Alaska Miners
                                  Association
        Thank you Mr Chairman.
        My name is Steve Borell, I am the Executive Director of the Alaska
    Miners Association and I am testifying on behalf of the Association.

    Regarding H.R. 798, Permanent Protection for America's Resources 2000
    Act

        We cannot support this bill. This bill is not in the best interest
    of American business, the mining industry, private property owners, or
    the general public. This bill expends large sums of money for purchase
    of private lands and does not provide monies to states and communities
    that can better determine how the funds should be spent. The
    expenditures proposed by this bill should not be allowed. We oppose
    this bill.

    Regarding H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act

        We support the primary goal of this bill which is to pass revenues
    from off shore leasing to the states and local communities where the
    revenues are generated. Local states and communities are better able to
    properly allocate and use these funds and will do so with significantly
    less administrative overhead than will Federal agencies.
        We do have concerns with this bill and these are with Title II.
    Specifically, we are concerned with any program that gives Federal
    agencies additional funds to purchase private property. We recognize
    that the H.R. 701 contains some restrictions and limitations, for
    example, on the amount that can be expended without Congressional
    approval. However, this does not assuage our concerns.
        Alaskan miners are possibly the single group of U.S. citizens most
    severely impacted by Federal agencies intent on obtaining and
    controlling private property. Being an inholder within national parks,
    preserves, refuges, monuments, wild & scenic rivers, etc. has been a
    terrible problem for many miners in this state. Many Alaskan mining
    families have lost their equipment, their property, their life savings,
    and their livelihoods because the passage of ANILCA in 1980 made them
    inholders. ANILCA contained all manner of promises for access and
    protection of valid existing rights. With 18 plus years of experience
    we can say that those promises have not been honored by the Federal
    agencies and that the relentless efforts of the agencies to control the
    property have made a sham of the promises. Additionally, harassment by
    the agencies reduces the value of the property so the owner has no
    viable alternative but to settle at a greatly discounted amount.
        On several occasions Senator Stevens ensured that funds were
    appropriated to allow the National Park Service to purchase the mining
    claims held by miners at Kantishna. Furthermore, if my memory is
    correct, on at least three occasions Senator Stevens or Senator
    Murkowski wrote specific legislation that would provide relief for
    Kantishna area inholders. About five years ago, while he was Ranking
    Minority Member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
    Senator Murkowski presided over a hearing of that Committee held here
    in Anchorage on the problems faced by inholders and their treatment.
    However, even with all this effort, I am aware of only four instances
    where Kantishna inholders have actually been compensated for their
    property. I am aware of many others, who because of agency delays and
    harassment (both deliberate and incidental) have lost everything they
    had. These are some of the most bitter and hurt Alaskans you would ever
    have the opportunity to meet. Many of them died before receiving any
    compensation or even a small measure of Justice. Money has been
    appropriated but the National Park Service has been unable and/or
    unwilling, to settle with the affected persons at a reasonable value.

    Our Opposition to Title II Purchase of Private Land

        It is with this background that we cannot support Title II of H.R.
    701 as currently drafted. We urge that Title II be removed from the
    bill or changed significantly. This Title provides funds for the
    Federal Government to purchase private land. There are some instances
    where this is appropriate but those are exceptions and should be dealt
    with on a case by case basis. Our concerns with Title II include the
    following:

        1. Title II creates a dedicated fund that can be used for purchase
    of private property by government agencies. This fund will become an
    ``entitlement'' and once an entitlement is established it becomes
    nearly impossible to change it. Agencies will set up new programs to
    administer and spend the money, lease new office space, and hire new
    employees, all of which establishes new dependencies on the continued
    receipt and perpetual increase in the amount of money needed.
        2. This dedicated fund will be off-budget and as a result, not
    subject to annual Congressional authorization and oversight. Such
    oversight now occurs during the debate over each appropriations bill.
    All expenditures must be weighed against other needs of the nation.
    Even where there is annual oversight, there are numerous instances
    where government agencies have strayed from the intent of Congress.
    When this happens Congress has an extremely difficult task getting the
    agencies back under control. Examples of this problem, even with annual
    Congressional oversight through the appropriations process, can be
    found in every land management agency in the Department of Interior.
    Moneys for purchase of private lands must continue to be tightly
    controlled and be subject to the annual Congressional appropriations
    and oversight process.
        3. The availability of huge amounts of money for purchase of
    private lands will provide a tremendous motivation for government
    agencies to use the money to buy more private land than is necessary.
    This will place private property owners at jeopardy. Where private
    lands are inholdings within Federal conservation system units, agencies
    are able to withhold issuance of various permits or require outrageous
    amounts of money as ``mitigation,'' thereby rendering the private land
    of little value and forcing the owner to sell his property for a song.
        4. The existence of a trust fund to purchase inholdings will become
    an argument to support new Congressionally designated parks, refuges,
    etc.
        5. As written the funds can also be used to purchase private land
    within the boundaries of National Forests. National Forest boundaries
    often encompass huge areas of private land. Every mining claim and
    operating mine will become a target for purchase by the U.S. Forest
    Service. Farms, ranches, resorts, homes, small towns, and private land
    around towns will be placed in jeopardy.
        6. The availability of huge amounts of money for purchase of
    private lands will provide a tremendous motivation for government
    agencies to find new ways to use the money. The Exxon Valdez oil spill
    (EVOS) settlement moneys are a recent example of how large amounts can
    be misspent. EVOS monies have been used to purchase several hundred
    thousand of acres of private land in a state with little private land
    to begin with and place them into restricted set-asides. These lands
    could have been productive. They could have provided on-going revenue
    for their owners, jobs and economic benefit to their communities and
    taxes to local and State governments. But no, the EVOS funds have been
    used to separate the Native peoples from their lands and their
    heritage. The affected Natives have been given promises of continued
    use for subsistence and other traditional uses. However, we have no
    confidence that 18 years from now these promises will have any more
    weight than the promises in ANILCA for protection of valid existing
    rights. Glacier Bay provides an example where the fishermen are being
    driven out of the area simply because the National Park Service does
    not want them there.
        7. These funds will place Native allotments in jeopardy. There are
    now several thousand Native allotments that are inholdings within
    Federal set-asides. Title II funds will be used to place tremendous
    additional pressure for these landowners to sell their property. Access
    and other restrictions can easily make these lands nearly unusable by
    their owners. If a large source of funds is readily available, the
    danger of increased restrictions and pressure on individual Native
    allotment holders is sure to accelerate. The cancerous efforts of the
    Federal agencies to buy up Native allotments is ongoing but a new fund
    of money will be established to remove remaining allotment holders.
        8. Just as EVOS lands have been used to separate lands in Prince
    William Sound from the Native owners, Title II moneys will be used to
    purchase Native Village lands all across the State of Alaska.
        9. Even though ANILCA says ``no more'' parks and preserves, this
    Title II will provide money to do just that--add more land to parks,
    refuges and other set-asides in Alaska.
        10. The compensation for communities and states through PILT
    (payment in lieu of taxes) will not benefit Alaska. Most of the PILT
    lands in Alaska are in the unincorporated borough and/or have not been
    developed so there is no property tax history for them. They do not
    contain taxable businesses, facilities, homes, etc. These lands are not
    presently on the tax rolls. With Federal purchase, they will never
    provide any tax revenues to state or local communities. PILT will not
    be paid either. Native lands under ANCSA are not taxed until they are
    developed and if I am correct, Native allotments are not taxed unless a
    business is developed on them.
        11. Of Alaska's total 365 million acres, approximately 215 million
    acres are already federally owned and will never provide a tax base for
    local and state governments. This fact was the basis of former Governor
    Walter Hickel's $30 billion suit against the Federal Government. There
    is no justification for the Federal Government to own any additional
    land in Alaska. In fact, the Federal Government should be selling land.
        12. The Federal Government can make better use of this money than
    by purchasing private property. If this is not the case, reduce the
    royalty charged on OCS oil & gas production and increase our Nation's
    scarce domestic reserves of oil and gas. Additional tax revenues
    generated may well exceed the lost royalty revenue.

    Our Recommendations Regarding Title II:

        We have sought to show why we cannot support H.R. 701 as now
    drafted. If we have not convinced you to remove Title II in total, then
    we urge that major changes be made to it. There are four changes that
    need to be made and without these Title II cannot be made acceptable to
    Alaska miners:

            1. Require a hard cap on the national acreage of land owned by
            the Federal Government that is the same as the acreage
            presently owned. This will ensure that there is ``no net loss
            of private land'' for the nation.
            2. Require that, in states where Federal land ownership exceeds
            some threshold (possibly 10 percent), for every acre of private
            land purchased, not less than one acre of Federal land be sold
            into private hands. This will ensure that there is ``no net
            loss of private land'' on a state by state basis. Additionally,
            a standard should be included for determining valuation so the
            reduction in value brought about by agency harassment of
            inholders will not be effective in reducing property values.
            3. Extend the prohibition on Federal agency use of condemnation
            so it applies to state and local governments. This prohibition
            must apply to funds obtained under any part of the bill.
            4. Remove in total the provision allowing U.S. Forest Service
            inholdings to be purchased under this bill.
        Other changes that should be made include:

            5. Require that any purchases of more than $250,000 or 5,000
            acres be approved by Congress through the appropriations
            process and agreed to by the legislature of the affected state.
            6. Include a prohibition on the purchase of any additional
            private land within a county, parish or borough where
            government (Federal plus state plus local) ownership already
            exceeds 20 percent of the total land area.
            7. Include a prohibition on the purchase of any additional
            private waterfront footage within a county, parish or borough
            where government (Federal plus state plus local) ownership
            already exceeds 20 percent of the total waterfront footage.
            8. Include a prohibition on the purchase of any private land in
            Alaska.
            9. Provide a guarantee that any lands purchased under this law
            remain open to hunting, fishing and trapping.
            10. With all the needs that exist across the nation, there is
            no justification to spend funds strictly on land acquisition or
            recreational purposes. Each state should be allowed to spend
            these funds on maintenance or capital improvements if it feels
            these needs are greater.

    Other Changes Needed to H.R. 701.

        There are other important issues in this Act that we feel need to
    be changed and these include the following:

        13. The definition of ``coastal population'' references the Coastal
    Zone Management Program (CZMP) and thereby requires that a state have
    an approved CZMP before it can receive monies under the Act.
        14. The definition of ``coastal population'' will lead states to
    increase the area covered by their CZMPs so they include more people
    and thereby increase their allocation of funds. The rules for defining
    CZMP areas are not clear and there are major differences between CZMPs.
    In some locations the coastal zone is limited to the area of tidal or
    salt water interface. In other locations (in Alaska) CZMPs extend
    several hundred miles inland.
        Recommendation: The definition of ``coastal population'' needs to
    be changed to separate it from the CZMP. For example, the inland extent
    could be specified as extending a set number of miles, say 20 miles,
    from the ``coastline'' which is clearly defined in the Submerged Lands
    Act (43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.).
        15. Section 105 forces the Federal Government, the states, and the
    local political subdivisions to establish a new bureaucratic agency to
    develop, review, approve, oversee, update, etc. the state plans.
        Recommendation: Allow the states and local political subdivisions
    to determine how the monies will be used and eliminate these agencies.
    Utilize self-policing by allowing the local political subdivisions to
    use the superior court to settle differences with their respective
    states.
        16. The paragraph numbering in Section 202(d)(2) regarding allowed
    uses of monies given to Tribes and Alaska Native Village Corporations
    does not appear to correspond with the referenced paragraphs.
        15. State Action Agendas now require approval of the Federal
    Government. The Federal Government is already involved and controls too
    many activities that should be strictly the purview of the states.
        Recommendation: Remove the phrase ``Federal agencies'' from the
    list of participants required for development of the State Action
    Agendas.
        17. The 4 year update cycle required for State Action Agendas is
    too short. As with the triennial reviews required by the Clean Water
    Act, opposition by environmental groups will result in litigation that
    lengthens the time to carry out such updates.
        Recommendation: Extend the planning horizon to 10 years, require an
    update cycle of every 8 years, and allow updates at shorter intervals.
        18. Federal agencies often find creative ways to divert funds into
    ``Initiatives'' that are not authorized by Congress. A recent example
    is the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
        Recommendation: Include specific language that no funds from this
    Act can be used as a part of any initiative or other activity that is
    not authorized by Congress.

    Further General Recommendation: That the entire Act be studied with the
    specific goal and view of removing Federal control and involvement
    wherever possible.
        19. Section 205 involving the Habitat Resource Program contains a
    potential trap for land owners that may jeopardize future use of the
    land. What happens if at the end of the agreement period the Federal
    agency decides that the land must not return to its pre-agreement use
    because of threatened or endangered species?
         Recommendation: Include a guarantee that the property owner may
    return the property to other uses once the agreement period is
    completed.
        20. The findings in Section 301 (5) and (6) should be changed to
    read ``hunting, [and] fishing and trapping'' and ``hunters, [and]
    anglers and trappers'' respectively.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 798 and H.R. 701.
    It should be clear from our comments on H.R. 701 that we are very
    concerned with some portions of this Act. We look forward to continued
    involvement in these Acts.
                                     ______

     Statement of Chip Dennerlein, Director, Alaska Regional Office of the
         National Parks and Conservation Association, Anchorage, Alaska
        Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, my name is Chip
    Dennerlein. I am the Alaska Regional Director for the National Parks
    and Conservation Association (NPCA). I appreciate the opportunity to
    present the views of NPCA regarding the ``Conservation and Reinvestment
    Act of 1999'' (H.R. 798) and the ``Permanent Protection for America's
    Resources 2000 Act'' (H.R. 701). NPCA is America's only private non-
    profit organization dedicated solely to protecting, preserving and
    enhancing the U.S. National Park System.

    The Vital Importance and Legacy of LWCF

        To begin, NPCA wishes to acknowledge and applaud the Committee's
    interest in revitalizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
    LWCF has served as one of the cornerstones of our nation's conservation
    efforts at the Federal, state and local levels. Since its inception,
    LWCF has been directly responsible for the acquisition of nearly seven
    million acres of public park land, wildlife refuges and open space.
    Through the provision of state matching grants, LWCF has made possible
    more than 37,000 state park and recreation projects, including
    thousands of projects that have contributed to the quality of life of
    families in communities throughout America. If the Committee were to
    spend even a day outside this hearing room to enjoy some of the many
    wonderful outdoor opportunities which Anchorage has to offer, the
    significant contributions which LWCF has made to the lives of those who
    live and work in Alaska's largest city, and to the experiences of those
    who visit Alaska, would be everywhere in evidence.
        Chugach State Park, a magnificent half million acre park of
    mountains, alpine tundra, forested valleys and streams at the city's
    edge, provides habitat for many species of wildlife, including moose,
    bear, Dail sheep and wolves; and a variety of winter and summer
    recreation for more than one million visitors each year. During the
    early 1970s, LWCF provided crucial support for the state's fledgling
    park system. Much of the land included within the legislated boundaries
    of the park at the time of its creation was already public land, but
    key land along lower hillsides and valleys was not. Today, some of the
    park's primary access sites, most widely used winter ski and summer
    hiking trails, and most important winter habitats for wildlife are
    preserved and enjoyed because of LWCF. Anchorage's renowned greenbelts
    which extend along Chester and Campbell Creeks, protecting riparian
    habitats, enabling an extensive bicycle and ski trail system, and
    linking a system of neighborhood pocket parks and recreation facilities
    would not likely have been possible without the partnership of LWCF. My
    family and I currently reside adjacent to downtown. We can walk,
    bicycle or cross-country ski to the University, numerous play fields,
    nearly to my downtown office, across town to visit my mother or my
    sister's family, or up into Chugach State Park. The family of three
    moose that visited our backyard last week can do the same. This is a
    magnificent legacy, which will become even more valuable over time as
    Anchorage grows.
        LWCF has also helped make possible open space along the waterfront
    at Seward, the headquarters of Kenai Fjords National Park, as well as
    open space trails and access which link southeast Alaska communities
    such as Ketchikan with National Forest lands. Alaska is a excellent
    example of the value of LWCF--precisely because of its vast size and
    the existing amount of public lands and open space. Numbers can be
    deceiving. Size does not always tell the true story. In parks or
    refuges just as in commercial real estate, the rules can be location,
    location and location. The value of a thousand acres--for people or
    wildlife--can depend on the fate of ten acres. Even in a frontier state
    of vast reserves and undeveloped land, one often finds that the most
    critical parcel for conservation or access, whether along a shoreline
    or at the confluence of a stream and river, is privately owned. In many
    cases throughout the west and in Alaska, these were some of the
    earliest sites to be homesteaded or sold. The paradox is that even in
    Alaska, the future protection and enjoyment of some of our most
    valuable natural resources--from national parks to neighborhood
    playgrounds--has and will continue to depend on our ability to acquire
    ownership or conservation easements on critical parcels of private
    land.

        The Urgent Need to Revitalize LWCF

        Unfortunately, during the early 1980s, policies and actions by
    Administration officials and others dealt serious blows to the LWCF
    program. This could not have happened at a worse time. Eighty percent
    of everything ever built in America has been built since 1950. The past
    two decades have seen tremendous growth. Much of this growth has been
    economically beneficial, but it has all too often been accompanied by
    environmentally damaging losses of open space and wildlife habitat, and
    by socially damaging losses of local outdoor recreation opportunities,
    or the ability to protect the integrity of our national and state parks
    and refuges. Current trends in national demographics, continuing
    increases in natural and cultural tourism and travel, and expanding
    commercial and residential development in many park adjacent (gateway)
    communities clearly demonstrate the critical need for a comprehensive,
    sustainable program to support the conservation of open space and
    habitat at the national, state and local levels. We have not kept pace.
    And in the case of LWCF, one of our most important tools, we have both
    slipped and failed to recover.
        A decade ago, the Federal budgets for the Departments of Justice
    and Interior were roughly the same. Today, the Department of Justice's
    budget is three times that of Interior's, and the Federal Government
    budgets five times more for people to maintain and operate our prisons
    than for those who maintain and protect our national parks. Directly
    pertinent to the issue at hand, America now spends three times more
    money annually on prison construction than we do on park acquisition.
    At the same time, our nation faces a $10 billion backlog in Federal
    land acquisition. We risk the loss of areas critical to the
    conservation of wetlands, watersheds and wildlife habitat, the loss of
    integrity of our existing parks and refuges, and an inability to
    protect historic and cultural sites, or provide trails and other
    outdoor recreation. Such sobering statistics should do more than give
    us pause. They should compel all of us to find appropriate means to
    increase our national investment in programs which offer a brighter
    social and environmental vision for America's future.
        Citizens in individual states and communities across the country
    have already demonstrated the willingness to do their part. In the last
    election, voters approved nearly two hundred ballot initiatives aimed
    at protecting open space. These significant actions also send a
    significant message. The challenges we face today are more complex than
    ever before. Increasingly, Whether in business or conservation, we
    increasingly discover that only through partnerships can we achieve
    success. Despite the encouraging success of recent ballot initiatives,
    without a strong commitment and partnership on the part of the Federal
    Government, Federal and state land managers, communities and individual
    citizens cannot raise the full investment needed to meet the many
    urgent and growing needs. Moreover, many of our most important
    challenges, such as conserving habitats for migratory species or
    protecting natural and cultural resources of national significance,
    extend beyond local and state boundaries and ballot initiatives. To
    insure both the future quality of our communities and our national
    treasures, we must increase our investment in conservation as a whole
    people. Fully funding LWCF is one of the best ways to invest. It is
    time for Congress to act. NPCA applauds the Committee's leadership in
    revitalizing the LWCF.

    Some Key Principles for Success

        To achieve the conservation goals set forth in the proposed bills,
    NPCA believes it is critical that any final legislation address the
    following issues.
        Currently, H.R. 701 requires that: (1) two thirds of Federal land
    acquisition dollars be spent east of the 100th meridian; (2) Federal
    share funds be used to purchase land only within existing National
    Park, National Forest, or National Wildlife Refuge boundaries; and (3)
    Congress approve any Federal acquisition which exceeds $1 million. NPCA
    strongly opposes inclusion of these or similar provisions which would
    serve to constrain the use and effectiveness of LWCF funds for Federal
    land acquisition based on arbitrary requirements that do not match real
    conservation challenges and needs.
        Many areas in the west are experiencing some of the nation's most
    dramatic population growth. This phenomenon is especially acute in
    certain counties and communities adjacent to national park units. If
    the twenty individual counties which surround Yellowstone were all
    located within a single state of the Union, rather than in three
    separate states, that new state would have been one of the nation's
    fastest growing states for the past five years running. The political
    subdivisions fall within three states, but the counties, states,
    national forest and Yellowstone National Park share a geography and
    conservation challenges of local and national significance. Washington
    County in southern Utah encompasses Zion National Park. Several years
    ago, Washington was the second fastest growing county in the state.
    Last year it was first. Katmai National Park and Preserve in Alaska is
    one of the few places in the world where people can observe brown bears
    fishing for salmon. A significant percentage of all the photos and film
    footage that people the world over have seen of bears feeding on
    jumping salmon come from Brooks River. Last year, through the efforts
    of Senator Stevens, the National Park Service was able to use a special
    appropriation to purchase a large private parcel which was located on a
    critical stretch of the river, and included one of the two major bear
    viewing sites. There are many more examples throughout the west and it
    would be tragic for Congress to restrict the use of LWCF funds for some
    of the most important national conservation acquisitions.
        The acquisition of inholdings within existing national conservation
    system units is a logical priority, for park and public land managers
    as well as Congress. But to limit acquisition to such parcels could
    thwart the very ability of LWCF funds to protect the resources values,
    wildlife and public enjoyment of the parks and refuges. As our
    knowledge of conservation biology and individual species has grown, we
    have discovered instances where protection of a key parcel of habitat
    outside a refuge boundary is crucial to the continued health value or
    even viability of a species which the original refuge was established
    to protect. This can be particularly true in the case of migratory
    species such as birds. The protection of critical wildlife corridors,
    which enable species to move between existing park boundaries and the
    boundaries of other Federal or state reserves, has become increasingly
    important. The corridors are especially needed in cases where adjacent
    private lands which long served as adequate travel corridors for
    wildlife face conversion from agricultural or low density residential
    use to more intensive subdivision and development incompatible with the
    needs of wildlife. Just last year, Rocky Mountain National Park
    acquired a critical ranch property outside the park boundary. The long
    time owners were ready to sell, the corridor was crucial for movement
    of elk to lowland habitat, and the property would have been slated for
    development as part of the fast growth along the front range of the
    Colorado Rockies. Moreover, the pressures of increased visitation and
    overcrowding at many national parks can sometimes be most effectively
    solved by acquisition of adjacent lands outside the park boundaries, to
    provide additional service or staging areas for new means of access
    such as transit or shuttle systems which can provide opportunity for
    existing (or sometimes greater) numbers of visitors to access the park,
    while protecting park resources and values. The problem in Zion is not
    that two million people visit each year, but that they visit in one
    million cars. Today, Zion is developing a shuttle system in partnership
    with the adjacent community of Springdale. Federal investment, in both
    transportation systems and sites may be needed for the cooperative plan
    to succeed. Congress must not foreclose these sorts of options.
        The requirement for specific Congressional approval of any Federal
    acquisition exceeding $1 million is not simply burdensome, but
    potentially defeating. The cost of acquisitions today, especially of
    key parcels in prime development areas near parks and refuges makes
    such a limit unrealistic. Moreover, the pace of change and development
    in today's world requires that managers have the ability to act in a
    timely manner, often in the face of competition. Existing Federal law
    and policy provides a number of safeguards against abuse. In today's
    world, it is virtually impossible to imagine any major Federal
    conservation acquisition which would not be the subject of analysis in
    an approved Land Protection Plan, public review and media attention. I
    have been involved in a number of acquisitions over the years at the
    local, state and Federal levels. I can not think of a single instance
    in which a major acquisition was accomplished without public knowledge,
    or the opportunity for legislative oversight if controversy arose. Far
    more common is the complaint from property owners and willing sellers
    that the Federal acquisition process is already far too cumbersome and
    lengthy. Adding a Congressional approval provision, such as the one in
    H.R. 701, would make it even more difficult for public managers and
    private landowners to do reasonable business in a timely manner.

    The Relationship of LWCF Legislation to OCS

        NPCA believes it is appropriate to utilize revenues from offshore
    oil and gas development to fund LWCF, but that it would be
    inappropriate and damaging national conservation policy to utilize LWCF
    as a means to encourage or promote an expanded OCS program.
        It is a sound policy that when a decision is made to develop a non-
    renewable natural resource, a substantial portion of the receipts
    gained be reinvested in the protection of irreplaceable natural
    resources. It is not sound policy that the potential receipt of funds
    for resource conservation be employed as an incentive or tool to open
    additional coastal and marine areas to industrial development, the
    environmental impacts of which could easily exceed any of the benefits
    from increased conservation funding. Such a policy could result not
    only in a ``zero sum game'' for the protection of locally and
    nationally significant environmental resources, but a net loss, which
    could ultimately prove a tragic reversal of the legislation's
    fundamental purposes and goals. While, the current version of H.R. 701
    demonstrates improvement in addressing this serious concern, the bill
    does not adequately sever the link between conservation funding and
    incentives for additional offshore leasing and drilling. Several
    provisions operate to encourage additional development, including
    providing majority funding to states which expand OCS development, and
    weakening the ability of coastal communities to oppose or significantly
    effect OCS development. NPCA strongly opposes these provisions. NPCA
    supports legislation that contains no incentives for additional
    offshore oil and gas leasing, exploration, or development. NPCA
    believes such decisions should continue to be guided and governed by
    existing law, policy and procedures.
        An additional objection regarding H.R. 701 concerns the bill's
    guidelines and process for expenditure of OCS impact aid. NPCA believes
    the bill's language as currently written could enable impact aid
    recipients to utilize the funds for additional industrial development,
    including construction of oil and gas pipelines and offshore pumping
    stations. Apparently, at least some state and local officials share
    NPCA's interpretation. A recently published article in the Peninsula
    Clarion, the newspaper for the Kenai Peninsula, reported the interest
    of local area officials in using potential impact aid funds to finance
    construction of a major new deep water industrial port facility on the
    western shore of Cook Inlet. NPCA has serious concern that the LWCF
    formula funding and the OCS impact aid provisions in H.R. 701 could
    combine to create a double-barreled impact on sensitive coastal and
    marine resources, by both encouraging and funding additional coastal
    development. It would be even a greater irony if legislation whose
    principle purpose was to provide sustainable funding for the protection
    of environmental resources, was used to not only to encourage resource
    development, but also to provide an additional source of funds for
    further development. NPCA urges the Committee to carefully review the
    proposed bills and craft language, which is certain to avoid such a
    result.

    In Closing

        In addition to the comments presented above, NPCA is member of
    ``Americans For Our Heritage and Recreation,'' a broad coalition of
    environmental, conservation and outdoor recreation organizations
    concerned with the revitalization of LWCF and other heritage and
    conservation funding programs. The coalition's position on a number of
    aspects of both H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 has been expressed previously in
    writing. To reiterate a few of the central points in that
    correspondence, NPCA strongly supports full funding for LWCF, as well
    as a revived and adequately funded Urban Park and Recreation Recovery
    (UPARR) program.
        In closing, NPCA again thanks the Chairman and Committee members
    for opportunity to testify on these important pieces of legislation. At
    present, NPCA has endorsed H.R. 798. We have strong objection to
    certain provisions in H.R. 701. We applaud the sponsors of both bills
    for their interest and efforts in working to develop national
    legislation which can provide a sustainable, critically needed funding
    base for local, state and national conservation. We urge the sponsors
    to continue to work together to address the concerns which NPCA and
    other conservationists have raised. We hope the Committee will be able
    to bring forward a revised bill which can be supported by the original
    sponsors of both H.R. 701 and H.R. 798, and all in Congress who are
    truly committed to investing in and protecting America's natural and
    cultural heritage. NPCA looks forward to supporting such a bill. We
    believe it would be a great and lasting legacy for current and future
    generations. Thank you.

                   William H. (Chip) Dennerlein, Alaska (AK)
        Regional director since 1993, Chip focuses on issues affecting more
    than 53 million acres of national parklands in Alaska including
    transportation and access, tourism, and cooperation with the state of
    Alaska and Alaska Natives--to preserve the wilderness character and
    wildlife of the Alaska parks, while seeking appropriate opportunities
    for people to experience these magnificent areas. Before joining NPCA,
    Chip was a special assistant in the Alaska Department of Natural
    Resources, director of Alaska State Parks, Executive Manager for the
    municipality of Anchorage, and a private natural resources management
    consultant. Chip has written and spoken on park and public land issues
    for several universities, and has worked with the park systems of
    Canada and Australia. He currently serves on a board which oversees
    planning and development of trails and recreation facilities in state
    transportation projects, and is an advisor to the Exxon Valdez Oil
    Spill Trustees and a member of the National Park System Advisory Board.
    Chip is married to Catherine (Bucky) Dennerlein. They have one
    daughter.
                                     ______

               Statement of Cindy Bailey, BP Exploration (Alaska)
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
        My name is Cindy Bailey with BP Exploration (Alaska). I am the
    Director of Local Government Affairs with primary responsibility for
    community relations on the North Slope.
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you here today and
    thank you for bringing this hearing to Alaska.
        Congratulations Mr. Chairman on developing bipartisan legislation
    which will go a long way toward enabling a more equitable allocation of
    revenues from offshore oil and gas development. We know you and your
    colleagues have worked hard to get to this point and we are pleased to
    support this long overdue legislation.
        On behalf of BP Exploration, I would like to take the opportunity
    to comment briefly on Title I, the Impact Assistance provisions, of
    H.R. 701--the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999.
        Your legislation creates a mechanism to allocate offshore oil and
    gas revenues to states and local communities. As you know, BP
    Exploration has been operating on the North Slope of Alaska for over 20
    years and we fully expect to be here for many more years. Our long-term
    commitment to Alaska is demonstrated by our continued investment
    program and commitment to developing the resource base without in
    adverse impact to the environment--as you know we take these
    responsibilities very seriously. We view the people of Alaska and North
    Slope residents as our partners. While Alaska does not yet have
    production from Federal OCS leases on the North Slope, we fully expect
    it will begin when Northstar and Liberty become operational after 2000.
        To the merits of H.R. 701. Mr. Chairman, you are well aware of the
    immense needs which exist in many rural communities throughout Alaska.
    Many of these communities lack basic infrastructure, clean water and
    sewer systems, and safe roads on which to travel. Unfortunately, state,
    local and Federal budgets cannot always fully address those needs. That
    is why H.R. 701 is so important. It will provide much needed resources
    and flexibility for the state and local communities to deal with these
    very real priorities. Furthermore, this legislation will also benefit
    coastal communities in the Gulf of Mexico region where we also operate.
        Finally, there has been discussion about this legislation creating
    incentives for offshore development. I want to state very clearly that
    such statements could not be farther, from the truth. Fact is, this
    legislation will in no way provide an incentive for BP Exploration or
    any other company, to invest in offshore developments in Alaska or
    elsewhere throughout the U.S. Our investments dccisions are made on
    environmental and economic merits, not on the basis of how Federal
    revenues will be distributed to states and local communities. I hope
    you will share these views with your colleagues who may view this
    differently.
        Mr. Chairman we stand ready to support you in advancing this
    legislation which will reinvest Federal OCS revenues to states and
    local communities who play host to offshore activity.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of BP
    Exploration before the Committee.
                                     ______

       Statement of Dorothy Childers, Executive Director, Alaska Marine
                              Conservation Council
        Good morning Mr. Chairman. My name is Dorothy Childers. I am the
    executive director of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council, a broad-
    based community organization of over 600 Alaskans, most of whom live
    and work in coastal communities. Thank you for this opportunity to
    testify today on H.R. 701 and H.R. 798, two bills before the Resources
    Committee to use Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas revenues to
    serve conservation and coastal communities. We would first like to
    thank you for the important past work you have done for the protection
    of Bristol Bay through the annual OCS moratorium. With regard to these
    two new bills, we find very good elements in both.
        Our members come from diverse cultural and economic backgrounds.
    What we have in common is that our livelihoods and ways of life are
    closely tied to coastal and marine resources. Our members include
    commercial fishermen and recreational fishermen, subsistence hunters
    and fishermen, small business owners, guides, marine biologists,
    fishery observers, parents, and tribal leaders. In preparing for this
    hearing, one fisherman said to me, ``We wouldn't live here and we won't
    be able to stay without abundant resources. They make us who we are.''
    Although the personal interests in marine resources may vary, we share
    a dependence on and commitment to healthy marine ecosystems.
        We want to thank the House Resources Committee for considering new
    legislation for funding coastal conservation. America's coastal
    environment is in need of careful attention. In Alaska we are
    witnessing disturbing changes in the environment that are cause for
    great concern: coastal people are observing huge seabird die-offs;
    certain marine mammal and seabird populations have declined
    dramatically; killer whales appear to have increased in the Aleutian
    Islands and are preying on new species such as sea otters; sea ice is
    thinner changing the habitat for ice-dependent marine mammals and
    presenting dangers for subsistence hunters who travel on ice; many
    commercially harvested fish stocks are dropping in abundance at a time
    when markets are poor and fishermen are struggling; new algae blooms
    are taking over large water masses. In the western Gulf of Alaska, the
    once prized red king crab population collapsed in the early 1980s and
    has yet to show signs of recovery at the same time that bycatch of
    these crabs goes unchecked. These changes call for better scientific
    understanding and long-term initiatives to guide management of our
    resources. For these reasons we believe dependable funding for ocean
    conservation plans is badly needed and we want to work with you to
    shape legislation that will accomplish this goal most effectively.
        There are two aspects to the legislation before you that we want to
    address: Dedicated funds for marine conservation and OCS revenue
    sharing.

    1. Dedicated Funds For Marine Conservation

        AMCC believes any OCS legislation would serve our communities
    better by including dedicated funds for the conservation of living
    marine resources and marine habitat. We strongly support the approach
    taken in H.R. 798. Title VI of this bill, Living Marine Resources
    Conservation, Restoration and Management Assistance, dedicates $300
    million for living marine resources and marine habitat. Mr. Chairman,
    although H.R. 701 allows for funds to be spent for such marine
    conservation purposes, we believe any OCS legislation should include a
    provision that establishes a dedicated permanent fund.
        Such a fund would support the State of Alaska in the development
    and execution of plans to meet these challenges for state managed
    species (such as Gulf of Alaska crab that are in dire need of recovery)
    and for federally-managed species that are deferred to the State (such
    as Bering Sea crab, scallops and salmon). The State also has
    responsibilities related to the essential fish habitat and bycatch
    reduction requirements in the Magnuson- Stevens Act that this fund
    could help support. We are not suggesting this money be used to fund
    existing Federal programs, but rather to support complimentary efforts
    for which the State is responsible.
        Without some dedicated support, effective implementation of these
    important conservation provisions you championed in the 1996
    reauthorization of the Magnuson Act are in some danger of slipping
    through the cracks as a result of so much needed work going unfunded.
    These marine fisheries are what have sustained our coastal communities
    for many years and we should focus available OCS funds on maintaining
    them.
        Our communities and the future of our fisheries will bear the
    burden if conservation needs are not met. We see the approach taken in
    Title VI of H.R. 798 as a way to improve and strengthen our fisheries
    and the ecosystem they need to thrive.

    2. OCS Revenue Sharing

        We support the intent in both bills to share a percentage of
    revenues from OCS activities with coastal states and communities as a
    matter of public policy. We recommend, however, that the Committee
    eliminate provisions that function as inducements to local governments
    to choose new OCS leasing. Many of our communities have longstanding
    concerns about offshore oil and gas development in and near valuable
    fishing grounds and traditional subsistence hunting areas. Last week
    Alaskans recognized the 10th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill,
    a constant reminder of the risks we take and the values we have to
    weigh in our own communities when faced with potential offshore oil and
    gas development. We appreciate the stated intent of H.R. 701 that the
    bill not function as an incentive to new leasing and wish to recommend
    some changes to ensure that this intent is clearly met.
        As H.R. 701 is currently drafted, communities within lease sale
    areas will be eligible for lease sale monies and bonus bids before
    actual drilling occurs. The amount of revenue for communities is tied
    to the community's proximity to new leases. We believe local
    communities should receive assistance when impacts occur from OCS
    activities. However, offering financial reward for new leasing
    undermines the ability of coastal communities to participate in the OCS
    decision-making process without bias. We recommend this link be
    modified to provide for a better process at the community level that
    does not place one industry over another. Mr. Chairman, it is very
    important that each community consider economic growth that is
    compatible with our fisheries of today and the recovery of fisheries
    that are in trouble. The various economic options need to be considered
    on a level playing field.
        We appreciate that H.R. 701 does not directly link revenues to new
    leases in OCS moratoria areas, such as Bristol Bay, but there are many
    other areas potentially facing new lease sales that are not protected
    by the OCS moratorium.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, we want to thank you and Congressman Miller,
    for developing these bills. We very much appreciate your long-standing
    support for the Bristol Bay OCS moratorium and the historic 1996
    Magnuson-Stevens Act conservation provisions. Both of these
    achievements contribute in important ways to a wise long-term approach
    to the management of those resources vital to the fishing industry and
    our communities more broadly. It is a great honor for me to represent
    the concerns of Alaskans who live on the coast and want to leave the
    great marine fisheries legacy to the next generation of coastal
    peoples. We would be happy to work with you and your Committee further
    as the OCS legislation moves forward. Thank you for this opportunity to
    testify.
                                     ______

       Statement of John Schoen, Executive Director of the Alaska State
                        Office, National Audubon Society
        Mr. Chairman and Committee members:
        I want to thank you for the invitation to testify today on H.R. 701
    and H.R. 798. My name is John Schoen. I am the Director of the Alaska
    State Office of the National Audubon Society. Prior to my work with
    Audubon, I spent over 20 years as a professional wildlife biologist in
    Alaska working on big game, nongame, and endangered species.
        Mr. Chairman, the introduction of these two bills and their
    companion bills in the Senate highlights conservation opportunities
    that have gone wanting for decades. I am very pleased to see the
    cooperation between you and Congressman Miller in looking for the
    common ground between your two bills. We encourage you to continue
    working constructively together to craft legislation that will
    significantly enhance fish and wildlife conservation and outdoor
    recreation across America.
        I believe that the concepts embodied in H.R. 701, the Conservation
    and Reinvestment Act of 1999 and H.R. 798, the Permanent Protection for
    America's Resources 2000 Act, can bring tremendous benefits to
    conservation programs throughout the United States. There are elements
    of both bills that Audubon strongly supports. Each would establish
    permanent funding mechanisms for the purchase of conservation and
    recreation lands as well as much needed wildlife conservation and
    outdoor recreation programs. Although there are other aspects these
    bill address, I will focus most of my comments on the titles that deal
    with wildlife conservation and lands acquisition. Both these bills,
    their counterparts in the Senate, and the administration's ``Lands
    Legacy Legislation for FY 2000 and Beyond,'' have broad support
    demonstrating substantial public interest for investing in permanent
    protection of our environmental heritage.
        As you know Mr. Chairman, the State of Alaska assembled the largest
    state coalition in the country supporting the original Teaming With
    Wildlife Initiative. Both H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 include major funding
    for state-based wildlife conservation and outdoor recreation that was
    addressed by the Teaming With Wildlife Initiative and they have
    enormous potential for addressing our significant conservation and
    recreation needs here in Alaska. As a former state wildlife biologist,
    I know how important this funding is for our state.
        For example, there is little funding available in Alaska for state
    nongame conservation or wildlife viewing programs. An investment now,
    however, could help us avoid future conservation problems requiring
    costly, reactive management. And funding is necessary for enhancing
    Alaska's wildlife viewing opportunities which is clearly a sound
    investment for the state's valuable visitor industry. There are
    elements in both bills before your Committee that have significant
    potential to bring important conservation, recreation, and economic
    benefits to the State of Alaska.
        As you work to refine and improve this legislation Mr. Chairman,
    the National Audubon Society believes there are four principles that
    need to be adhered to in the final bill.
        First, this legislation should not provide incentives for new Outer
    Continental Shelf oil and gas development. Additionally, funding for
    coastal impact assistance should focus on environmental protection and
    marine conservation and avoid projects that result in environmental
    impacts.
        Second, it must be very clear that new money made available for
    state-based wildlife conservation should be substantially focused on
    non-game species. Traditionally, most state conservation funding has
    been directed toward species that are hunted and fished. This
    legislation needs to fill the missing link in wildlife conservation
    throughout the United States. The original concept of the Teaming With
    Wildlife initiative was to dedicate funding for nongame wildlife
    conservation, wildlife education, and wildlife-related recreation. We
    strongly encourage you and your Committee to craft a bill that clearly
    addresses those significant needs.
        Third, annual funding should be made available on a permanent
    basis. Annual funding should not be required to go through the normal
    appropriations process.
        Fourth, the Land and Water Conservation Fund should receive a
    minimum of $900 million each year split equally between Federal and
    stateside programs. We also recommend against geographic restrictions
    or inholding requirements placed on expenditures of Federal funds. We
    believe these funds should be available for use on all current and
    future national wildlife refuges.
        In addition, both bills would fund incentives for endangered
    species conservation on non-Federal lands. We support incentives to
    landowners who take positive steps to protect endangered and threatened
    species and their habitats. We recommend, however, that such incentives
    be carefully crafted to ensure that funded activities contribute to the
    recovery of imperiled species not just compliance with the law.
        The National Audubon Society has previously endorsed H.R. 798 as
    introduced by Congressman Miller. However, we also recognize and
    appreciate many of the positive elements of your bill, H.R. 701, and
    are interested in working constructively with you and your Committee as
    this legislation is further developed and refined.
        Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased and heartened that you and
    Congressman Miller have been working hard to find the common ground
    between your two bills. This is good news for the American public and
    the wildlife and wildlands we all enjoy. I firmly believe that by
    working constructively together your Committee will succeed in crafting
    truly landmark legislation that will bring incredible benefits to fish
    and wildlife conservation and outdoor recreation across America.
        Finally, I believe this hearing today sets in motion a funding
    process that will ultimately provide billions of dollars for
    conservation. Protecting birds, other wildlife, and their habitats, and
    investing in outdoor recreation and education will leave our nation an
    important legacy for which we can all be proud.
        Thank you for your efforts on this significant legislation.
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.081

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.082

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.084

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.085

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.086

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.087

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.088

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.089

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.090

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.091

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.092

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.093

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.094

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.095

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.096

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.097

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.098

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.099

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.100

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.101

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.102

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.103

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.104

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.105

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.106

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.107

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.108

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.109

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.110

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.111

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.112

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.113

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.114

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.115

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.116

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.117

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.118

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.119

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.120

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.121

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.122

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.123

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.124

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.125

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.126

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.127

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.128

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.129

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.130

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.131

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.132

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.133

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.134

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.135

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.136

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.137

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.138

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.139

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.140

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.141

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.142

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.143

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.144

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.145

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.146

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.147

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.148

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.149

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.150

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.151

     FIELD 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 TO 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

                                  ----------

                              MONDAY, MAY 3, 1999

                              House of Representatives,
                                        Committee on Resources,
                                                New Orleans, Louisiana.
        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 8:08 a.m., in the
    Louisiana State Supreme Court, 301 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans,
    Louisiana, Hon. W.J. Tauzin, presiding.

      STATEMENT OF HON. W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

        Mr. Tauzin. Let me first welcome you all to the first field
    hearing on this critically important Conservation and
    Reinvestment Act of 1999, House Bill 701, the CARA legislation.
        I am pleased that Chairman Don Young has agreed to host
    this first of our national hearings, field hearings, in New
    Orleans, Louisiana, not only the home of one of the greatest
    wet natural resources in the country, where some 28 percent of
    the nation's seafood is harvested and where almost a quarter of
    the nation's wetlands exist, but also the home of wonderful
    jazz fests that I know my colleagues from Washington had the
    chance to experience this weekend, and sample and taste of
    Louisiana. We are proud of this state and all it represents and
    I am very deeply appreciative of my colleagues for journeying
    here to New Orleans to be with us.
        I am Vice Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee in
    Washington and Don has asked us to begin this series of
    national hearings on the question of whether or not the United
    States Congress should follow suit with the recommendations of
    our own Mineral Management Department, which has recommended a
    sharing program of offshore revenues to the states for the
    purposes of assisting in land and water conservation and
    wildlife and habitat conservation funding for our country.
        I am pleased to see so many of my friends in the audience
    today, who will share with this Committee first-hand
    experiences of their own as officials, as citizens, as
    individuals who live in the coastal Louisiana wetlands where
    incredibly, we are losing as much as 30 square miles a year of
    some of the most invaluable coastal wetlands of this country.
        I am pleased also that, as I said, my colleagues have come
    a long distance to join me. We are going to be as quiet as we
    can and allow our witnesses to have the day today to tell us
    their story about this awful national tragedy of the loss of
    wetlands. You will hear today in great detail, I believe, what
    Randy Newman, the song writer and songstress, summarized in his
    song ``Louisiana,'' they are trying to wash us away. You will
    hear that this state is battered from the north by water that
    provides transportation and drainage for well over half the
    states in our great country, and battered from the south by the
    forces of nature that is incredibly destroying much of what all
    of us grew up appreciating as the most incredibly wonderful
    wetland environment I think our country has to offer in coastal
    Louisiana.
        My friends had a chance this weekend to visit the erosion
    sites, to actually do a fly-over, to visit an offshore platform
    and to experience first-hand the degradation of the Louisiana
    environment as a result of these natural and manmade forces.
    And so I think they came prepared to learn today from you about
    why this is so critical, not just to the state of Louisiana,
    but to the nation, that America recognize its obligation to
    begin repairing and restoring and preventing any further loss
    of these incredible resources.
        I am pleased now to welcome from our Committee a dear
    friend of mine, who works with me in several important areas of
    Congressional work, Congressman Peter DeFazio. Peter.

     STATEMENT OF HON. PETER DEFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                        FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Billy, I appreciate it. I
    appreciate the hospitality we have been shown and we are glad
    to have brought you some cooler weather for the weekend, so we
    northerners would not be too uncomfortable.
        I represent the State of Oregon, I represent half the
    coastline of the State of Oregon, about 270 miles of the west
    coast of the United States, and am vitally--also represent a
    district that is half--more than half owned by the Federal
    Government, so I have a long-term and abiding interest both in
    coastal and estuarine issues and learned a lot about your
    problems here and also concerns about more landlocked Federal
    concerns which go to the Land-Water Conservation Fund and
    certainly enduring underspending of those resources. So I would
    just note for the record I have brought a statement which I
    would insert into the record without objection from Ranking
    Member Miller, who had to return to the west coast for
    business.
        Mr. Tauzin. Without objection, that statement will be made
    a part of the record and the Chair will note that Mr. Miller,
    who is the Ranking Democrat on our Committee, has himself
    offered legislation, House Bill 798, which is very similar to
    the House Bill 701 offered by Chairman Young. The gentleman's
    request is unanimously granted.
        Mr. DeFazio. I thank the Chairman.
        The Chairman basically got ahead of me there and that is
    what I was going to note, I am a cosponsor of Congressman
    Miller's bill, which addresses the concerns of the Land-Water
    Conservation Funds and the underspending of those resources and
    diversion to other uses in the Federal Government, and does
    take a different approach but we are hopeful that we can work
    out agreement in this important area.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will forego any further
    remarks and defer to my colleague from Louisiana.
        Mr. Tauzin. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes
    the gentleman from Louisiana, from the other half of the
    Louisiana coastline, and my dear friend, Chris John.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

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

        I regret that district business has prevented me from
    joining my colleagues here today in New Orleans, Louisiana, to
    hear testimony on two legislative proposals that would
    permanently dedicate revenues from Outer Continental Shelf oil
    and gas leasing to the protection of America's public land,
    marine and wildlife resources.
        Together these bills offer the best hope in decades for
    permanent, substantial funding for parks, wildlife
    conservation, ocean and marine protection, open space, and
    urban recreation. Given the added support in the Senate for the
    Landrieu bill along with the President's Lands Legacy
    Initiative, there is a real prospect for action.
        While the bills share certain key principles in common,
    them are equally important differences . . .
        Our bill, H.R. 798--which we call Resources 2000--would
    provide specific dollar amounts each year for land acquisition,
    urban park renewal, historic preservation, wildlife protection,
    coastal and marine and open space conservation expenditures.
    Most importantly, Resources 2000 would guarantee full funding
    for both the Federal and state sides of the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund at $450 million each. Congress established
    the LWCF in 1965 and amended it in 1968 to use Federal offshore
    oil and gas revenues for environmental protection projects. But
    we've been shortchanging the program for 30 years. At that
    time, Congress promised to use $900 million a year to buy open
    space and expand recreation land, but the government has spent
    only about a third of the allotted money for the environment
    and diverted the rest to other purposes. Overall, Resources
    2000 would guarantee that more than $2 billion a year from
    Federal offshore oil and gas royalties would support needed
    environmental, recreational and cultural programs.
        H.R. 701, the Young-Tauzin-John bill--or CARA 99--and the
    Landrieu bill would devote a percentage of gross OCS revenues
    to a broad array of programs, including but not limited to the
    programs targeted by Resources 2000. But, CARA 99 would not
    fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but instead
    offer a percentage that would vary year to year. In fiscal year
    2000, each side of the fund would receive $270 million,
    according to the Department of the Interior, under CARA 99
    compared to $450 million under Resources 2000.
        Instead of the broad ``coastal impact aid section'' in
    CARA, Resources 2000 would direct about $1.4 billion to a
    series of specified programs, including historic preservation,
    park improvements, open space preservation, endangered species
    management, and coastal conservation. We believe that this more
    focused approach will distribute the funds more evenly across
    the Nation while assuring that specific conservation goals will
    be met in cooperation with the states.
        CARA 99 and the Landrieu bill would divert $1.164 million
    in OCS revenues to coastal states, with Louisiana, Texas,
    California, Alaska and Alabama receiving the lion's share. In
    addition, these five States, plus Mississippi and Florida,
    would continue to receive approximately $105 million annually
    from the OCS program. It should be obvious that this
    maldistribution of Federal assets that belong to all Americans
    will have a very difficult time in the House of
    Representatives.
        Another important distinction between the two proposals is
    the manner in which the funds would be allocated and spent.
    CARA 99 would give states latitude to spend their ``impact
    assistance'' funds with little or no accountability or
    oversight. The bill by no means limits expenditures of the
    funds to environmental and resource initiatives, as does
    Resources 2000, but instead resembles more closely a broad
    revenue sharing plan.
        CARA 99 would restrict acquisition for Federal areas, such
    as national parks, through the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    to existing designated areas with congressional approval
    required for any new purchases more than one million dollars.
    Also, CARA 99 would require that 2/3 of the money be spent East
    of the Mississippi River. Such restrictions represent an unwise
    and unnecessary limitation on the LWCF.
        Finally, there is the question of drilling incentives.
    Resources 2000 would limit the allocation of OCS revenues to
    fund its programs to bonuses, rents and royalties derived from
    leases producing oil and gas in the Central and Western Gulf of
    Mexico. No coastal areas currently under leasing moratoria
    would qualify for funding any of the programs under Resources
    2000. CARA 99 would limit revenue allocation from these leases
    only under its OCS Impact Assistance title. The Senate
    proposals would allow revenues from new leases and other areas
    currently under moratoria to be allocated to their programs.
        As I have consistently said, the similar goals of the two
    bills are more important than the differences between them at
    this point. We will have an opportunity to sit down and craft a
    reasonable compromise between them that assures a balanced
    program and a politically salable vehicle. We should not miss
    the opportunity to enact an environmentally sound funding
    mechanism for the many conservation needs throughout the
    country.

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

        Mr. John. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed a pleasure
    to have such distinguished people with us today, all coming
    together for such an important issue, including the Secretary
    of Natural Reources, the Governor, the Speaker of the House, my
    friend Hunt Downer, who lives down in the coastal zone where
    the greatest threat exists, and also the President of the
    Senate, Mr. Randy Ewing is here. The Committee thanks you for
    being here. Also, let me recognize the Mayor of Lake Charles,
    which is a big city in my district, for joining us here today
    as a witness.
        This is a very important piece of legislation to Louisiana,
    but it is not just a Louisiana piece of legislation. This is a
    bipartisan issue that affects all Americans and this is a very
    important bill. Let me quickly give you just a little bit of
    history of where H.R. 701 came from.
        The legislation that we are going to be discussing today
    arises from a report from the Coastal Impact Assistance Working
    Group of the Outer Continental Shelf Policy Committee. This is
    a piece of legislation that has been recommended by a committee
    established by the Minerals Management Service on how to
    redistribute some of the monies that we get from offshore oil
    and gas revenues. We had a wonderful day on Saturday taking a
    group of members and staff to look at our problem in Louisiana,
    looking at the vast estuaries and marshes we have. And one of
    the most profound--I think one of the things that impressed
    upon most of the Members of Congress is the fact that this
    delta that we are looking at on this end of the state drains
    about 41 percent of the United States. So this is truly a
    national issue and it has to become a national priority. I have
    worked very hard with all of the members of the House Resources
    Committee, but much credit should go to Don Young, who is the
    Chairman from Alaska because in our first meeting he made this
    piece of legislation, or this concept, a priority in the
    Resources Committee for the 106th Congress.
        So it is a pleasure to be here today and welcome a lot of
    people from all across the country that recognize the
    importance of this issue and this hearing.
        And I will turn it over to my friend, my colleague from the
    great state of New Mexico.
        Mr. Tauzin. The Chair thanks Chris John, who as I said is
    one of the principal cosponsors of this legislation and a
    guiding force in our efforts to get nearly 70 cosponsors in the
    House already on board.
        I am now pleased to welcome from New Mexico one of the
    Udall boys. We have got two new Members of the Congress, both
    Udalls, I think first cousins, Tom is from New Mexico and has
    come a long way. We want to welcome him and thank him again for
    coming such a long way to hear from the citizens of Louisiana.
    Congressman Udall.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. John follows:]

      Statement of Hon. Chris John, a Representative in Congress from the
                               State of Louisiana

        Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin by
    thanking the Committee for conducting this field hearing in New
    Orleans today. I hope the opportunity this weekend to see the
    coastal challenges facing our state has impressed upon members
    of this Committee that immediate and substantial Federal
    resources are needed to prevent the catastrophic loss of
    Louisiana's coast. Words alone cannot do justice to the
    magnitude of land loss, wetlands degradation and destruction
    that is rapidly eroding Louisiana into the Gulf of Mexico. As a
    result, I am particularly grateful to the members and staff who
    took time out of their weekend schedules to tour our coastal
    areas and witness firsthand the adverse and largely unavoidable
    impacts sustained by Louisiana's coast in support of Federal
    Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) production.
        The hearing today will focus on two legislative proposals
    that would reinvest proceeds from Federal OCS activities into
    conservation initiatives: H.R. 701, ``The Conservation and
    Reinvestment Act of 1999'' (CARA), and H.R. 798, ``The
    Permanent Protection for Resources 2000 Act'' (Resources 2000).
    As one of the principle sponsors of H.R. 701, I am looking
    forward to hearing testimony from the witnesses here today
    about the extent to which these bills will assist Louisiana in
    meeting its conservation needs. Of course, I am biased, but I
    believe that H.R. 701 sets-forth the best framework for making
    a long term commitment to enhancing, restoring and conserving
    our nation's precious natural resources such as Louisiana's
    bayous and estuaries. However, I want to commend Ranking Member
    Miller, who was unfortunately unable to join us today, for his
    efforts in putting together an alternative proposal, H.R. 798.
    His active involvement has helped ensure that the issue of
    reinvesting revenues from non-renewable resources into assets
    of lasting value is the top order of business in the House
    Resources Committee during the 106th Congress. And while there
    are significant differences between H.R. 701 and H.R. 798, I
    continue to believe that the similarities of both bills will
    eventually allow us to overcome the differences.
        For the past year, Mr. Chairman, you and I have worked with
    a bipartisan group of members to craft a bill that will create
    a lasting legacy of stewardship and conservation of our natural
    resources. When we began our efforts, few people thought that
    we would get the attention of the Congress and the American
    people. Remarkably, today we find legislative proposals with
    broad support in the House and Senate, and a ``Lands Legacy
    Initiative'' from the Administration. What I believe this
    proves is that you cannot stop the momentum of an idea whose
    time has finally come.
        CARA was first introduced in the 105th Congress following
    the release of a report from the Coastal Impact Assistance
    Working Group to the Outer Continental Shelf Policy Committee.
    The OCS Policy Committee provides advice to the Secretary of
    Interior through the Minerals Management Service and had been
    tasked with developing a formula for distributing a portion of
    Federal OCS revenues with coastal states. The report was
    initially brought to my attention by Mr. Jack Caldwell, the
    Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, who
    serves on the Policy Committee. It recommended Federal
    legislation to share revenues derived from OCS program
    activities with coastal states based on a formula that would
    reflect both need and fairness.
        Following months of extensive discussions between Members
    of Congress, States and the conservation community, a
    comprehensive bill was introduced that reflected the sponsor's
    desire to make a lasting commitment to natural resource
    protection. On February 10th of this year, CARA was
    reintroduced for consideration in the 106th Congress as H.R.
    701 and currently has over 75 cosponsors. The bill enjoys the
    support of members from rural and urban areas, coastal and non-
    coastal communities, Democrats and Republicans alike. It has
    also been warmly embraced by many states, local governments and
    conservation groups.
        As I have previously mentioned, the thread that weaves
    through both CARA and Resources 2000 is the belief that a
    portion of revenues from Federal OCS production should be
    reinvested back into the resources that made them available in
    the first place. At this time, all of these revenues go into
    the general treasury to finance recurring expenditures of the
    Federal Government. While this helps ensure that our nation's
    short-term fiscal needs are met, it does so at the expense of
    long-term investments.
        My primary interest in H.R. 701 arises out of great concern
    for the alarming rate of coastal erosion and wetlands loss that
    now jeoparzides our communities, economy, wildlife and
    fisheries habitat and the culturally unique way of life that is
    so closely tied to south Louisiana's environment. While the
    impacts of Louisiana's disappearing coast are being felt the
    hardest by the residents in our coastal zone, this is not
    simply a Louisiana problem that deserves attention from the
    State. Louisiana's coastal ecosystem is a national treasure
    that requires and deserves national attention. Louisiana must
    bear some of the responsibility for the situation we are in,
    but out of fairness, we should not be forced to do it alone.
    Louisiana has played a critical role in meeting the energy
    demands of our nation and many of the pressures on our
    coastline are a byproduct of this activity.
        The Federal Government has long recognized that the
    development of land-based mineral resources impacts states that
    host that activity and has shared revenues with those states.
    However, states that host offshore mineral development do not
    share in mineral revenues, despite the fact that coastal states
    suffer many of the same environmental and infrastructure
    impacts that result from land-based development. This
    difference in treatment is simply not fair and shifts a greater
    burden on state and local governments to remedy these impacts
    out of their own limited budgets. This inequity can no longer
    be ignored--the consequences are too great.
        CARA will remedy this inequity by sharing 27 percent of
    Federal OCS revenues with 35 coastal states and territories--
    most important to me being Louisiana. State and local
    governments receiving these funds are provided with flexibility
    so that revenues can be used to meet their most pressing needs.
    Some members and groups who are not from Louisiana have
    expressed concerns that the distribution formula is too
    generous for our state. I think it is important to clarify that
    states with land-based mineral development receive anywhere
    from 50 percent to 90 percent of oil and gas revenues extracted
    from Federal lands; under H.R. 701, Louisiana would share in
    about 10 percent of the Federal mineral revenues extracted
    offshore our state. Put in that perspective, I think the
    Federal Government is getting a bargain.
        CARA also provides critical dedicated funding for the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), the Urban Parks and
    Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR) and wildlife conservation
    and education programs. I have heard from many state and local
    officials about the funding needs of these programs and the
    exponential benefits they will yield for millions of Americans.
        Mr. Chairman, I've spoken long enough today. My views on
    this issue are well known and so is my strong desire to have
    the President sign a bill into law during the 106th Congress. I
    want to conclude by thanking all of the witnesses who are
    testifying here this morning. Your participation is a critical
    part of the legislative process. This is a great opportunity
    for the Congress to hear Louisiana tell its story in the
    context of both H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 and I look forward to
    hearing everyone's testimony. Thank you.

     STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

        Mr. Udall. Thank you very much, Mr. Tauzin. And let me
    thank first of all Representative Chris John and Representative
    Billy Tauzin for being such great hosts. I think that you have
    shown us all a very good experience here and going out into the
    field and seeing actually what is going on I think is very,
    very important. The hospitality has been wonderful here, the
    food, the people and so let me just first of all thank you for
    that.
        I represent a district in northern New Mexico. Needless to
    say, we do not have any coast land, but I am still very
    interested in these issues and I think the field hearing and
    field visit yesterday and this hearing will show us a lot and
    the need for really protecting wetlands and the loss of
    wetlands.
        As I look through the list here today, I see many of the
    same people that we visited with out in the field and their
    home areas and they are going to be here and I think elaborate
    on some of the things that were said and so at this point, I
    would just waive any further opening statements so that we can
    get right to the heart of the issue here. Thank you both very
    much.
        Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Congressman Udall.
        Before I introduce the next member of the panel, who is
    also a dear friend here in the local community, part of our
    Louisiana delegation, I thought it fitting that we thank
    Justice Pascal Galiara, who is in the audience today, for the
    use of the facilities of our Supreme Court. Thank you very
    much.
        [Applause.]
        Mr. Tauzin. And now let me welcome my colleague from here
    in the great crescent city, the gentleman from New Orleans,
    Louisiana, Congressman Bill Jefferson.

      STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

        Mr. Jefferson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to
    be here with you, sir, and with the other members of this panel
    who traveled from so far to be with us. Those who made the
    field trip visit with you, Billy, I know got a first-hand
    glimpse of the burdens that are borne by Louisianians and of
    the prospects for relief from those burdens that are part of
    this legislation. And also, I hope they had a chance to get a
    glimpse of what local governments are going through as they are
    on the front line of dealing with these issues, and I know they
    also understand the importance of conservation that this bill
    is also going to do a great deal to support.
        I want to say that this has been a measure that has been
    broadly received, as Billy has said, by Members of Congress, as
    Chris John said when I came in, on both sides of the aisle, and
    by members in the--it is an initiative that is going on in the
    House, going on in the Senate. I saw Mary Landrieu here
    earlier, I think she is out there, she has been working hard on
    this and we all have.
        So I am very pleased with the leadership that Bill Tauzin
    is showing, that Chris John is showing, that our delegation is
    showing on this issue and that others have joined with this
    effort and Don Young, who is not here, who I had the pleasure
    of traveling with and talking to about this bill.
        It is important legislation, it is important for Louisiana,
    it is important for coastal regions around the country, it is
    important for our country, important for conservation. It is an
    important recognition at long last that those states that bear
    the brunt of the burden of producing oil and gas and supporting
    the rest of the country and in many cases the rest of the world
    deserves some relief and some support from our Federal
    Government.
        So I thank Bill for what he is doing, I thank him for this
    field hearing and I thank all who have played a role in making
    this possible for us.
        Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Bill. As Bill said, it is fitting
    that we recognize the presence of one of our two United States
    Senators, who herself is doing a huge and important job on the
    Senate side carrying the legislation for our delegation and for
    the country, Senator Mary Landrieu. I wanted to welcome her.
        [Applause.]
        Senator Landrieu. I just wanted to emphasize I was in town
    for another meeting and thought it just would not be
    appropriate for me not to stop and thank everyone in this room,
    particularly the Governor for his leadership, the legislators
    and all of you who have just been a tremendous help in helping
    us position this bill for a real possibility of passage. Thank
    you so much.
        Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mary.
        [Applause.]
        Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, Mary.
        The Mayor of the City of New Orleans, Mayor Morial, was
    scheduled to be here to deliver a formal welcome on behalf of
    the City to the Governor and to all our guests, but he has been
    detained. He will be here at 9 a.m. and we will interrupt the
    proceedings at that time to allow the Mayor to welcome you all
    formally.
        But we do have with us a young man who will introduce these
    proceedings to us. We thought it fitting that we begin with
    Daniel Snyder who is from my district in Terrebonne Parish and
    who represents the many students of our coastal regions who
    have joined together in letters that they have sent to the
    President of the United States urging the President to join
    them in the Save our Soil, SOS, effort to protect and preserve
    the invaluable coast lands and wetlands, that they and their
    parents have grown up and feel is so heavily threatened today.
    And so Daniel is here to join us today and to represent the
    many students who have already begun the student crusade to get
    public officials more involved in saving the incredible
    resources of our coastal state.
        And so Daniel Snyder from Oaklawn Junior High representing
    the students of our state is now recognized to make a statement
    to this important field hearing. Daniel, welcome, we deeply
    appreciate the involvement of young people such as yourself and
    frankly, it was your wake-up call that caused us to convene the
    wetlands conference at Nicholas State University that has
    already, I think, begun the effort here in Louisiana to make
    every public official aware of the fact that you young students
    of our state are not going to rest until we do our job and save
    the Louisiana wetlands.
        Welcome, Daniel, and we appreciate your testimony, sir.

      STATEMENT OF DANIEL SNYDER, STUDENT, (OAK LAWN) JUNIOR HIGH
                                 SCHOOL

        Mr. Snyder. Dear Honorable Members of Congress:
        My name is Daniel Snyder, I am a seventh grade student at
    (Oak Lawn) Junior High in coastal Houma, Louisiana. I was
    invited by Representative Billy Tauzin to testify at this
    hearing because of my participation in the National Coastal
    Wetlands Summit where I read a letter in which I asked you to
    support legislation for funding of coastal erosion projects. I
    am speaking to you this morning because I, my friends, my
    family and everyone in coastal Louisiana are in danger of
    losing our home and livelihood to erosion. If nothing is done
    to stop this erosion of the wetlands, then in 50 years, Houma
    an inland cities will become a new port for huge ships, perhaps
    a major port at Port Fourchon in Lafourche Parish.
        In Houma, the Chamber of Commerce, the Terrebonne Parish
    School Board and the Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary have gotten
    together and come up with an SOS campaign, or Save our Soil.
    This year's project was to send letters to all Members of
    Congress to obtain support of H.R. 701 and 798, sponsored by
    Representatives Tauzin and Senate Bill 25, sponsored by
    Senators Landrieu, Lott and others.
        The intent of H.R. 798, Permanent Protection for America's
    Resources, is to fund projects dedicated to this purpose.
    Louisiana loses one football field of land every 15 minutes.
    The residents of coastal Louisiana, especially Terrebonne
    Parish, are in complete support of this bill. Some projects
    like the Atchafalaya Basin Projects have proven to rebuild
    wetland areas. My parish, which is situated on a degenerating
    delta of the Mississippi River, requires protection by our
    barrier islands. These islands are literally washing away.
    Presently, there are several sand and grass restoration
    projects occurring at Wine Island and other barrier islands.
    H.R. 798 would provide continued funding for these initiatives
    and additional future projects. H.R. 701, the Conservation and
    Reinvestment Act of 1999, insures a percentage of revenues
    received from offshore continental shelf drilling will be
    returned to the coastal states. With these monies, projects
    such as the ones I have already mentioned can find state
    funding in addition to Federal funding.
        If this erosion of the wetlands is not stopped, then when
    hurricane season comes, salt water from the gulf will pour into
    the freshwater wetlands and kill most of the immature seafood
    in our marshes, thereby shutting down seafood industries,
    making seafood workers lose their jobs and making a majority of
    people in coastal areas of Louisiana to move elsewhere to look
    for jobs and a place to live.
        My family has lived here for several generations. I would
    like to raise my future family here because I value my
    heritage, culture and lifestyle. This is the only home I know,
    and it sorrows me greatly that it is vanishing before my very
    eyes. I want to know that my children and their children will
    be able to enjoy the same rich culture and lifestyle that I
    have had the privilege to have.
        In conclusion, we do not want to move from this area where
    we have our homes, and our livelihoods, and our culture has
    prospered. Please help us to Save our Soil.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Snyder follows:]

     Statement of Daniel Snyder, Student, Oaklawn Junior High, Terrebonne
         Parish School System, Terrebonne Parish Chamber of Commerce,
                          Terrebonne-Barataria Estuary

        Dear Congressmen:
        My name is Daniel Snyder. I am a seventh grade student at
    Oaklawn Jr. High in coastal Houma, Louisiana. I was invited by
    Representative Billy Tauzin to testify at this hearing because
    of my participation in the National Coastal Wetlands Summit,
    where I read a letter to which asked him to support legislation
    for funding of coastal erosion projects. I am speaking to you
    this morning because I, my friends, my family, and everyone in
    coastal Louisiana is in danger of losing our homes and
    livelihoods to erosion. If nothing is done to stop the erosion
    of the wetlands then in fifty years, Houma, an inland city,
    will become a new port for huge ships, perhaps a major port
    like Port Fouchon in Lafourche parish.
        In Houma, the Chamber of Commerce, the Terrebonne Parish
    School Board, and the Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary have gotten
    together and come up with a S.O.S. campaign, or Save Our Soil.
    This year's project was to send letters to all Members of
    Congress to obtain support of H.R. 701 and 798 sponsored by
    Representative Tauzin and Senate Bill 25 sponsored by Senators
    Landrieu, Lott, and others.
        The intent of H.R. 798, ``Permanent Protection for
    America's Resources'' is to fund projects dedicated to this
    purpose. Since Louisiana loses one football field of land every
    15 minutes, the residents of coastal Louisiana, especially
    Terrebonne Parish, are in complete support of this bill. Some
    projects like the Atchafalaya Basin Projects have proven to
    rebuild wetland areas. My parish, which is situated on a
    degenerating delta of the Mississippi River requires protection
    by our barrier islands. These islands are literally washing
    away. Presently, there are several sand and grass restoration
    projects occurring at Wine Island and other barrier islands.
    H.R. 798 would provide continued funding for these initiatives
    and additional future projects. H.R. 701, ``Conservation and
    Reinvestment Act of 1999'' insures a percentage of revenues
    received from offshore continental shelf drilling would be
    returned to the coastal states. With these monies, projects
    such as the ones I have already mentioned can find state
    funding in addition to Federal funding.
        If this erosion of wetlands is not stopped, then when
    hurricane season comes, salt water from the gulf will pour into
    the freshwater wetlands and kill most of the immature seafood
    in our marshes, thereby shutting down seafood industries,
    making sea-food workers lose their jobs, and making a majority
    of people in coastal areas of Louisiana to move elsewhere to
    look for jobs and a place to live.
        My family has lived here for several generations. I would
    like to raise my future family here because I value my
    heritage, culture, and lifestyle. This is the only home I know,
    and it sorrows me greatly that it is vanishing before my very
    eyes. I want to know that my children and their children will
    be able to enjoy the same rich culture and lifestyle that I
    have had the privilege to have.
        In conclusion, we do not want to move from this area where
    we have our homes, and our livelihoods, and our culture has
    prospered. Please help us to Save Our Soil.

        Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Daniel. And would you recognize the
    young lady sitting with you? I think it would be important for
    us to know who is accompanying you here today.
        Mr. Snyder. This is my teacher, Ms. Johnson.
        Mr. Tauzin. Ms. Johnson, we wanted to welcome you and thank
    you on behalf of the Congress and our state for the effort I
    know the teachers of our state are making with the young people
    to make this campaign real.
        Daniel, thank you for your statement.
        Let me ask if there are any members of our panel who would
    like to address a question to Daniel.
        [No response.]
        Mr. Tauzin. Well, Daniel, we want to thank you----
        Mr. Jefferson. Except to say how proud we are of how you
    presented yourself here today and what a tribute it is to your
    teachers and to others who have worked with you on this.
    Congratulations.
        Mr. Tauzin. And today in the newspapers across our
    district, we are challenging the other schools of all the
    parishes of coastal Louisiana to join with you in your
    campaign. And if we can help, Daniel, in encouraging other
    teachers and other students to join you in any way, please make
    sure you let us know. We are trying to make sure that the
    President of the United States and everyone in Washington hears
    your voice which is saying simply save our home. This is the
    place where we grew up and we do not want to lose it. And that
    message came through loud and clear this morning, Daniel, thank
    you very much.
        Let us give him a big hand.
        [Applause.]
        Mr. Tauzin. The Chair is now pleased to recognize our first
    panel of government witnesses, and of course the most important
    person in our state who can really make things happen, our own
    Governor Mike Foster, who still enjoys, I am always proud to
    say, the highest approval rating of any Governor of the United
    States and that includes ``The Body'' Ventura in Minnesota. So
    we want to welcome Governor Mike Foster, the Governor of the
    State of Louisiana. He will be joined today by the Speaker of
    the House, Mr. Hunt Downer, a former roommate. We served
    together in the Louisiana legislature. The Honorable Randy
    Ewing, the President of the Louisiana State Senate; the
    Honorable Joe Westphal, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
    the Corps of Engineers and the Honorable Benny Rousselle,
    President of Plaquemines Parish in Belle Chasse, Louisiana.
    Plaquemines lies to the south--people do not believe me when I
    tell them, Benny, that my district includes 90 miles to the
    south of New Orleans. They think I am talking about Cuba.
        So we want to welcome you all. These, ladies and gentlemen,
    are some of the most important policymakers of the State of
    Louisiana. We are going to hear from them today on what
    Louisiana is doing and hopefully what we might do to assist
    them to save Daniel's home and to save a home for all of us in
    coastal Louisiana.
        Governor, I really want to thank you for taking time out of
    what I know is a busy session in Baton Rouge right now, it is
    ongoing, and particularly Speaker Downer and President Ewing,
    for leaving Baton Rouge at I know a critical time, to be with
    us today. Governor Foster.

      STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE FOSTER, GOVERNOR, STATE OF LOUISIANA

        Governor Foster. Mr. Chairman, members, good morning. It
    makes me feel good to see this many people connected with
    government out this early working so hard on important issues.
        Let me just go through a brief statement that I think makes
    a general overview of what we are talking about here this
    morning.
        Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the Committee,
    welcome to Louisiana. Thank you for taking your time to travel
    here to learn about this important issue from Louisianians.
    They represent a number of interests in our state. To my
    friends, Congressman Billy Tauzin, Chris John, thank you for
    all your efforts on behalf of our state and its people,
    seriously.
        Mr. Chairman, the State of Louisiana strongly supports the
    enactment of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999,
    H.R. 701. This legislation corrects both an inequity and
    handles a great need for our state.
        First, I will address the inequity. The Federal Government
    has not been fair to the State of Louisiana when it comes to
    the return of Federal mineral revenues to states that are
    impacted directly by Federal mineral development. The problem
    is that the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 shares 50 percent of
    the onshore Federal mineral receipts with the states, but the
    Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act shares only a fraction of the
    revenues from those Federal offshore leases located closest to
    the adjacent coastal states and has done that only since 1986.
        In fiscal year 1998, five states received from the Federal
    Government more Federal mineral revenues than did Louisiana.
    Yet the Federal mineral receipts from offshore Louisiana were
    over five times greater than the amount of mineral revenues
    from any of these states. For example, from onshore New Mexico
    the Federal Government received $341 million and returned $167
    million to that state. The Federal Government received $489
    million from Wyoming and returned $237 million to that state.
    These funds were distributed automatically with no restriction
    on use and were not subject to any appropriation by Congress.
        Now what about Louisiana? Louisiana provides support for
    $2.7 billion--it is always hard for me to say that ``b'' word--
    but $2.7 billion in Federal receipts from oil and gas
    developments on the Louisiana outer continental shelf in fiscal
    year 1998. Louisiana received in return only $21.1 million,
    one-tenth of Wyoming's receipts and one-eighth of New Mexico's
    receipts.
        In addition, these states collected severance tax on the
    production of the Federal minerals that were produced in their
    states, but Louisiana cannot collect severance taxes on the
    Federal oil and gas produced on the Louisiana OCS. H.R. 701
    will partially correct this injustice by sharing with Louisiana
    about 10 percent of the annual revenues from Federal oil and
    gas development from the Louisiana outer continental shelf. Mr.
    Chairman, correcting this current inequity to Louisiana will
    also help us address some major needs for our state and the
    nation.
        On a personal note, I consider myself both a businessman
    and a conservationist. I have and continue to be grateful for
    the economic benefits oil and gas have brought to Louisiana and
    the rest of the nation. However, I have seen the unique price
    this state has for some of these benefits. One of my favorite
    places in the world are the coastal marshes of Louisiana and
    unfortunately I do not get there enough, particularly during
    the session like right now. Often it takes long periods of time
    to notice major changes in the system. However, I can tell you
    that in my lifetime in the limited amount of time I can spend
    in my favorite place, I have noticed dramatic changes, many of
    which have been caused by projects done in the name of the
    national interest.
        Let me just on the side say that I have been going to a
    place called Grande Isle, which is sort of the end of
    Louisiana, since I was that big, since I was a little boy. I
    have been there once this year. There is one point that I have
    fished for the last 10 years, it is a stone's throw from the
    marina. It is gone, it disappeared this year.
        So things are happening quickly. I mean, in my lifetime I
    have seen this coast disappear. We have lost 1,000 square miles
    of our coastline in the last 50 years and are projected to lose
    another 1,000 square miles in the next 50 years. Mr. Chairman,
    is that significant, that little orange light? That means I
    have talked too long?
        Mr. Tauzin. Do not worry about it.
        Governor Foster. I am usually pretty short.
        Our coastal wetlands are unique and cannot be replaced as a
    natural resource to this nation and that is why I have made
    wetlands and barrier island restoration the top priority for
    our administration. Federal oil and gas operations and the
    thousands of miles of pipelines that cut across our coast, not
    to mention the wear and tear on our highways, has contributed
    to our coastal losses and infrastructure damage. Many of those
    roads are not only conduits for our nation's oil and gas and
    related industries, but also serve as the only hurricane
    evacuation routes for many of our citizens. The nation receives
    billions of dollars in revenues at great cost to Louisiana's
    coastal towns and cities and our people and its unique culture.
        The State has a plan called Coast 2050 that will prevent
    much of our projected land loss and will significantly enhance
    our current efforts to save and rebuild our coastline. But the
    plan is expensive, almost $14 billion over the next 50 years. I
    think I saw the other day where that is just a couple of
    bombers, but anyway. The legislation will provide the money to
    help us implement the Coast 2050 program. The cost of not doing
    what needs to be done will be catastrophic to our state and our
    nation. Recognize that this legislation will be good for every
    state in the union, and we in Louisiana are proud of our
    contribution to the nation through the Federal dollars we have
    helped generate.
        I would also like to express my support of both Titles II
    and III in this bill. Louisiana will benefit from these,
    especially Title III, which will go to ensure the conservation
    of non-game species before they become endangered.
        We have gone through the challenge of bringing back the
    brown pelican that almost disappeared and the alligator from
    the Endangered Species List. Both are now thriving in
    Louisiana, thanks in great part to our Department of Wildlife
    and Fisheries. I have asked my Secretary of Wildlife and
    Fisheries to submit additional comments on Titles II and III to
    be included as part of the record.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, all three Titles
    of this bill are vitally important. Our state has borne the
    brunt of 90 percent of the Federal offshore mineral development
    and it is time to provide relief. Please make the enactment of
    H.R. 701 in 1999 a priority of this Committee and of each of
    you individually. Please be fair to Louisiana in the final
    version of the bill that is enacted by the Congress.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Foster follows:]

     Statement of Hon. Murphy J. ``Mike'' Foster, Jr., Governor, State of
                                   Louisiana

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee,
    welcome to Louisiana. Thank you for taking your time to travel
    here to learn about this important issue from Louisianians that
    represent a number of interests in our state.
        To my friends, Congressmen Billy Tauzin and Chris John,
    thank you for all your efforts on behalf of our state and its
    people.
        Mr. Chairman, the State of Louisiana strongly supports the
    enactment of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999,
    H.R. 701. This legislation addresses both an inequity and a
    great need of our state.
        First, I'll address the inequity. The Federal Government
    has not been fair with the State of Louisiana when it comes to
    the return of Federal mineral revenues to states that are
    impacted directly by Federal mineral development. The problem
    is that the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 shares 50 percent of
    the onshore Federal mineral receipts with the states, but the
    Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act shares only a fraction of the
    revenues from those Federal offshore leases located closest to
    the adjacent coastal state and has done that only since 1986.
        In fiscal year 1997, five states received from the Federal
    Government more Federal mineral revenues than did Louisiana,
    yet the Federal mineral receipts from offshore Louisiana were
    over five times greater than the amount of mineral revenues
    from any of these five states. For example, from onshore New
    Mexico, the Federal Government received $341 million and
    returned $167 million to the state. The Federal Government
    received $489 million from Wyoming and returned $237 million to
    the state. These funds were distributed automatically, with no
    restriction on use, and were not subject to appropriation by
    Congress.
        Now, what about Louisiana? Louisiana provided the support
    for $2.7 billion in Federal receipts from offshore oil and gas
    development on the Louisiana OCS in fiscal year 1997. Louisiana
    received in return only $21.1 million--one-tenth of Wyoming's
    receipts and one-eighth of New Mexico's receipts. In addition,
    these states collected severance tax on the production of the
    Federal minerals that were produced in their states, but
    Louisiana cannot collect severance taxes on the Federal oil and
    gas produced on the Louisiana OCS.
        If you look at the cummulative numbers since 1920, the
    Federal Government has received from onshore New Mexico $5.4
    billion and returned to the state $2.6 billion. The Federal
    Government has received from onshore Wyoming $7.8 billion and
    returned to the state $3.9 billion. From Louisiana, combining
    onshore revenues since 1920 and offshore revenues since 1953,
    the Federal Government has received $49.9 billion and has
    returned less than $900 thousand to the state. That means that
    New Mexico and Wyoming have received about 50 percent of what
    they have contributed, while Louisiana has received less than 2
    percent. By anyone's count, those numbers represent a great
    inequity.
        H.R. 701 will partially correct this injustice by sharing
    with Louisiana about 10 percent of the annual revenues from
    Federal oil and gas development from the Louisiana OCS.
        Mr. Chairman, correcting this current inequity to Louisiana
    will also help us address some major needs of our state and the
    nation. Number one is the restoration of our coastal wetlands
    and barrier islands. We have lost 1,000 square miles of our
    coastal land in the last 50 years and are projected to lose
    another 1,000 square miles in the next 50 years. Our coastal
    wetlands are unique and cannot be replaced as a natural
    resource of this nation. Federal oil and gas operations and the
    thousands of miles of pipelines that cut across our coast, not
    to mention the wear and tear on our highways, have contributed
    to our coastal losses and infrastructure damage. Many of those
    roads are not only conduits for our nation's oil and gas
    related industries, but also serve as the only hurricane
    evacuation routes for our citizens. The nation receives
    billions of dollars in revenues at great cost to Louisiana's
    coastal towns and cities, our people and their unique culture.
        The State has a plan called Coast 2050 that will prevent
    much of our projected land loss and will significantly enhance
    our current efforts to save and rebuild our coastline. But the
    plan is expensive: almost $14 billion over the next 50 years.
    This legislation will provide the money to help us implement
    the Coast 2050 program. The cost of not doing what needs to be
    done would be catastrophic to our state and nation.
        Recognize that this legislation will be good for every
    state in the Union, and we in Louisiana are proud of our
    contribution to the nation through the Federal dollars we've
    helped generate. I'd also like to express my support of both
    Titles II and III of this bill. Louisiana will benefit from
    these, especially Title III, which will go far to ensure the
    conservation of non-game species before they become endangered.
    We have gone through the challenge of bringing back the Brown
    Pelican and the alligator from the endangered species list.
    Both are now thriving in Louisiana, thanks in great part to our
    Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. I have asked my secretary
    of Wildlife and Fisheries to submit additional comments on
    Titles II and III to be included as part of the record.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, all three titles
    of this bill are vitally important. Our state has borne the
    brunt of 90 percent of the Federal offshore mineral
    development, and it is time to provide relief. Please make the
    enactment of H.R. 701 in 1999 a priority of this Committee and
    of each of you individually. Please be fair to Louisiana in the
    final version of the bill that is enacted by this Congress.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.152

        Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much Governor.
        Governor, those lights were meant only for when Hunt Downer
    speaks.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Tauzin. We are sort of at your disposal here. Would you
    like to remain while other witnesses speak or would you like to
    take questions now, or are you in a rush?
        Governor Foster. I will be glad to take questions, I
    probably need to get out of here in the next 30 or 40 minutes.
        Mr. Tauzin. Why don't we see if any of the members have
    questions for our Governor. Any members?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Tauzin. Well, then let me quickly ask one. Governor,
    the one thing that I think stood out about your relationship to
    Louisiana as you ran for Governor is that your reserved your
    weekends for yourself pretty much, to be at home and to be with
    your family. A lot of us have admired that. And I also know
    that you spent a lot of those weekends hunting and fishing,
    those are big parts of your life. You mentioned how you saw
    points where you fish disappear, actually gone now, and you
    mentioned how quickly this is occurring.
        If this legislation is not adopted, does the State of
    Louisiana have anywhere near the resources it would take to
    begin preventing, halting or at least in large measure, big
    steps, mitigating the damage that is occurring to Louisiana?
        Governor Foster. The truth is that the answer to that
    question is probably not. We have as an administration done
    something that has not been done in the past, we made sure that
    we have matched all the Federal money that we could to do
    coastal projects. We have put more coastal projects as an
    administration in the field in three years than was done in the
    last eight. We take it seriously, we have people that are
    involved in this coastal problem that are very serious, very
    talented, but it does take money.
        We do have the technology to save this coast and I was not
    joking when I said that we had a meeting the other day that
    discussed this, everybody in the state that is interested in
    coastal projects. And the truth is it is probably the cost of
    two B-1 bombers to save this coast, but Louisiana, as I say,
    has the technology to do it. Now we have learned how to do it,
    we have learned how to divert water from the Mississippi River
    and actually create marsh. We have learned all the tricks there
    are to save the coast but it is going to be very, very
    difficult to raise the amount of money. We can match funds, but
    the truth is so much of this has been caused because Louisiana
    is doing something that affects the rest of the nation. I do
    not want to get long-winded here, but you forever hear people
    say that there seems to be a feeling nationally that oil and
    gas is a dangerous thing to have off your coast--people in
    Louisiana do not feel that way, as you well know, because we
    have enjoyed the production of the oil and gas it has taken to
    operate this country, but the truth is we have done it at a
    price and we have accepted that price of canals, of maintaining
    the highways to the coast. Not only that, but from a needs
    standpoint we accept the majority of the water that is drained
    off the country down through the coastal areas. So we are
    unique in that what we serve for the country is the production
    of minerals, the money that is realized by the Federal
    Government from the production of those minerals, the
    acceptance of all the water that comes down the Mississippi and
    Atchafalaya Rivers, and we just feel like at this point in time
    if we are to save the culture that has produced this, we need
    help.
        Mr. Tauzin. And I guess the second question and one equally
    important to members of this panel is if Congress were to
    accept the recommendations of the Mineral Management Service
    and share this money with the 37 coastal states, share the
    money with the 50 states for land acquisition and water
    conservation across America, is there any doubt that the State
    of Louisiana would commit its resources to match those funds,
    to use those funds to do exactly that, save this coast?
        Governor Foster. No, we will not waste it. We have not been
    known as an administration that wastes money. We will spend it
    back into the area that we have been talking about this
    morning, to save the coast, to keep the infrastructure up that
    it takes to bring this material to the rest of the country. So
    no, we will not waste it, I can promise you that.
        Mr. Tauzin. Governor, thank you very much. Any other
    members? Mr. John.
        Mr. John. I have a quick comment and possibly a question.
    You had talked about in your testimony, Governor, about Coast
    2050. In 1988 when I was in the State Legislature, we saw fit
    and moved a Constitutional Amendment that provided a coastal
    restoration trust fund that commits some of the state's oil and
    gas receipts into a trust fund to prioritize some of the
    projects. What we are doing or attempting to do on the Federal
    level is to do something very similar to what the State of
    Louisiana has committed to. Could you give us a little bit more
    about what Coast 2050 is and how that relates to the coastal
    trust fund? And also, Congressman Tauzin said the commitment
    from Louisiana has been there for a long, long time because we
    see how important it is to Louisiana, but now it has become I
    believe a Federal--a United States, an American problem,
    because of the resources that are developed right off of our
    coast.
        Governor Foster. Chris, let me simply say that the details
    of Coast 2050--there are people here that can give you the
    details a lot better than I can--but one of the things that I
    learned when I got into government at this level was that there
    had been very, very little planning in the State of Louisiana.
    In fact, I have a favorite saying, if you do not know where you
    are going, you sure as heck are not going to get there. That
    existed not only economically in this state where there was no
    plan to where we went in the future, it existed--we did not
    have the specifics of a coastal plan, we do now, as I say. That
    plan is a plan that simply tells us how we can get there, what
    will work, and as I say, just recently I have been involved in
    meetings that convince me that the technology is there. The
    technology is there to save the coast, the planning is there,
    there has been a lot of planning put in place and it is a
    monetary thing at this point.
        Mr. John. I think it is important for the other members of
    the Committee to understand that Louisiana has committed
    financial resources to saving our coast and I think now it is
    time to pass a Federal piece of legislation that would continue
    to save the resource, because again, it is not only Louisiana
    that is washing away, it is America that is washing away.
        Governor Foster. I do appreciate, and I understand you all
    took the other members of the Committee to look at the expanse
    of it. You know, you hear about the Everglades, but the
    Everglades are really just a small, small place compared to
    coastal Louisiana and the problems we have here. So I do
    appreciate the fact that you and Billy took other members of
    the Committee and gave them a broad overview of what we have to
    deal with down here, because it is huge.
        Mr. John. Yes, it was a very educational and wonderful
    experience as we flew over and saw some of the diversion
    projects on the Mississippi River that have really replenished
    some marshes, but I guess the highlight is when we flew over
    your favorite fishing spot and told them that if they were to
    go there, that was where the Governor fished, so you know they
    have a lot of fish there; we saw it from the air.
        Governor Foster. The places I went disappeared--I am
    serious. I had a little hole right across from the marina on a
    big point and it has been there for 20 years. I have been to
    Grand Isle once this year and that point is gone.
        Mr. John. I know the Governor and your tenacity to fish, I
    am sure that one of those little global satellites, you have
    got it marked pretty good, so you know where it is.
        Governor Foster. So that the Committee will know how bad it
    is, in my boat, I have a little global map which is a GPS that
    has a map of the land. I find myself most of the time running
    over areas that are marked on the map as land, which makes you
    a little uncomfortable, it shows you are running in areas where
    there was land five years ago.
        Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, Chris. Any other members?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Tauzin. Governor, again, we want to thank you. I hope
    you know the importance of this field hearing and I want to
    commit to you again our serious intent to try to get this
    legislation done. Senators Breaux and former Senator Bennett
    Johnson, as you know, have fought for many years to try to
    realize for Louisiana some share of the coastal revenues, that
    we might use them for these purposes. We have had some
    successes from time to time, the 8G monies and in fact the
    Breaux Bill passes or shares the money, with the State of
    Louisiana for some of the coastal projects. The effort that
    Senator Landrieu has engaged in on the Senate side and the fact
    that Chairman Young now, Chairman of the Committee on Natural
    Resources, is the lead sponsor of this legislation on the House
    side. And for the first time, the Federal Government itself is
    recommending, the Executive Branch, is recommending that we
    share with the coastal states to help them deal with these
    problems. I think we have a golden opportunity, Governor, and I
    thank you for taking it so seriously. We are hearing the pleas
    of the young boys and girls like Daniel today and we are going
    to do everything we can to make this real, Governor. Thank you
    for coming.
        Governor Foster. Thank you.
        Mr. Tauzin. We will now hear from--Governor, if you have to
    at any time depart, we understand.
        We will now hear from the Speaker of the Louisiana House,
    the Honorable Hunt Downer, from Houma, Louisiana, who also grew
    up, like Daniel, in Terrebonne Parish in those wetlands that
    are so fast eroding. Mr. Downer.

        STATEMENT OF HON. HUNT DOWNER, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF
       REPRESENTATIVES, PRESIDENT OF STATE SENATE, BATON ROUGE,
                               LOUISIANA

        Mr. Downer. Well, thank you, Congressman Tauzin,
    Congressman John, my two former colleagues, one who was my
    former roommate, and of course Congressman Jefferson, who
    served in the legislature with us, Senator Landrieu who served
    in the legislature with us, and to our two guests from out of
    state, welcome to Louisiana and thank you for this weekend
    touring my area of the state, south Louisiana.
        I think as I come here before you today, I bring a unique
    perspective and I would like to just maybe not so much give
    testimony but just talk to you about that unique perspective. I
    grew up as a young boy in south Louisiana, Terrebonne and
    Lafourche Parishes. I fished and I hunted those areas.
        As I grew older, I worked my way through college as a
    roughneck and a roustabout in the oil fields of south Louisiana
    in those very marshes, inland waterways and offshore that you
    flew over last night. In addition to that, while in high
    school, I drove a delivery truck that delivered produce to some
    of the mom and pop grocery stores down the bayous. As that
    young delivery boy, I traveled shell roads that are no longer
    there, they have been washed away or had to have been moved
    further inland because of the erosion.
        And then as a citizen soldier, member of the Louisiana
    National Guard, I have been activated on numerous occasions for
    the hurricanes that came across south Louisiana. In fact,
    Congressman Tauzin was one time for one of the hurricanes, I
    think Juan in the mid 1980s, was assigned as your escort
    officer as you came down there.
        Mr. Tauzin. That is right.
        Mr. Downer. And in all of those situations----
        Mr. Tauzin. Nearly drowned me, by the way.
        Mr. Downer. Well, if you had stayed longer, we would have.
        What you saw yesterday or Saturday as you flew the coast is
    how it is now. What you missed is how it used to be. On one of
    those hurricanes, we actually saw chunks of land, large
    chunks--in fact, we nicknamed them floatons--just floating out
    with the tide, large chunks, because of the water that washed
    in.
        As a young man roughnecking on the rigs, I was out there
    when we moved a rig on location and required the dredge boat to
    go through to cut the location canal. What was then a narrow
    location canal or a slip for a rig has not, because of salt
    water intrusion, coastal erosion, become lakes or large ponds.
        Our land is eroding away. It is a delicate balance, the
    Terrebonne-Barataria Estuary protects not only Louisiana but
    the rest of the nation. I jokingly tell my colleagues in north
    Louisiana, like Senator Ewing--someone said well why would
    someone--and your question was about the money the state is
    committing for coastal restoration--well, why would someone
    from north Louisiana, we all understand the politics of it,
    want to support coastal restoration money set aside for
    projects in your backyard, Hunt, why would they want to do it?
    And I jokingly tell them because if you do not, my legislative
    district will move north and I will be running against you.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Downer. That puts it in a perspective sometimes that we
    can understand. While that may be somewhat of an exaggeration,
    in the time we have been here in this room today, we have lost
    in this one half hours between the first panel, Mr. Snyder, and
    this panel, we have lost one acre of land.
        Now the reference was made by the Governor to the B-1
    bomber or the B-2. We can build another bomber, we cannot
    manufacture more land. We can try and save what we have, we can
    try and restore some of it. The Coastal 2050 plan is a plan
    with the right help, with additional funding, that over a
    number of years will get us to where we will stop the land
    loss.
        See, we have done a lot of things to ourselves, not knowing
    it. We have allowed the Mississippi River to be levied, it had
    to be because of the flooding. Now when we did that, we
    channeled the water in a different direction, it no longer
    replenishes our marshes, it no longer gives us that protection.
    And as that saltwater comes in and mixes with the fresh water,
    in the areas that used to be fresh water bays and bayous, there
    is now brackish water. Brackish water kills green vegetation
    that is used to fresh water. And then the next time you have a
    storm without the barrier islands there, that washes it out.
        They always say a picture is worth a thousand words. What
    you saw this weekend is worth 10,000 words. You saw it. What
    really put it into perspective for me, having lived there all
    of my life, having seen it and experienced the hurricanes,
    having seen the ravages of the hurricanes as a legislator,
    being asked to respond in an emergency situation, as a National
    Guard officer prior to and during the evacuation, going out
    during the storm and watching our land wash away. Granted, we
    cannot see that half acre wash away every 15 minutes, but when
    you have a storm you can see it because it is visible.
        Clifford Smith from Houma, with T. Baker Smith & Sons, did
    a little chart. If you just look, everyone in the country ought
    to want Louisiana to remain intact. We are catching all the
    hurricanes. If we are not here, someone else is going to get
    them, but every one of these hurricanes and every time they
    come in, they take part of our soil, part of the United States
    of America is washed away if we do not do something to protect
    it.
        This is what you saw this weekend. Here is a projection of
    where we will be in 100 years if we do not take action. Here is
    the City of Houma surrounded by all of this land. That is my
    legislative district. Here it is surrounded by water. Mr.
    Snyder was correct, we will be a nice port. We will replace the
    Port of New Orleans at the rate we are going. Now someone could
    argue, Congressman Jefferson, that might be good economically.
    We like the land we have got, we would like to keep it.
        Here are just two examples of what has happened. Here is
    the before the hurricane, nice island; here is the after,
    nothing. Same here--island, nothing. It happens and is
    happening as we talk today at the rate of one half acre ever 15
    minutes.
        I would like to thank you all for once again coming,
    seeing, hearing, feeling and experiencing what we are all
    about. Louisiana is the gateway to the rest of the nation
    because of the Mississippi delta and the Mississippi River and
    if we do not protect the gateway to the nation, we will lose in
    the long run as a nation.
        Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Tauzin. Speaker Downer, thank you very much, sir.
        We are pleased now to welcome from north Louisiana,
    President of the Louisiana State Senate. As Hunt Downer has
    pointed out, Louisiana is often talked about as two states,
    north Louisiana and south Louisiana. Randy, on behalf of all of
    us here in south Louisiana, I want to thank you for bringing
    the state together as the presiding officer of the State
    Senate, but more importantly as a big and important leader in
    the state, you have done a great deal to make this one state
    again and I want to thank you, sir, for being a part of this.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Downer follows:]

          Statement of Hon. Hunt Downer, Speaker, Louisiana House of
                                Representatives

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee, I
    would like to welcome you to Louisiana and thank you for the
    opportunity to express my strong support of the Conservation
    and Reinvestment Act of 1999, H.R. 701.
        I would like to thank Congressmen Tauzin and Johns for all
    of their hard work on this legislation in an attempt to correct
    the inequity of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
        I have lived in coastal South Louisiana my entire life and
    have a unique advantage over many. As a boy growing up I fished
    both onshore and offshore and saw firsthand the beauty of this
    state, saw it as it changed and to my eyes began to disappear.
    As a young adult, working my way through school I worked
    offshore as a roughneck and roustabout on the rigs in the Gulf.
    There, I became more familiar with our coast and the barrier
    islands. As a national guardsman I have assisted with disaster
    relief after hurricanes and floods. And, as an elected public
    official, I have learned more of the intricacies of this
    problem, being called upon by constituents to procure help from
    the state and Federal Governments to fight coastal erosion and
    all that goes with it. So, for my entire life, in one capacity
    or another, I have watched the changes, the disappearance and
    destruction of our coast, our barrier islands, our marshes and
    our wildlife and fisheries. Places where I fished twenty years
    ago no longer support freshwater fish because of the
    encroachment of saltwater and our potable drinking water supply
    is threatened. Birds and animals have become endangered because
    of the destruction of nesting sites and natural habitat along
    the coast and in the marshes. Islands that, in the past helped
    protect us from the destruction of hurricanes, no longer exist.
    I have literally watched the Louisiana coast, its flora and
    fauna wash away and disappear. Once familiar places, gone
    forever.
        Please allow me to put this in perspective. In 15 minutes
    one-half acre of Louisiana coastline is lost. That's two acres
    per hour or 20 square miles in one year. I jokingly tell my
    North Louisiana colleagues in the legislature that they need to
    support coastal restoration because at the rate we're losing
    land it is possible that in the next few years my district will
    be in theirs and we will be running against each other. But all
    joking aside, no other place on Earth is disappearing as
    quickly as the Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary. Yet our coast, one
    of the most fertile wetland ecosystems in the world is not
    receiving the attention it deserves. On the other hand, the
    Federal Government has pledged $8 billion to save the
    Everglades. It is estimated that it will cost approximately $14
    billion to save our coast. And the longer we wait, the worse
    the problem gets. If nothing is done soon, we will lose about
    $150 billion in infrastructure.
        The disappearance of wetlands also contributes to dead
    zones in the Gulf. These are areas of oxygen-depleted water
    sometimes covering 7,000 square miles. Scientists who study the
    problem tell us that this is caused by fertilizer from the
    Midwest that washes down the rivers. Wetlands filter these
    chemicals but as the wetlands disappear, so do the filters. The
    dead zones have doubled since 1992, only six short years.
        And we have given so much for so little. Although the
    Federal mineral revenue from Louisiana to the Federal
    Government exceeds the top six states almost ten fold, the
    return to our state is the lowest of these six states. And none
    of these states has suffered the infrastructural, social or
    economic impact to the extent of Louisiana. We have suffered
    displacement of communities, we have seen displacement of
    offshore workers, and changes and disappearance of the culture
    and way of life for many along the coast. As mentioned before,
    our hunting and fishing have suffered and, therefore, our
    tourism industry. And, please remember, tourism is the second
    largest industry in Louisiana generating over $6 billion.
        Louisiana stands ready to take action through the Coast
    2050 Program and the Coastal Restoration Plan to correct this
    devastation. The passage of this legislation will make these
    plans a reality. I urge you to consider our plight and correct
    the past inequities by giving Louisiana its fair share in the
    final version of this bill.

     STATEMENT OF HON. RANDY EWING, PRESIDENT OF THE STATE SENATE,
                         BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA

        Mr. Ewing. Thank you for those kind comments and thank you
    and the other members who have come here on a very important
    mission.
        I have found in the Legislative Branch that those
    committees that do go and take the time and seek the
    information and get the documentation they need become the most
    effective voice in the body. The rest of the members rely on
    them for the information they gain and the expertise they have
    on that issue. So as you leave from here with the knowledge
    that you have and the insight that you have gained and go back
    to Congress, I think that you will be in fact the most
    effective spokesmen for the issue at hand.
        We are one state, not a north and a south Louisiana.
    Sometimes we get caught in the debates and sometimes even in
    some silly comment, but what goes on in south Louisiana, what
    goes on in the Port of New Orleans, is extremely important to
    those of us in north Louisiana as we need ways to export our
    cotton, our corn and our manufactured products. And it is
    equally important that south Louisiana give significant
    attention to the value of north Louisiana and I think we have
    made tremendous progress.
        So we talked today about an issue that is not about south
    Louisiana and about the coastal zone insofar as the interest
    from only those people who can see it or who live there, but we
    talk about it in regard to how all of our state, our 4.5
    million people are affected, but also how everyone in this
    country is affected.
        You know, in a few years, we are going to celebrate the
    Louisiana Purchase, which is probably the most amazing and
    valuable real estate transaction in history. We were purchased
    and the purchase was considered and took place because of the
    value of that property to the Union, the coast, the resources,
    the trade, the river. I was with John Berry Saturday night, who
    wrote Rising Tide and also told the story of your father, Bill,
    working on the levee during the flood of 1927. And he pointed
    out that 33 of our states are drained by the Mississippi River
    and this has been a major factor in our economy, major factor
    to all of the United States over the history of our country. He
    also pointed out the problems that we have had and it has been
    brought to your attention already by previous speakers about
    the erosion that we have or the fact that we are where all
    these waters do drain. I would like to say that the merger of
    the property in the Louisiana Purchase and the Union have been
    good and we have certainly had mutual benefit.
        I think the legislation that we have before us and that you
    have before you is properly directed, because what it says is
    we have had opportunity and we share the richness, but we also
    share the responsibilities of taking care of our coast line and
    we also have shared the great benefit of the mineral resources
    that have come. At one time, Louisiana provided about 640
    million barrels a year of the production that the United States
    used. We now provide about 130 million barrels. We are no
    longer a producer. In north Louisiana, we used to have wells
    all over the place. The east Texas field drifted into Louisiana
    and it was a very big part of our economy and the 55,000 jobs
    that were there, nearly half of the jobs were on land and not
    just offshore. We had our tax base predicated on this with our
    severance tax.
        Today, our contribution to the nation insofar as production
    that comes from under our soil has dwindled to the 135 million
    barrels as opposed to the 600 million we used to. But we are
    still the processor, we are still the area that delivers the
    natural resource to the rest of the nation. It is just that it
    comes from offshore and it comes from foreign markets.
        We deliver a tremendous service to the nation in
    transporting in that we have 40,000 miles of pipeline that cuts
    across our coast, our timberlands and all over Louisiana. They
    cut through our farms, they cut through our communities, they
    cut through our woodlands, they cut through our coast. We are
    tremendously impacted by the infrastructure that we have to
    have to render this service to the rest of the nation. We have
    thousands of waste pits, we have thousands of disposal areas.
    We have in fact provided a service for the nation in providing
    energy for all of these years and now we have legislation that
    says we need to relook at Louisiana's part and their share for
    having made this contribution to the nation.
        I think that we are certainly in line and should be
    considered for proper sharing of not only the responsibility we
    have, but also the gain that is made to the rest of the nation.
    And I do welcome this opportunity to come and present our side.
    There is a lot of technical data that can be provided by
    others, but I can tell you from the standpoint of our people,
    Louisianians are a proud and a caring and a patriotic people.
    We fight in our wars, we provide the goods and services such as
    the Higgins boat, we share our culture, we share our economy,
    we share our service of delivering natural resources to the
    rest of the nation. And we think that it is indeed appropriate
    that we now share in the gain that comes to the rest of the
    nation.
        I compliment those who have brought this legislation, I
    compliment those in our delegation who know so well this issue
    and have brought it to the attention of those others who have
    come here and will hear of this and who represent us in
    Congress from other states.
        I thank you for your part in this, I look forward to
    favorable passage and funding of this very vital piece of
    legislation.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Ewing follows:]

      Statement of Hon. Randy L. Ewing, President, Louisiana State Senate

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee, thank
    you for this opportunity to express my support for the
    Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999, H.R. 701, some of
    the most important conservation legislation Congress has ever
    taken under consideration. Although I support all three titles
    of the bill, I want to specifically address Title I which would
    dedicate 27 percent of the annual Federal offshore oil and gas
    revenues to coastal impact assistance.
        I hail from northern Louisiana, just 50 miles south of the
    Arkansas border, but only 200 miles from the Outer Continental
    Shelf. All of my life, my friends and neighbors have worked
    offshore on the rigs that produce oil and gas from the coastal
    waters. The oil and gas industries employ over 55,000 people in
    Louisiana, and more than 30,000 are employed offshore. Over the
    years, countless right-of-ways have been secured and pipelines
    laid through our timber, farm and residential lands across the
    state.
        From the 1940's through the 1980's, there was much onshore
    exploration across Louisiana. This was a major part of our
    economy. During the last 20 years, however, most of the land
    based oil activity has dwindled. Louisiana is no longer a major
    on-shore producer of oil and natural gas, but rather a major
    processor of these resources. Revenues to fuel the economy
    produced from severance taxes have dwindled, but our cost of
    maintaining support for the state's infrastructure and
    addressing our environmental concerns have increased
    dramatically. Schools, hospitals, roads, education and public
    safety once supported by our mineral production have seen
    revenue support decline from 42-and-a-half percent of our
    budget support to 8 percent. As increased volumes of OCS and
    foreign products took the place of domestic production, we
    simply lost our base. Yet the country is still as well served
    as ever reliable and reasonable sources of energy that
    Louisiana has provided through location, massive infrastructure
    and its people.
        Louisiana people, natural resources and infrastructure make
    it possible for Federal OCS oil and gas exploration to be
    successful and economically developed and for foreign oil to be
    landed, transformed into useful products, and distributed
    throughout the United States. Forty-thousand miles of oil and
    gas pipelines crisscross the state, its sensitive wetlands,
    residential neighborhoods and densely populated areas. These
    activities require thousands of miles of canals, ports for
    barges and ocean-going tankers, roads, hospitals, public works
    structures, fire and police protection, hundreds of plants,
    thousands of waste pits and waste disposal and treatment
    facilities. The processing in Louisiana of OCS and foreign oil
    results in the destruction or degradation of the Louisiana
    environment.
        In 1997, Louisiana provided development of $3.8 billion of
    Federal mineral resources and received only $18.2 million for
    its share of revenues produced in Federal offshore waters.
    Annually, Louisiana handles one-half billion barrels of oil,
    135 million of which are from Louisiana. It handles 6.5
    trillion cubic feet of gas, 1.6 trillion feet of which are from
    Louisiana. Twenty-five years ago, Louisiana's contribution from
    its own production was four times greater, but Louisiana still
    handles the same amount of oil it always has. The major
    difference is that most of the product is foreign, from the
    OCS, or from other states.
        Louisiana's OCS is the most extensively developed territory
    in the United States. It has produced 88.8 percent of the crude
    oil and condensate and 83.2 percent of the natural gas
    extracted from all Federal OCS territories from the beginning
    of oil and gas exploration and development in the United States
    through the end of 1996.
        Eighteen percent of the U.S. oil production originates in,
    is transported through, or is produced in Louisiana. Twenty-
    four percent of the United States natural gas production
    originates in or is processed in Louisiana coastal wetlands.
    There are 3,439 platforms in the Gulf off the Louisiana coast.
        The idea of a fair share from our fellow American citizens
    living in the rest of the country is not new, but this renewed
    effort to seek consideration equal to that of any other state
    that provides such a valuable service and contributes so
    meaningfully to our country's well being cannot be ignored.
        In a little less than four years, our nation will celebrate
    the 200th anniversary of the Louisiana Purchase, the most
    amazing and valuable real estate purchase in history. The Union
    and the purchased region merged and, throughout the years,
    enormous mutual benefit has been derived.
        Louisiana is a proud and patriotic people. We fight in our
    wars, we grow great quantities of food and fiber, we share our
    culture, our resources, our labor, our love. We have in the
    past and we always will. We only ask for our fair share. The
    Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 will provide this.

        Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Senator Ewing.
        I might point out that Don Young, the Chairman of our
    Committee, if he were here he might challenge your argument
    that the Louisiana Purchase was the most important. He after
    all represents Alaska, which is part of Seward's Folly when
    Alaska was brought into the Union. He would claim that that was
    the most important. We would argue with him.
        Mr. Ewing. We surely would.
        Mr. Tauzin. And of course, Bob Livingston's ancestor was a
    person who negotiated that purchase, so we are going to be
    proud to celebrate it here in Louisiana.
        Mr. Downer. And in typical Louisiana fashion, he had
    authority for only a couple million and spent three times that
    and look at the bargain he got.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Tauzin. Now we are pleased to welcome--I am sorry.
        Mr. Downer. Mr. Chairman, if we could interrupt and beg
    your leave, Secretary Westphal and our former colleague Parish
    President Rousselle, with the legislature in session, we thank
    you for scheduling this at 8 a.m. in the morning so we could be
    here, all of us, but if we are not back there, you know----
        Mr. Tauzin. Bad things could happen.
        Mr. Downer. Things can happen, and we would like, if you do
    not mind, yield to any questions before we would leave.
        Mr. Tauzin. Congressman DeFazio.
        Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Speaker, you know, I have developed a
    greater understanding of your problem and realize there are
    many, many complexities and some extraordinary projects that
    have to be undertaken, but one thing that struck me in the
    helicopter flights and I asked this question from the people
    accompanying us on Saturday was that part of the problem was
    caused by the ditching for the pipelines. And since you raised
    the issue of having worked on one of those crews, and I
    rather--and they put in these plugs but the plugs frequently
    leak or break or erode away and so I asked the question well
    could we not require that or could it not be required that the
    oil companies go back and do something about those ditches,
    those canals. And the response I got was not entirely adequate
    to my understanding, it was to say well, we did not require it
    at the time. Well, okay, but we did not know it was a problem
    at the time. Couldn't we still require it now, would it not be
    within the power of the State of Louisiana and the legislature
    to require them to go back and begin to repair that problem?
        Mr. Downer. Well, yes and no, sir--good answer from a
    politician. Yes, you could do it from this point forward and
    no, you could not from the point that we passed. One, many of
    those companies are long since gone. At the time they were
    done, we thought that was the way to go, we did not know. We
    thought that is how you did it, we did not realize how delicate
    the balance was and what happens, you reach that margin of no
    return, it is a small canal, it was just wide enough. Once the
    canal is there, what happens? The boat traffic in and out the
    canal further causes the erosion from just the tidal action,
    the wake action from the boat. And it has been compounded not
    just by the original use of digging it as a location canal for
    a rig or for a pipeline canal, it is just gone. And then when
    you complicate that by bringing in salt water intrusion,
    through a hurricane, where you have that massive tidal surge,
    it deposits within that fresh water, that salt water, that
    mixes and becomes brackish and then gradually kills that
    vegetation which is holding the land together, the soil, and
    then when you have that low tide or that tidal action, it
    washes out with it.
        So, sir, we can do some remedial work. Part of the Coastal
    Plan 2050 will address that by putting a barrier island which
    will protect us from some of that salt water incursion and
    intrusion and then with some of the diversion project, the
    Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary Program, the Atchafalaya Basin
    Program, where we will start putting some fresh water back into
    there, which will bring with it deposits of soil as it comes
    down the tributaries of the Mississippi River. We will
    gradually reverse that process. So yes, sir, it can be
    addressed. Can we go back and make those companies who did it?
    Sir, it has been a combination, multiple companies have used
    those canals, they are there, they have become passes for
    vessel traffic, commercial as well as private vessels. It has
    just been compounded. We are now watching it and trying to
    regulate and control it, requiring as part of the permitting
    process to get a location or a leased location within the
    inland waters, some kind of check and balance. Unfortunately,
    what is the old saying, after the horse is out of the barn, why
    close the door. Well, we are closing it, but too many horses
    may have gotten out.
        Mr. DeFazio. Well again, the problems are vast and the
    funds necessary will be vast and I am just looking at the
    possibilities of an ongoing contribution from industry, not
    only in better practices in the future, but in the past. And I
    guess I would look at the Federal black lung program where at
    the time we did not know black lung was a problem, later when
    it became apparent it was a big problem, we adopted a program
    where if there was a still existing responsible operator, that
    they would pay an additional share of the costs and if we
    couldn't identify in the case of a company that has gone out of
    business and there is no successor company, you know, then the
    feds would pay, and I just would suggest that there may be
    something along those lines where there are still some very
    large oil companies operating very profitably, you know, who
    could be identified as being responsible for some of these
    problems and getting them to contribute, in addition to what
    other resources can be brought to bear.
        Mr. Downer. One of the uniquenesses of the situation also,
    sir, is that there is an offshore oil industry beyond our state
    control that comes through Louisiana, of which we cannot
    really, because of the various restrictions, really regulate.
    And that has been a contributing factor, and hence the reason
    for this legislation on the Federal level, because of the
    Federal impact to our coast as it traverses or comes through
    Louisiana.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
        Mr. Tauzin. Would the gentleman yield a second?
        Mr. DeFazio. Certainly.
        Mr. Tauzin. Let me point out to the gentleman that one of
    the oddities of our situation is that because of resources
    developed in the Federal zone, Louisiana does not realize any
    dollar contribution from the oil today. In fact, the oil and
    gas that is produced offshore Louisiana, is put in for
    processing and then shipped out of state, almost 90 some odd
    percent of it, is more heavily taxed in Massachusetts where it
    is used. The people of Massachusetts have the benefits of those
    taxes on that resource--than it is in Louisiana because we have
    no power to tax that resource from the Federal regime.
        So we have some problems in funding. What we are talking
    about in this bill, of course, is sharing some of the
    royalties, some of the dollars from the oil companies to go
    back and do these repairs, which is very much in line with what
    the gentleman said and certainly the Governor has offered to
    supply the Committee with full details of our 2050 plan which
    includes some very dramatic changes in the way we permit the
    exploration and use of those resources in today's world where
    we understand those consequences.
        So the gentleman is right, we have learned an awful lot.
        Governor Foster. But to respond to that too, sir, it really
    is a small part of the problem. The interesting thing is the
    OCS, the outer continental shelf that is out there is really
    quite close to our coast, three miles. In Texas, I think it is
    10 miles. So that is really very close to us and everything
    that goes on out there is a--the whole infrastructure behind it
    has to be handled by the state that is attached to it. So it is
    not only the canals that have caused a small part of the
    problem, it is the fact that we have had to maintain the roads,
    we have had to accept the pipelines, we have had to educate the
    people that have been involved in that industry. We have had
    to--so it is a very big problem, which that is a small part of.
    And actually if we were not--if we did not have the flood
    control structures that we have in this state, we would still
    have overflow and even these canals would not be a problem
    because we would have water coming into the marsh areas and
    putting silt back there and keeping the water from going too
    salt and keeping it more fresh.
        That is exactly what we are trying to correct through these
    projects where we divert water out of the Mississippi River.
    And it is such a huge problem that, as I say, that is a small,
    very small portion, maybe 3 percent of the total problem.
        Mr. John. If the gentleman would yield just briefly. I
    think the gentleman from Oregon has a very interesting
    question. I think it is a very legitimate question. However, I
    think the danger that we would deal with, Peter, is that
    because of the magnitude of the problem, which has been
    compounded over the years, and of course the Speaker was
    exactly right, some of the companies that actually have used it
    would have originally been responsible for them have since come
    and gone, I think that it would turn into a litigious nightmare
    with litigation as finger pointing because of the financial
    incentives. It would become very much like a Superfund problem
    where a lot of the dollars would be eaten up in litigation
    fighting about who is responsible rather than being spent on
    what the real problem is. And I think Louisiana really could
    not wait for the outcome. But you raise a very legitimate
    question, but I think to get down to the bottom of
    responsibility would really take a lot more money which could
    otherwise be used top rebuild our marshes and coastline.
        Mr. Tauzin. The gentleman from New Orleans.
        Mr. Jefferson. I would offer a small point. I think, as
    Chris has said, Peter is right to the extent that this issue
    can be addressed through funding from private concerns that are
    responsible, I think we ought to pursue it as fully as
    possible, and I think it ought to be part of our endeavor here.
    I think though that what Randy said earlier brings to mind some
    of the real issues here. That is that a large part of what has
    happened to our state has been the result of Federal policies
    rather than just Louisiana policies alone, that our state had
    little if any control over. When he talks about John Berry's
    book, Rising Tide, it ought to be required reading for everyone
    who makes policy about the river, and it is because were it not
    for the decisions made by the Corps back then, which at the
    time were considered to be the best informed decisions, a lot
    of what we are talking about today would not have befallen our
    state and we would be living perhaps a little different way
    than we are, but certainly we would not have the echo system
    issues that we are dealing with now. Those are Federal policies
    and there are many others that are not as obvious as that one.
        But I do not have any problem pursuing what Peter is saying
    so long as we recognize that in the broad context, largely
    Federal policy has driven the problem and Federal policy needs
    come to the rescue of it. And that I think is what this
    approach is all about, that there is a huge Federal
    responsibility here that we must now recognize and do something
    about.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Ewing. Could I just add one thing? One point that I
    would not want us to miss is that at one time, Louisiana was
    the beneficiary of a good revenue source from our severance tax
    because of our own production. Now, since--in the last several
    years, approximately 80 percent of the production that has come
    from the territories developed off the continental shelf have
    come through Louisiana, so Louisiana was able at one time to
    provide for itself through its own severance tax base from the
    oil that came from under our soil. Now we are handling every
    bit as much, if not more, and serving the rest of the nation,
    but we do not have that tax base. And that is one of the
    reasons I think this is a very justifiable approach to allow or
    share the cost that lets us meet responsibilities, whether they
    be offshore or whether they be the degradation that we have had
    with 40,000 miles of pipelines.
        I mean our state, from where we are sitting, I am about 230
    air miles to the north part of our state--40,000 miles of
    pipelines that run through our state to serve the rest of our
    nation, for which we do not enjoy a benefit.
        Mr. Tauzin. Senator Ewing, I might add--the Governor
    pointed this out--a point that everybody needs to note. There
    was a point in Louisiana history when we could have gotten the
    same deal that the interior states have in terms of revenue
    sharing to deal with all these problems, when Governor Earl
    Long was offered a compromise on the Tidelands dispute by
    President Truman. He offered him a deal that would have shared
    the Federal offshore revenues 50/50 with the State of
    Louisiana. Had we taken that deal, Louisiana would be the
    richest most western Arab nation in the world. We would be
    awash with funds to do the kinds of things we are talking
    about. As it is, you know, we lost that Tidelands decision and
    we ended up with only three miles of offshore rights.
        And Senator, you are right, the real production is now
    offshore, we do not have it any more to deal with. And so much
    of what we are talking about here today is sort of catching up
    as a coastal state, deeply impacted by the contribution the
    offshore makes to the country, with an ecological disaster. I
    think Mr Downer, you said it, we cannot wait. Chris John said
    it, if we go to court for five, ten, fifteen years, we will
    have lost this battle already. It is already being lost every
    hour we speak.
        So gentlemen, thank you and----
        Mr. Udall. Will the gentleman yield just a moment?
        Mr. Tauzin. Yes, Mr. Udall.
        Mr. Udall. Thank you.
        Senator Ewing, I just wanted to ask you, because you
    brought up the point that at one point, that you did have the
    revenues coming into the State of New Mexico--excuse me--State
    of Louisiana, which we also have a lot of revenue, as you know,
    from severance taxes. And you had it. Do any of the witnesses
    know what amount of money that you had that was coming in at
    that time that was dedicated to these kinds of issues, coastal
    wetland restoration, restoration on these canals, all of those
    kinds of things, or would you be able to get us that
    information?
        Mr. Ewing. We can get you what information we have, but I
    would suggest that it probably looks very minor because when we
    were the big producer back in the 1940s and 1950s, our learning
    curve on these types of problems was not as great as it is now,
    but we were getting at one time as much as 42 percent of the
    revenues to run our state program, to educate our children,
    build our roads, provide our hospitals, was coming from the oil
    and gas severance tax. Now about 8 percent comes from the oil
    and gas severance tax.
        Mr. Udall. And we have seen that similar thing happen in
    New Mexico also, as domestic production has gone down. So I am
    very aware of that.
        Mr. Ewing. We have turned to apparently cheaper sources of
    oil and gas and that has been--the nation has benefited from
    that, if we can buy it cheaper than we can produce it here, but
    we have still continued to process it and move it to the
    nation, as have you.
        Mr. Downer. Mr. Udall and Mr. DeFazio, thank you, because
    it is obvious you have seen and you saw what was happening to
    the delicate balance out there. Mr. Udall, on your question,
    when Congressman Tauzin left the legislature in 1980, 44
    percent of our state budget dollars came from the oil and gas
    revenues. Senator Ewing just said it, this year, it is
    somewhere between 8 and 11 percent. Now that was our oil and
    gas severance tax and mineral royalties from within our
    boundaries. We are getting nothing whatsoever from anything on
    the OCS or beyond. We had a Tidelands dispute, we finally
    established our line because, you see, we were never part of
    any of that, so our line waxed--I guess or jurisdictional
    limits waxed and waned with the tide and it kept getting
    smaller and further inland. When that boundary comes in, the
    oil and gas minerals that the state was receiving, they are
    lost because they are outside the line on the OCS and go to the
    Federal Government.
        Governor Foster. But all of the infrastructure for that on
    the OCS is borne by the State of Louisiana, has to be.
        Mr. Downer. And the roads, and that is what the Governor
    was saying. And if you were down at Port Fourchon, 6,000
    vehicles--and I know some of those individuals are here today
    and you will get the figures--travel that narrow winding two-
    lane road along there. I jokingly say that if they ever drained
    the marshes around there, we would find half the missing
    persons from our area, their car has gone off in there.
        Mr. Tauzin. There is another thing worth noting before we
    dismiss these distinguished colleagues. Have any of you thought
    how many of the oil companies are domiciled in Louisiana? One,
    we have one Fortune 500 company domiciled in Louisiana. There
    is no Louisiana oil and gas company. Texaco, and even that one
    is domiciled in New York.
        The point is that the large companies that have exploited
    the resources generally do not live here, the money is not
    banked here, it is not--does not revolve in the Louisiana
    economy to a large extent. The resources are now being produced
    primarily in the Federal offshore, not on our own lands, and
    now we are left with the problem. It is sort of the boom and
    bust kind of thing. The boom occurred, we did not know all
    these problems were going to result. Now we have got them, now
    we finally are here, and now the money that would be useful to
    solve it is unfortunately being produced in lands that under
    the Tidelands Act, Tidelands decision, we have no control over.
        So we are in this position today, and to solve it is going
    to require this legislation, I think. And the good news is that
    35 other states would share with us in this legislation, 50
    would share in the second title. We have a chance of getting it
    done.
        Thank you, gentlemen, for helping us make the point today.
        Governor Foster. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Tauzin. While these members of the panel are leaving, I
    am going to bring an additional member who has just arrived, to
    do the formal welcome and then we will hear the testimony of
    both Secretary Westphal and President Rousselle.
        The Mayor of New Orleans, the Honorable Marc Morial, has
    arrived and Mayor, we would like you to come forward and to
    address this important field hearing.
        Ladies and gentlemen of the panel and the audience, it is
    my pleasure to introduce the Honorable Mayor of the City of New
    Orleans, Marc Morial.

      STATEMENT OF HON. MARC MORIAL, MAYOR, CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,
                               LOUISIANA

        Mayor Morial. Good morning. I am so used to coming in here
    and saying may it please the Court--but Mr. Chairman and
    members of the Committee, let me first welcome you to our City.
    I am happy to see everyone up bright and early this morning and
    I hope that the fact-finding that took place over the weekend
    was not too severe.
        Let me just share with you a few thoughts on the issue that
    I know is of importance to all of us. I speak today on behalf
    of not only the people of the City of New Orleans, but also on
    behalf of the United States Conference of Mayors, which as you
    are aware is an organization of both Republican and Democratic
    mayors of cities with 30,000 people or more. We have, for quite
    some time, been a strong advocate of funding for urban parks
    and the opportunity that we have before us with the bills that
    you are going to consider this session, I think give us a
    chance not only to properly fund the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund and address the myriad of issues in that
    area, but also I come to urge a strong stateside component of
    that program and a strong component for urban parks.
        Recently we conducted a survey, along with the National
    Association of Counties, NACO, and in that survey, it was
    revealed that 71 percent of the respondents felt that the
    Federal Government should assist cities and states in the
    development of local parks.
        I think as we approach the new millennium, we see an
    American public that is much more physically active, an
    American public which is more aware than ever before of the
    need for families and children to have wholesome, meaningful
    and affordable recreational pursuits available to them.
    National parks, mostly in the western part of the United
    States, are wonderful and great, great for vacations, great for
    camp outings and long excursions, but the most important park
    to every American is the park in their neighborhood, the park
    closest to them, the park that they can use on a regular basis.
    And we think that there is a strong mandate here for Federal
    support for local parks.
        In our city alone, and I know you have had an opportunity
    to see our city, one of the things we are proud of is the
    abundant green space here in New Orleans, abundant green space
    throughout each and every neighborhood. Since I took office in
    1994, we have made a strong commitment to the development of
    parks and recreational programs for young people and indeed
    have doubled the budget of the City's Recreation Department.
    Not only that, we are working in a number of areas to enhance
    old parks. We have a park known as Lincoln Beach in the eastern
    part of the City, which is a park which is also a brownsfield
    site. In the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, it was the primary
    amusement park for the City's African-American population
    during the days of segregation. In 1964 when the walls of
    segregation fell, that park closed and all citizens had an
    opportunity to attend Pontchartrain Beach. That park has been
    dormant since 1964 and now we have an effort underway with both
    state money and local money and hopefully if this bill passes,
    perhaps Federal money to return that park, which is also a
    beach along the shores of Pontchartrain, into something that
    people can be so proud of.
        I guess in sum, what we would ask you to do as you debate
    and discuss these very important pieces of legislation is to
    recognize that I think this year we have an opportunity to do
    something on an issue that many of us have talked about for
    many, many years, and that is to do something for the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund, do something for the stateside
    component and do something for urban parks. This is an issue I
    think that creates a great opportunity for some bipartisan
    leadership and some bipartisan action, Mr. Tauzin and Mr.
    Jefferson, and I am hopeful that you will keep in mind as you
    deliberate the call and the request by the mayors of America
    and by the county officials of America for there to be a strong
    urban component.
        And when I say urban, there is a tendency sometimes to
    think that urban means only New Orleans or New York or Chicago
    or Louisville. But urban also means Houma and urban also means
    DeRidder and urban also means many of the smaller communities
    in our nation who could have an opportunity to benefit from
    this.
        So once again, welcome to our City, I hope you will keep
    these thoughts in mind. We appreciate you meeting here and we
    look forward to continuing dialogue with you so that we can be
    successful on this very important initiative.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Tauzin. Mayor, thank you so much for coming. Let me
    congratulate you on a most successful jazz fest weekend for New
    Orleans.
        Mayor Morial. Thank you, it was great.
        Mr. Tauzin. And for the job you do for the citizens here in
    New Orleans.
        And also I wanted to thank you on behalf of the members in
    support of this legislation for coming to Washington on behalf
    of the Conference of Mayors and NACO, National Association of
    Counties in our country, for the rally we held on the steps of
    the Congress, along with Senator Landrieu and other members of
    the Senate, in support of this effort. You know, the fact you
    came to Washington to make the point is I hope appreciated by
    the citizens of this community, that you are not only fighting
    here for green space and a better way of life in New Orleans,
    but you are in Washington making a pitch too.
        The Committee heard from mayors, as you know, in our first
    hearing on this bill.
        Mayor Morial. Yes.
        Mr. Tauzin. And what we learned, Mayor, was that so many
    kids today, in many of the early parks in our country, have to
    wait in line just to play soccer, just to play.
        Mayor Morial. Yes.
        Mr. Tauzin. There are just not enough spaces available
    today for many of the activities that would keep kids out of
    the kind of world of violence that we just saw again on
    television so horribly portrayed at Littleton, Colorado. And to
    give them something meaningful to do and some good way of
    expressing all the energy young kids have, rather than to
    suffer the awful consequences of some of their activities.
        You and the other mayors made that case in Washington and I
    want to thank you again for making it here in Louisiana, and
    ask my colleagues if they would like to dialogue with the
    Mayor.
        The gentleman from New Orleans, Mr. Jefferson.
        Mr. Jefferson. Mr. Mayor, I would like to say to our
    Chairman Tauzin and to our Committee how proud we are in our
    community of our Mayor, the contributions he has made on
    virtually every level of city government, and the leadership he
    is now showing throughout the country on this issue of getting
    smart at nonrenewable resources and converting them into
    renewable resources of conservation and recreation. And it is
    important that, as many children used to experience the rural
    areas of our country, have moved into city areas, Billy, and
    they need a chance to participate in the riches of our
    environment.
        This bill does a smart thing, it not only takes care of
    part of the issues of the burden that front line cities and
    coastal areas have to deal with, but it also provides a way to
    address the recreational needs of our citizens and dedicates
    some money specifically to that purpose.
        I think the mayors are telling us that this is an important
    need that needs to be addressed on a national level. This
    legislation addresses it. I know the Mayor probably--and all of
    them when they talk to us, want to see more addressing in this
    area, but I think he and they want to see a foot in the door on
    this that is very substantial this time around. So I think it
    is very creative on the part of those who are the authors of
    this bill. I am an original cosponsor of it, but the
    architecture of it probably rests more in the hands of Tauzin
    and Chris John and Mary Landrieu and others than in my hands.
    But this is a part of it that I will be watching very carefully
    for you, Mr. Mayor.
        Mayor Morial. Thank you very much, Congressman Jefferson.
        Mr. Tauzin. Mr. John.
        Mr. John. Just a quick comment. Thank you, Mayor, for
    hosting this conference. We of course love your city. And thank
    you for becoming actively involved in H.R. 701 from a different
    perspective, that I think is very important to point out to the
    members in the audience and also the members in Congress that
    will be deciding on this legislation.
        We have the National Association of County Officials, or in
    Louisiana, it would be maybe the National Association of Parish
    Officials, we have the National Conference of Mayors, we have
    the National Governors Association, the National League of
    Cities, the list goes on and on and on of the groups from a
    nationwide perspective who are all supporting this bill for a
    lot of reasons. Obviously Title I is about coastal impacts;
    Title II is the UPARR and LWCF section which has brought a lot
    of the major cities along. We had a rally on the steps of the
    Capitol that Congressman Tauzin alluded to, but the impact of
    that rally was incredible. Terrell Davis, the MVP of the 1998
    Super Bowl, was there talking about his experiences in San
    Diego growing up as a boy with Pop Warner football, that if he
    did not have a city that cared about a football field, which
    was funded through the UPARR program, then he may not be here
    today to serve as the kind of role model that he is for some of
    our nation's kids.
        So it is very, very important for you to be here today,
    Mayor; it means a lot to me, speaking for a lot of the small
    and large cities, that this bill is not just about the coast
    line, although it is important.
        Mayor Morial. Very important.
        Mr. John. This legislation it is about the whole concept of
    conservation from coast line to open space to creating the kind
    of environment we want for our kids in the future.
        So thank you very much for being here.
        Mayor Morial. You know, I wanted to interject something,
    and maybe the state officials did, but you know, Congressman
    John, you mentioned the coast line. Last fall, we had a pretty
    turbulent hurricane season and New Orleans was threatened with
    an almost direct hit, 50 miles out Hurricane Georges tilted
    slightly to the east and therefore the eye of the storm missed
    us and we were on the eastern side of the eye, which meant we
    got wind but very little rain. I cannot tell you how much the
    protection of the coast line seems to be one of those natural
    barriers against this large population base in southeastern
    Louisiana from being devastated. It does not completely protect
    you, but all of the experts tell us it is a very important
    thing and it is one of those things that sometimes, I remember
    the first time I heard someone tell me that the coastal area
    would protect us from hurricanes, I said okay, you have got to
    explain this to me a little bit. After steering the City
    through hurricanes and listening to the experts talk, I can
    tell you I have become convinced that it is one of those very
    important components of protecting this entire coastal part of
    the country from the brunt of these very dangerous hurricanes.
    So I appreciate it and I want you to know that, that is also an
    important thing to us.
        Mr. John. You had a double whammy there.
        Mayor Morial. Yeah, right.
        Mr. Tauzin. Any other members?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Tauzin. Then Mayor, we thank you so much for attending
    and you can rest assured that Jeff is going to watch this
    section of the bill and not let it escape.
        Mayor Morial. Great, thank you very much, thank all of you
    all.
        Mr. Tauzin. We are pleased to welcome a man who gave us a
    great deal of time this weekend and who I had the pleasure of
    taking out to the coast and showing him what a Louisiana red
    fish looks like and I want you all to know he out-fished the
    dickens out of me. That is because we gave him the best Cajun
    to work with, a tremendous friend of ours from down the bayou,
    but he comes from Washington, technically, but I want you all
    to know that Secretary Westphal has been a long time friend of
    our Louisiana delegation. He used to work for the Sunbelt
    Caucus in the House of Representative. That is, he worked with
    us as a colleague in a real sense in legislation affecting the
    southern states in the Sunbelt Caucus. We have come to know Dr.
    Westphal for a long and distinguished career in Washington in
    the Congress already. His elevation to the post of Assistant
    Secretary of the Army for the Corps of Engineers, which is a
    tremendous position in which he now guides the Army Corps of
    Engineers in its important work in the country, has been a
    blessing for us in Louisiana because he understands and knows
    the Louisiana problems, not only of the river, but of our
    coastal resources.
        Dr. Westphal, we also want to thank you for being a
    keynoter at our National Wetlands Conference at Nicholas State
    University recently, where you made the personal commitment to
    help us resolve this ecological disaster that again you saw in
    great detail this weekend.
        Again, Secretary Westphal, we welcome you, we appreciate
    the testimony and again, for the members of the panel, I think
    you will also have to leave to attend to some Corps business
    with the Colonel in just a minute, so we will welcome your
    testimony and try to get you out of here as quick as we can.
    Dr. Westphal.

     STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH W. WESTPHAL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
                        THE ARMY, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Westphal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    distinguished members of the Committee. I am delighted to be
    here. I do have written testimony which I would like to submit
    for the record, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Tauzin. Without objection.
        Mr. Westphal. Let me also thank you and thank the Committee
    for allowing me to be part of your trip here, not only to learn
    more about the issues facing and confronting Louisiana, but how
    your proposed legislation attempts to address those issues, and
    I want to thank your Majority and Minority staff, I think they
    have been terrific in putting all this together.
        We were also accompanied on this trip by your Louisiana
    Department of Natural Resources Secretary, Jack Caldwell, who
    did a great job in briefing us on this, NOAA was there and did
    a great job. I thank the Air Force too for providing
    assistance, and the Corps of Engineers. So we are very grateful
    for the opportunity to visit the coastal area of Louisiana and
    look directly at the stress that it faces.
        You mentioned our long association, over 12 years that we
    have been working on wetlands. I remember we formed the first
    wetlands task force in the House, along with one of your
    colleagues, former colleague that I saw sitting here for a
    little bit, Jimmy Hayes, and Lindsey Thomas of Georgia and
    other members at the time, when most people did not know what a
    wetland was. We were attempting to start dealing with that
    issue. So I know you have had a long association with this
    problem in Louisiana, but also across the country as you have
    faced wetland issues there, and I commend you for it.
        Now I am here today, Mr. Chairman, members, really to
    simply state the case for what I think to be a continued
    vigorous and comprehensive Federal and state partnership in
    working towards the protection and restoration of coastal
    marshes. And much of what I am going to say in this very brief
    summary of my testimony, Mr. Chairman, is simply to state for
    the record, I am going to repeat things probably that a lot of
    you already know and have heard one thousand times here in
    Louisiana, but this is a Committee hearing that will be
    published in the record and the hearing testimony will be
    distributed to people who do not know about these issues, and I
    would like for the record to state how we see some of the
    problems.
        As you know, the losses of coastal wetlands we saw on this
    overflight were really incomprehensible in light of the
    significant risk to life and property, to the ecology of the
    region and to the future of the economic, social and cultural
    aspects of people's lives. When you look at it from a national
    perspective, suffice it to say that coastal waters support
    about 28.3 million jobs and generate about $54 billion in goods
    and services every year. The coastal recreation and tourism
    industry is the second largest employer in the nation, serving
    180 million Americans visiting the coast lines every year. And
    the commercial fish and shellfish industry is also very
    important, contributing about $45 billion to the economy every
    year, while recreational fishing contributes about $30 billion
    to the U.S. economy annually. So we are talking about a very,
    very important resource to the nation.
        Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, this month is also
    National Wetlands Month and I would like to simply review for
    the record some of the major points regarding wetlands that may
    provide I think a framework for this important hearing.
        As you all know, wetlands are not only aesthetically
    pleasing and provide valuable fish and wildlife habitat, but
    they also provide valuable economic functions. Wetlands slow
    the flow of floodwaters, retain them and gradually release them
    downstream, protecting downstream landowners from flooding
    impacts. Wetland vegetation protects property by reducing
    shoreline erosion through binding loose sediments in their
    network of roots, dampening waves and reducing current
    velocity.
        Near urban areas, wetlands act to recharge groundwater,
    providing sufficient quantities of water for public use.
    Wetlands intercept containments and surface water by trapping
    and filtering waste, sediments and nutrients before the water
    is sent to rivers, bays and the ocean.
        The nation has lost nearly half of the wetland acreage that
    existed in the lower 48 states prior to European settlement.
    Coastal wetlands are valuable resources because they protect
    against flooding, to help maintain water quality and provide
    habitat for a myriad of fish and wildlife species, many of them
    threatened and endangered.
        Coastal environments generate billions of dollars annually,
    as I mentioned earlier, through such industries as tourism,
    sports and commercial fisheries. And coastal wetlands also
    provide infrastructure protection by reducing damage from
    hurricanes and other storms.
        Louisiana's coastal wetlands provide habitat for fisheries,
    water fowl, neotropical birds and furbearers; protection of oil
    and gas exploration and production, and waterborne commerce;
    amenities for recreation, tourism, flood protection; and the
    context for a culture unique to the world. Benefits go well
    beyond the local and state levels by providing positive
    economic impacts to the entire nation.
        Approximately 40 percent of the coastal wetlands of the
    lower 48 states are located here in Louisiana. Over the past 50
    years, Louisiana has lost an average of 40 square miles of
    marsh a year and this represents 80 percent of the nation's
    annual coastal wetlands lost for the same period. If the
    current rate of coastal wetland loss is not slowed, by the year
    2050 an estimated additional 640,000 acres of wetlands will
    disappear from the Louisiana coast. As a result, the Louisiana
    shoreline could advance inland as much as 33 miles in some
    areas. That would have you, Mr. Chairman, representing fish and
    not people, I should like to say.
        Mr. Tauzin. Well, we let fish vote in this state.
        Mr. Westphal. The loss of coastal wetlands is a national
    problem. However, Louisiana is a showcase for this issue.
    Economic losses are estimated to be $4,300 an acre per year, a
    substantial impact to the local and national economy. Extending
    these economic losses over a 50-year period brings the total to
    an estimated $57.8 billion.
        By serving as a buffer to destructive climatic forces and
    the episodic impact storms, Louisiana's coastal wetlands
    provide protection for the people who live and work there and
    the infrastructure that supports them, including 400 million
    tons of waterborne commerce a year, which is the largest in the
    nation, natural gas valued at $7.4 billion per year and
    petroleum products valued at $30 billion per year.
        Concerns for wetland losses have prompted by Louisiana and
    Congress to act. In 1989, Louisiana established a dedicated
    Wetlands Trust Fund for coastal wetland restoration. Congress
    passed the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and
    Restoration Act in 1990, they commonly refer to that as the
    Breaux Act because of the great leadership provided by Senator
    John Breaux as its primary sponsor. In creating the CWPPRA task
    force that provided oversight and develops annually a list of
    high priority projects to focus on marsh creation and
    restoration, protection and enhancement, I think this
    legislation has gone a long way to addressing this very, very
    important issue. Using Federal and state funds, total
    restoration project investment can exceed $40 million per year.
        To date, eight priority project lists have been formulated
    involving 81 active projects, 30 of which have been completed.
    When implemented, these projects will reduce the loss of
    coastal wetlands by 67,726 acres over the next 20 years. In
    addition to CWPPRA, the Corps can use its Section 204, 206 or
    1135 authorities to construct small environmental projects
    where Federal costs are less than $5 million. Considering the
    staggering rate of wetlands loss, the CWPPRA and other Corps
    small project authorities are also a partial solution.
    Projections are that only 23 percent of coastal wetlands losses
    will be offset by gains accomplished under these authorities.
    Therefore, I support reauthorization of the Breaux Act as an
    integral foundation to the implementation of a more
    comprehensive, longer-term solution to the national problem of
    coastal losses.
        There is a critical need to find ways to address coastal
    losses which are comprehensive, large scale and sustainable.
    The recently completed Coast 2050 plan here in Louisiana could
    serve as a foundation for a new consensus-based integrated
    approach to dealing with coastal wetlands losses. Coast 2050
    was developed under the authority of the Breaux Act, it was a
    joint planning initiative by Louisiana Wetland Conservation and
    Restoration Authority and the Breaux Act Task Force and the
    Louisiana Department of Natural Resources.
        The main features of the plan involve the restoration of
    natural processes through water management such as river
    diversions and hydrologic restoration, and watershed structural
    repair such as restoration of barrier islands. Institutional
    processes such as coordinating mitigation planning and
    restoration efforts and implementing best management practices,
    are part of the plan. Also part of the plan are coastwide
    strategies, such as dedicated dredging for wetland creation,
    grazing control, and terracing. Regional strategies are far too
    numerous to mention, but include restoring upper basin swamps,
    barrier island restoration, marsh creation with dredge
    material, river sediment and fresh water distributions,
    shoreline protection and delta building. Construction of the
    plan would cost about $14 billion.
        Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, the Army is
    committed to a strong ecosystem restoration and protection
    program. As you know, the President in his fiscal year 2000
    budget submission proposed a one billion dollar lands legacy
    initiative. And to the extent that H.R. 701 and 798 provide
    dedicated funds for that purpose, we stand ready to partner
    with the states and the Federal agencies to restore and protect
    the nation's wetlands.
        I did get, Mr. Chairman, a copy of Congressman Miller's
    statement for the record and I want to just point out one of
    the things that he says in there that I think is instructive,
    he ends his statement by saying that the similar goals of the
    two bills are more important than the differences between them
    at this point. And you have an opportunity to sit down and
    craft a reasonable compromise between them that assures a
    balanced program and a politically sellable vehicle. I think
    you have a lot to work with in these pieces of legislation. We
    stand ready to support and help those efforts, along with the
    President's proposal. We look to your leadership, Mr. Chairman,
    and that of the Committee, to help guide this process forward
    and we stand ready to implement whatever decisions are made by
    the Congress.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Westphal follows:]

     Statement of Dr. Joseph W. Westphal, Assistant Secretary of the Army
     for Civil Works on Coastal Wetlands and Programs, U.S. Army Corps of
                                   Engineers

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for
    the opportunity to testify on the importance of wetlands to the
    Nation and Army programs which have been successful in
    restoring and protecting those resources. I am Joseph W.
    Westphal, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
        Wetlands can generally be divided into two groups, tidal
    (coastal) wetlands and non-tidal (inland) wetlands. Vegetation,
    hydrology, and soil composition, all contribute to defining a
    wetland. Wetlands are not only aesthetically pleasing and
    provide valuable fish and wildlife habitat, they also provide
    valuable economic functions. Wetlands slow the flow of flood
    waters, retain them, and gradually release them downstream,
    protecting downstream landowners from flooding impacts. Wetland
    vegetation protects property by reducing shoreline erosion
    through binding loose sediments in their network of roots,
    dampening waves, and reducing current velocity. Near urban
    areas, wetlands act to recharge groundwater, providing
    sufficient quantities of water for public use. Wetlands
    intercept contaminants in surface water runoff from streets,
    highways, and parking lots, by trapping and filtering wastes,
    sediments, and nutrients before the waters enter rivers, bays,
    and the ocean.
        The nation has lost nearly half of the wetland acreage that
    existed in the lower 48 States prior to European settlement.
    Based upon a set of important principles the Clinton
    Administration issued, in August 1993, over forty comprehensive
    wetlands reform initiatives in order to begin to reverse the
    historic trend of wetland loss. The initiatives act to improve
    responsiveness to the public, provide a streamlined permit
    process for minor projects, expand partnerships between
    Federal, State, and local agencies, avoid unnecessary
    requirements for the average citizen, and encourage advance
    planning and wetlands restoration activities. These reforms
    support a goal of ``no net loss'' of wetlands and will increase
    the quality and quantity of our nation's wetlands resource base
    in the future.
        Coastal wetlands are valuable resources because they
    protect against flooding, help maintain water quality, and
    provide habitat for myriad fish and wildlife species, many of
    them threatened and endangered. Coastal environments are
    important economically because they generate billions of
    dollars annually through such industries as tourism and sport
    and commercial fisheries. Coastal wetlands also provide
    infrastructure protection by reducing damage from hurricanes
    and other storms.
        Louisiana's coastal wetlands provide habitat for fisheries,
    waterfowl, neotropical birds and furbearers; protection for oil
    and gas exploration and production, and waterborne commerce;
    amenities for recreation, tourism, flood protection; and the
    context for a culture unique to the world. Benefits go well
    beyond the local and state levels by providing positive
    economic impacts to the entire nation.
        Coastal wetland habitats in Louisiana serve as the
    foundation for a $1 billion annual seafood industry, a $200
    million annual sport hunting industry, a $14 million alligator
    industry, valuable fur resources, wild crawfish resources,
    hardwood timber and commercial livestock range lands that
    equate to thousands of jobs critical to the economies of many
    coastal communities.
        More than 1.1 billion pounds of fish and shellfish are
    harvested annually from Louisiana waters. Domestic and
    commercial landing statistics indicate that Louisiana provides
    more fishery landings than any other state in the lower 48. In
    fact, as much as 16 percent of the nation's fisheries harvest,
    including shrimp, crabs, crayfish, oysters and many finfish,
    comes from Louisiana's coast. Over 75 percent of Louisiana's
    commercially harvested fish and shellfish are dependent on
    wetlands.
        Approximately 40 percent of the coastal wetlands of the
    lower 48 states are located in the State of Louisiana. This
    fragile environment is disappearing at an alarming rate--every
    24 minutes Louisiana loses another acre of land. Over the past
    50 years Louisiana has lost an average of 40 square miles of
    marsh a year. This represents 80 percent of the Nation's annual
    coastal wetland loss for the same period. While less in the
    1990s, losses continue at a rate of 25 to 35 square miles per
    year. There are numerous causes for these losses, but the
    leading causes are disruption of natural hydrology (and
    sediment replenishment), development, agricultural and urban
    run-off, shoreline modification, municipal waste disposal, oil/
    gas operations and chemical spills. Buffeted by the forces of
    erosion and impacted by the disruption of natural replenishment
    of sediments, marsh subsidence has become a major problem.
    Thousands of acres of marsh are converting to less productive
    open water ponds, often fraught with dissolved oxygen problems.
    If the current rate of coastal wetland loss is not slowed, by
    the year 2050 an estimated additional 640,000 acres of wetlands
    will disappear from the Louisiana coast. As a result, the
    Louisiana shoreline could advance inland as much as 33 miles in
    some areas.
        The loss of coastal wetlands is a national problem.
    However, Louisiana is the prime example and foremost
    battleground. As a result of these losses, there are
    significant decreases in flood protection, hurricane
    protection, and habitat inhabited by myriad fish and wildlife
    species, some threatened and endangered. Water quality is
    adversely impacted because wetlands are no longer available to
    filter contaminants and pollutants. Water supply is affected by
    subsidence and the advance of saline water inland which reduces
    groundwater recharge areas and allows saltwater intrusion into
    the groundwater. Adverse impacts occur to fish and wildlife
    species and habitats, private property, nature based-tourism,
    navigation, oil/gas activities, and agricultural and developed
    areas. In Louisiana, an estimated 70,000 people are directly
    engaged in wetland-dependent fisheries and in subsequent
    processing, wholesaling, and other activities, and licensed
    saltwater sports fishermen spend approximately $181 million
    annually on fishing and have nearly $1 billion invested in
    boats, gear, camps, and other equipment. Estimates indicate
    that economic losses are at $4,300/acre/year, a substantial
    impact to the local and national economy. Extending these
    economic losses over a 50 year period brings the total to an
    estimated $57.8 billion.
        By serving as a buffer to destructive climatic forces and
    the episodic impact of storms, Louisiana's coastal wetlands
    provide protection for the people who live and work there and
    the infrastructure that supports them. More than 400 million
    tons of waterborne commerce (the largest in the nation) move
    within the coastal channels each year. Those wetlands contain
    ten major Federal navigation channels that provide access to
    port facilities across the state. Louisiana's coastal wetlands
    also help to protect nationally significant oil and gas
    facilities. An estimated 21 percent of the nation's natural gas
    supply, valued at $7.4 billion per year, originates from
    Louisiana wetlands. Additionally, petroleum products valued at
    $30 billion per year are produced in Louisiana coastal zone
    refineries.
        Concerns for wetland losses have prompted both Louisiana
    and Congress to act. In 1989, an amendment to the Louisiana
    Constitution established a dedicated Wetlands Trust Fund for
    coastal wetlands restoration. Through this fund, up to $25
    million per year in state oil and gas lease payments, royalties
    and severance tax collections were dedicated to wetlands
    restoration in coastal Louisiana. Congress passed the Coastal
    Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) in
    1990. This Act is commonly referred to as the Breaux Act
    because of the leadership of Senator John Breaux as the primary
    sponsor. It contains two components. The first component, the
    National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program,
    authorizes the USFWS to provide matching grants for the
    acquisition, restoration, management, or enhancement of coastal
    wetlands (about $6 million annually; excludes Louisiana). Under
    the second component, a CWPPRA Task Force (DA, DOC, DOI, EPA,
    USDA, Louisiana) provides oversight and develops, annually,
    lists of high priority projects focused on marsh creation,
    restoration, protection or enhancement. Under the Breaux Act
    approximately $35 million is provided annually for
    environmental restoration and protection work in the State of
    Louisiana. The Louisiana Wetlands Trust Fund provides the
    State's cost sharing contribution. Total restoration project
    investments can exceed $40 million per year.
        To date eight priority project lists have been formulated
    involving 81 active projects, 30 of which have been completed.
    When implemented, these projects will reduce the loss of
    coastal wetlands by 67,726 acres over the next 20 years. The
    CWPPRA authority limits the size of projects that can be
    implemented. In addition to CWPPRA, the Corps can use its
    Section 204, 206, and 1135 authorities to construct small
    environmental projects where Federal costs are less than $5
    million. However, competition for the limited funds provided by
    these programs is intense and there are many needs across the
    county. Considering the staggering rate of wetland loss, the
    CWPPRA and the other Corps small projects authorities are only
    a partial solution. Projections are that only 23 percent of
    coastal wetland losses will be offset by gains accomplished
    under these authorities.
        There is a critical need to find ways to address coastal
    losses which are comprehensive, large scale, and sustainable.
    The recently completed COAST 2050 plan could serve as the
    foundation for a new consensus-based, integrated approach to
    dealing with coastal wetland losses. COAST 2050 was developed
    under the authority of Breaux Act. It was a joint planning
    initiative by the Louisiana Wetland Conservation and
    Restoration Authority, the Breaux Act (CWPPRA) Task Force, and
    the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. The goal was to
    develop a strategic plan to protect and sustain the State's
    coastal resources for future generations in a manner that is
    consistent with the welfare of the people. Coastal restoration
    strategies were solicited from regional planning teams and
    their effects were evaluated. Resources and their uses were
    identified and prioritized. This plan should provide the basis
    for a coastal policy that will help coordinate strategies among
    the Federal and State coastal restoration programs and the
    State Coastal Zone Management Program.
        The Coast 2050 process was intended to increase the number
    of implementable projects and improve performance and
    effectiveness of Breaux Act projects. Part of the Coast 2050
    initiative involved communicating to the public the extent of
    the problem and the need for coastal restoration. Each parish
    and local community was asked to describe what they would like
    their region to look like in the year 2050 and to partner with
    the agencies to develop strategies to address those problems
    and needs. In addition, the goal of the Coast 2050 initiative
    was to develop a technically sound strategic plan to sustain
    coastal resources and consider coastal wetland restoration
    needs within the context of needs for transportation, hurricane
    protection and the general welfare of the population.
        The main features of the plan involve the restoration of
    natural processes through watershed management (such as river
    diversions and hydrologic restoration), and watershed
    structural repair (such as restoration of barrier islands).
    Institutional processes, such as coordinating mitigation
    planning with restoration efforts and implementing best
    management practices, are part of the plan. Also part of the
    plan are coastwide strategies, such as dedicated dredging for
    wetland creation, grazing control, and terracing. Regional
    strategies are far too numerous to mention, but include such
    measures as restoring upper basin swamps, barrier island
    restoration, marsh creation with dredge material, river
    sediment and freshwater distributions, shoreline protection,
    and delta building. Construction of the plan would cost about
    $14 billion.
        The Coast 2050 plan is already serving as the basis for
    long term solutions. The Breaux Act agencies are now using
    Coast 2050 strategies to formulate candidate projects for the
    9th priority project list. However, the funding of projects
    selected on the 9th and subsequent lists will depend on the
    reauthorization of the Breaux Act this year. I support that
    reauthorization as an integral foundation to the implementation
    of more comprehensive, longer-term solutions to the National
    problem of coastal losses. Many more projects are needed to
    ensure a sustainable coast that retains the functions and
    values of a natural ecosystem.
        As you know, the President has proposed a Lands Legacy
    Initiative as part of the FY 2000 Budget. This initiative calls
    for permanent funding for many of the same purposes as the
    subject legislation. Specifically, the budget provides
    approximately $1 billion within a balanced budget in FY 2000
    and a permanent funding stream of at least $1 billion/year
    beginning in FY 2001. The principles that underlie the
    Administration's Lands Legacy Initiative are provided as an
    attachment to this testimony.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify on
    the importance of wetlands to the Nation and Army programs
    which have been successful in restoring and protecting those
    resources. This concludes my statement. I will be pleased to
    answer any questions you or other members of the Committee may
    have.

        Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Westphal, we thank you for your
    participation and particularly for your attendance. You have
    engaged with these issues all weekend long, you actually
    attended the tours and visited the sites and we appreciate
    deeply your personal attention.
        Secretary Westphal is accompanied today and I would like to
    recognize the District Engineer, Colonel William Connor, who is
    here along with the Chief Engineer, Mr. Robert Tisdale. We
    thank you all for the enormous work of the Corps of Engineers.
    We beat up on the Corps a lot when it comes to wetland
    permitting and what-have-you, but Secretary Westphal, I would
    like you to share with everyone a compliment you received just
    yesterday. You met one of the most courageous people in our
    state yesterday, you were kind enough to come with me to
    Chadway to visit my mother who just recovered from a third and
    again successful cancer surgery, she has had three killer
    cancers--breast, lung and now uterine cancer--and over the
    course of the last 40 years, she has beat them all. And
    Secretary Westphal came out to Chadway to visit her with me and
    I would like for you to share with the audience what my mother
    had to say about the Corps of Engineers.
        Mr. Westphal. Well, first of all, I think we were
    addressing her as the bionic lady, she and your daddy, who died
    several years ago, I think represent the great values of people
    who come from Louisiana and have lived and worked so hard here.
    She--of course the Corps has been an integral part of life in
    this state and she shared her thoughts about that, which I
    think also I hear from everybody else that I talk to in
    Louisiana. We are an integral part, sometimes I think we are
    more of a state agency than a Federal agency down here.
        Mr. Tauzin. In fact, she had just gone on a river cruise
    before her operation, and she had seen first-hand the great
    work of the Corps in maintaining the river's levee structures
    that protect our state, provide the transportation system on
    that great river and drain 33 states of our nation, and how
    critical the maintenance of those systems are to life here in
    Louisiana, and she was telling Secretary Westphal how much she
    personally--and I think she spoke for all of us in Louisiana--
    appreciated the Corps and wanted them to know that sometimes we
    do not say thank you enough.
        And Secretary Westphal, again, we thank you for your help.
        Mr. Westphal. She commented on the good work done on the
    shoreline, on the bank protection that the Corps had done on
    the Mississippi.
        But I do think that the Corps can be part of the solution
    here and throughout the nation. We have tremendous resource
    capability in terms of our experience and as I said to you, Mr.
    Chairman, and to the members of the Committee, we stand ready
    to do whatever Congress directs us to do.
        Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Secretary, thank you so much.
        Mr. Westphal. Thank you.
        Mr. Tauzin. Other members of the Committee? Mr. John.
        Mr. John. I was just going to be very brief because I
    really want to hear from the President also, Mr. Rousselle.
        Mr. Secretary, you and your agency and of course Colonel
    Connor, will play a very important role after the passage of
    this piece of legislation, into implementing the bricks and
    mortar and the sweat, to be able to get the end result of what
    we all want to see and what we have been talking about.
        We flew over a couple of projects that have obviously been
    monitored and maybe even constructed by the Corps and I want to
    get your comment on two in particular. Freshwater diversion
    projects that seem to be working, that seem to be providing
    some of the freshwater out of the Mississippi River and the
    nutrients into our marshes to let them thrive. There is a
    controversy over the amount of those and how much water can be
    taken out as it relates to commerce. Is that a real concern
    that we should have? Because I frankly personally think that
    the freshwater diversion projects out of the Mississippi have
    profound positive impacts, because what it does is, if you have
    read the Rising Tide book, what it does is actually
    redistribute the marshes in a natural setting that it was
    before the channelization of the river.
        Mr. Westphal. Right. It is my understanding, and I am going
    to try as I go back to Washington, to get better information on
    this, but it is my understanding that that is not a problem
    necessarily, unless of course the flows are very, very low when
    we have experienced a very serious drought, but at most times
    of the year the diversions can be made. But I have to tell you
    that it is not something that I was focused on before coming.
    We looked at those projects from the air and in fact, I
    discussed them with your State Director of Natural Resources
    and I am leaving here to go look at additional projects and
    again talk about it.
        Mr. John. Okay.
        Mr. Westphal. I think that that is an important question,
    and of course, as has been pointed out, the sediments that the
    Mississippi brings down are of course escaping into the gulf
    and those are the sediments that could be critical to the
    formation of these marshes and to the development of the
    marshes, that provide the barriers that we need as the Mayor
    pointed out, even the barriers to the city.
        Mr. John. Right, I think it is a two-fold problem. As the
    Mississippi flows down and the nutrients are carried, it
    provides blockages for commerce down around the mouth that you
    guys have to be day in and day out dredging, where we could
    actually divert some of that. And it would seem to me that a
    very calculated set of freshwater diversion projects that are
    relatively inexpensive in the whole mindset of recreating
    marsh, they are really not that expensive when you are talking
    about several pipes that are laid right over the levee.
        I would think that those could be monitored in times of
    drought and in times of flood, you could flush more water
    through. So I think that that is something that this Committee
    I know talked a lot about, that could have a profound, very
    quick impact on restoration and introduction or reintroduction
    of freshwater into some of those marshes.
        Mr. Westphal. Congressman John, you are right, and also,
    you know, we have not really talked about the water quality
    issues associated with some of this. And as you know, we have
    been experiencing over the years this hypoxia phenomenon in the
    gulf with the large amount of nutrients flowing in. Those
    nutrients, if diverted into the marsh, could actually help to
    grow the marsh and of course wetlands are a way of repairing
    that. So we see that as a double benefit. We may be able to
    address the hypoxia problem in the gulf that is affecting the
    fisheries industry in a significant way and at the same time be
    able to provide a positive benefit to the development of
    saltwater marshes.
        Mr. John. And finally--and I know I have probably taken too
    much time--we also flew over extensively not only the marsh and
    the estuaries, but we flew over the actual coast line and saw
    some of the devastation from hurricane Georges and other
    hurricanes. We saw deteriorating barrier islands, Breton Sound
    and the other type of islands, and one of the guides on our
    aircraft talked about one of the solutions to this, which would
    be an ongoing solution, would be to replenish a lot of the
    beaches from the natural sand that is being dumped offshore, I
    think he said over in Ship Shoal, which has lots and lots of
    sand. I mean the hopper dredges are a question. I know you use
    those dredges a lot, but those are the kinds of things that you
    will be engaged in when and if this piece of legislation
    passes, because you will be providing the actual resources to
    recreate some of the barrier islands. Mayor Morial made a great
    point, he said not only do I want parks, I want to save our
    city, and by having a healthy coast line to create that kind of
    barrier, I think it is important.
        Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. John. Other members of the
    Committee?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much. Let me add that, you know,
    there was legislation at one point during the Reagan years,
    Senator Breaux and I pursued to require the Corps to take the
    dredge material that was being dumped, dredged and put on
    barges and just dumped overboard into the--off the continental
    shelf at the mouth of the river, to take it and instead barge
    it over to where it might be useful for barrier island
    restoration. And unfortunately, at that time, there was
    resistance in that effort and in fact, the administration
    threatened to veto the budget bill unless that language was
    removed. Perhaps we ought to revisit those considerations, as
    Mr. John has said, and think about it in terms now of how that
    material which is being wasted off the coast, off the shelf, in
    fact causing--maybe causing some of that hypoxia--might be more
    usefully distributed in the wetland areas.
        We are going to hear from one of the Parish Presidents in
    just a second, former State Legislator and now Parish President
    of Plaquemines Parish, about the real and important benefits of
    some of the siphons in his own parish and the building up land
    along the Mississippi River. But we are also going to learn
    about the fact that if we build these diversion projects,
    Chris, we also have to make sure that we have levee systems
    built and approved by the Corps and EPA and Fish & Wildlife,
    that will also protect our people from flooding, from the
    additional water at the siphons and all this is going to
    produce in the wetland area. So it is a multi-headed dragon
    that we have got to tend to all the elements at one time.
        Secretary Westphal, we thank you again.
        Mr. Westphal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Tauzin. Again, on a personal note, let me say how much
    we appreciate having someone who cares enough about these
    problems in this department to spend the time you spent with
    us, Joe. Your secretary is going to fuss at me for calling you
    Joe, but I consider you my friend and Louisiana now considers
    you her friend. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Westphal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, members.
        Mr. Tauzin. I know that you and Colonel Connor have to
    attend to your business and we would be pleased to excuse you
    at this time. Thank you again, Colonel Connor, for all you do.
        Let me now introduce the very patient President of
    Plaquemines Parish in Belle Chasse, Louisiana. Benny Rousselle
    is a former of the Louisiana State Legislature and so has seen
    these problems from the state perspective and now from a parish
    perspective, as Parish President. Benny, we appreciate your
    testimony, sir, thank you for being so patient.

     STATEMENT OF BENNY ROUSSELLE, PRESIDENT, PLAQUEMINES PARISH,
                        BELLE CHASSE, LOUISIANA

        Mr. Rousselle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
    Committee. I have submitted written testimony as well.
        Today, I probably will give you testimony on more of a
    local arena than you have seen earlier today.
        Plaquemines Parish is the southernmost parish in Louisiana.
    It extends southeastward for 90 miles from New Orleans into
    deeper waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The southern half of the
    parish is a peninsula surrounded by waters of the Gulf of
    Mexico and bisected by the Mississippi River. The parish is a
    product of the Mississippi River, having been created through
    sediment deposition over a 4,500 year period. Natural levees
    comprise about 8 percent of the parish, while drained swamp and
    marshland adjacent to the parish cover another 6 percent, for a
    total of approximately 60,000 acres. Barrier beaches and spoil
    disposal areas at South Pass and Southwest Pass comprise
    another 6 percent of the parish.
        The vast majority of Plaquemines consists of low lying
    wetlands that are being lost at a rate of nine square miles per
    year, 384 square miles since 1956. This land loss is the result
    of a combination of both natural, but primarily manmade
    factors, including construction of pipeline canals and rig
    access canals, dredging of navigational channels, leveeing of
    the Mississippi River, which you have heard about, saltwater
    intrusion into freshwater habitat, extraction of water and
    hydrocarbons, a decrease in sediment being carried by the
    river, subsidence, a rise in sea level, wave erosion and
    faulting.
        Plaquemines Parish has been a staging platform and support
    base for the outer continental shelf mineral exploration and
    production since the 1950s. Land use activities and facilities
    directly related to OCS activities include ports, shipyards,
    supply/service bases, refineries, pipe coating/storage yards,
    gas processing plants, heliports, deep-draft channels, and
    pipelines. Over 40 OCS pipelines enter Plaquemines Parish, of
    which many traverse the length of the parish to convey
    hydrocarbons to storage areas or processing plants and
    refineries in other parts of the state and nation.
        Approximately 100 companies conduct OCS mineral related
    operations from the Port of Venice and other ports and dock
    facilities located within the parish. Four refineries that
    process oil, gas and sulfur extracted from the OCS are located
    in the parish. Plaquemines Parish also provides landfall from
    the gulf and linear corridors for OCS product pipelines. At
    least 20 interstate pipeline companies have pipeline facilities
    in the parish.
        The achieved success in OCS production has not come without
    a price. It has come at the expense of numerous impacts on the
    natural and human environment to Plaquemines Parish. As a
    result of OCS activities, valuable wetlands have been lost or
    degraded through primary and secondary impacts associated with
    the installation and maintenance of OCS pipelines and booster
    stations, processing, storage and staging facilities and
    associated development.
        Canals constructed for OCS pipelines and navigation removed
    wetlands directly at the time of construction, and secondarily
    through boat wake and wind generation erosion of canal banks.
    Incidental oil spills and release of non-hazardous oilfield
    wastes can degrade or destroy wetlands and submerge aquatic
    habitat. This has had traumatic effects on the commercial
    fishing industries, including oysters, shrimp and finfish.
        Since 1956, Plaquemines Parish has lost approximately
    246,000 acres or 284 square miles of its wetlands and marshes.
    The current disappearance of wetlands and marshes is 5,717
    acres, or nine square miles per year. Much of this loss is
    directly attributable to OCS-related activities. The loss of
    these wetlands adjacent to hurricane protection levees poses a
    threat to populations from approaching storms and tidal surges.
    Wetlands and marshes serve as a first wave of defense to absorb
    and reduce the surge impact upon protection levees. With their
    disappearance, Plaquemines will have to increase the height of
    these levees to ensure the safety of its people.
        Water quality has been and continues to be degraded through
    illegal discharges from marine vessels, point source discharges
    from processing storage and staging facilities, oil spills and
    release of non-hazardous oilfield waste. Loss of wetlands
    flanking the natural levees and developed sites also contribute
    to the degradation of water quality because the vegetation is
    no longer present to filter potential pollutants running off of
    upland and developed sites.
        The human environment of Plaquemines Parish, as related to
    infrastructure, services, socio-economics and general way of
    life, also has experienced impacts from OCS activities and
    facilities. For example, highways which are primarily used by
    local population and serve as hurricane emergency evacuation
    routes have had to be upgraded and require more frequent
    maintenance as a result of increased heavy truck traffic
    associated with the OCS-related activities. The higher truck
    volumes have resulted in traffic congestion and public safety
    concerns with which the parish must contend. Sustaining the
    nationally strategic OCS-related development and support bases
    in Plaquemines requires that the parish expend considerable
    funds on equipment, materials and personnel to maintain
    extensive flood protection levees and drainage districts along
    both sides of the Mississippi River. Support of direct and
    indirect OCS-related facilities and businesses has placed a
    high demand on the parish for potable water, public utilities,
    solid waste disposal sites and non-hazardous oilfield waste
    disposal.
        Increases in local and transient populations associated
    with OCS activities have required the parish to provide
    additional services in the areas of emergency response, police,
    schools, education, recreational areas and activities,
    hospitals, general medical treatment and social services.
    Furthermore, the parish has had to maintain a high level of
    emergency response readiness to evacuate large numbers of OCS
    personnel, equipment and vehicles via the protected Mississippi
    River prior to hurricane landfalls. During cyclical downturns
    in the OCS economy, the parish must still maintain the existing
    services and infrastructure for the local population as well as
    provide additional social services. However, there is hope for
    Plaquemines' future from potential benefits of the legislation
    that you are now considering.
        And how the parish will make use of the funds generated by
    such legislation, I can tell you that Plaquemines Parish will
    be challenged with goals to combat continuing environmental
    impacts from the OCS activities. The potential funding
    available as a result of passage of one or both of the proposed
    bills is crucial to the parish's ability to achieve these
    goals. Under the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999,
    funds would be allocated as follows: Title I, Coastal
    Restoration; Title II, Land Acquisition and Recreation, and
    Title III, Wildlife Conservation and Education, including
    Wetland Habitat, Restoration and Acquisition. In Louisiana,
    Title I funds could be also allocated for mitigating on-shore
    impacts of OCS activities, such as the infrastructure and
    public services. Louisiana's recently released report Coast
    2050, which you have heard about today, toward a sustainable
    coast of Louisiana identified a number of regional ecosystem
    strategies for conserving and restoring wetlands in coastal
    Louisiana. Also recently, Plaquemines Parish formed a Coastal
    Zone Management Program in conjunction with the Louisiana
    Department of Natural Resources Coastal Management Division and
    operates in accordance with the CZM Act created by Congress.
        Within Plaquemines Parish, strategies have been developed
    which include managing outfall of existing diversions at
    Canarvine and Larose and West Pointe-a-la-Hache, which you
    probably saw in your flight; constructing more effective small
    diversions east and west of Empire; continue building and
    maintaining delta splays along the Mississippi River, which the
    Corps is instrumental in their work; using existing locks to
    divert Mississippi River water at Empire; constructing a
    sediment trap in the Mississippi River south of Venice and
    double handle dredged material to create new marsh in the
    Birdsfoot Delta; constructing delta-building diversions in the
    areas of Myrtle Grove/Naomi, Bastion Bay, Benny's Bay, American
    Bay, Quarantine Bay. Another one, preventing loss of bedload
    off the continental shelf by relocating the Mississippi River
    navigational channel south of Venice. Constructing wave
    absorbers at the head of bays such as Lake Washington/Grand
    Ecaille area and upper Breton Sound basin; constructing reef
    zones across bays to enhance estuarine fisheries habitat;
    extending and maintaining barrier shoreline from Sandy Point to
    Southwest Pass.
        Utilizing OCS funds would enable Plaquemines Parish to
    implement or assist the state in implementing some wetland
    conservation and restoration strategies sooner. This would be
    of direct and immediate benefit to the parish. In addition,
    funding could be used to address economic issues related to
    natural resource harvesting, especially oyster growing and
    leased areas that would be impacted by the delta-building and
    freshwater diversion strategies for creating or conserving
    wetlands.
        Funding directed toward restoration and maintenance of
    wetlands and water quality would benefit economic activities
    related to the harvesting of renewable resources such as
    commercial fisheries and trapping. This funding also would
    sustain water-based recreational opportunities including sport
    fishing, crabbing, boating, sightseeing, birdwatching and
    expand new business and educational opportunities related to
    eco-tourism.
        That concludes my formal testimony and I would like to
    thank all of you for coming to Louisiana and especially
    Congressman Tauzin for hosting us as the Chairman today, and I
    would also like to thank Senators Landrieu and Breaux for their
    help in moving this issue forward. And I would be glad to try
    to answer any questions that you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rousselle follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.153

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.154

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.155

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.156

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.157

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.158

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.159

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.160

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.161

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.162

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.163

        Mr. Tauzin. Thank you so much, Benny.
        Let me perhaps focus on--going back to Chris John's point
    that he talked about in terms of the siphons and reallocated
    water from the Mississippi River. If we looked a lot on the
    west side of the Mississippi River in terms of our Committee's
    field trip, on the east side of the river, of course, if Junior
    Rodrey was here, he would applaud your call for relocating the
    MRGO. The MRGO, members of the panel, is the Mississippi River
    Gulf Outlet, an artificially created channel for deepwater
    shipments into the Port of New Orleans, that instead of going
    up the river, long and tenuous 90 miles, ships were able to
    come up this very straight but artificial channel. But guess
    what? It introduced more saltwater into the marshes and even
    into Lake Borgne and Pontchartrain and caused great problems,
    and Junior would applaud your comments.
        So the problems of Plaquemines and St. Bernard, the two
    great communities below New Orleans, which are totally coastal
    communities except for this urban interface, you have discussed
    with us today. Tell us how well those siphons are working, how
    well does a water diversion project work and then what problems
    does it cause? You mentioned fishermen, oystermen. There is a
    conflict, is there not? There are real problems with making
    these things effective.
        Mr. Rousselle. Yes, there is a conflict, as you said, but I
    think that we have come a long way in the last several years
    about trying to mesh the oyster and fishing industries with the
    concept that the freshwater diversions are a necessary part of
    restoring our coast line. They basically introduce freshwater
    to retard the saltwater intrusion, to protect the grasses. But
    what we really need, we need coastal restoration of barrier
    islands and some really heavy duty projects.
        Mr. Tauzin. Why is that so important, Benny?
        Mr. Rousselle. Well, because the tidal flow now, as it used
    to come through small bayous that were there when you had
    coastal barrier islands, was not as great. Now you have nothing
    to protect the inflow of the tide and it just washes the marsh
    out at a critical rate, where before it would be--it would rise
    to bayous and natural bays at a lower rate and it would not
    come in and do as much damage as it does now with the wave
    action.
        Mr. Tauzin. I remember a few years ago when the saltwater
    intrusion rates were so high that this great city was
    threatened with saltwater in its water system; is that not
    right?
        Mr. Rousselle. That is true. We also have projects where we
    are now pumping water from the Belle Chasse area 70 miles to
    the southern end of the parish because of saltwater intrusion
    into the river, but on the outside of the levee districts, as
    you heard the Mayor say that he was concerned about his city,
    but we are concerned because we are the buffer that he was
    referring to about protecting his city. So naturally we are in
    the first line of defense and we are as concerned as he is, but
    a little more, since we are there.
        Mr. Tauzin. And I guess you have got to come through the
    city to get out.
        Mr. Rousselle. That is another situation. But we feel that
    the legislation that is being proposed will go a long way in
    trying to re-establish a coast line and we hope to work with
    the Corps of Engineers and that the Corps of Engineers moves in
    the direction of using that beneficial dredge material from the
    river to re-establish coast line. And you mentioned the
    freshwater diversion structures that are in operation now. As a
    local government, before I sent to the legislature, I was a
    council member, and we passed a bond issue and we built those
    with local funds to try to do something about the coastal
    restoration and the state came in and helped fund those after
    we had them on the drawing board.
        Mr. Tauzin. This was a local initiative to start out with.
        Mr. Rousselle. It was actually a bond issue that we made
    available to the public and they voted on it because they
    realized the significant importance of the marshes that
    surround the levees. And even as we were talking about the
    fishermen and how we are going to compromise by relocating the
    fishermen, they realize that if we do not do something, they
    will be fishing oysters on the back levee, which will give them
    a limited amount of space and eventually put them out of
    business.
        Mr. Tauzin. Benny, it would be helpful for our Committee
    members to see Plaquemines Parish. Would you point it out on
    that map there?
        Mr. Rousselle. This area is Plaquemines, I guess that is
    part that washed away, but the rest of it that you see is
    there. It is something that we live with. I was interested in
    the comments that were made earlier about making the oil
    companies fill the canals and so forth. They at one time
    bulkheaded the canals and then when erosion washed away from
    the bulkheads, they were afraid of liability from boaters, so
    they pulled the plugs, which were the bulkheads and they just
    continued to erode. And if we were go back after them as
    Congressman Tauzin said, I do not know how many of them are
    left, but we do not have that type of time.
        Mr. Tauzin. We have another problem too, do we not? I mean,
    I had a long discussion with Secretary Westphal about it, but
    the wetland laws of America are built backwards when it comes
    to coastal wetlands. The wetland laws of America are designed
    to stop you from filling in potholes and hardwood bottoms and
    valuable wetlands in America by filling them in and destroying
    them. In our coastal wetland situation, we very often have to
    fill in, we have to put a barrier up to stop the saltwater or
    an interface to allow the fresh and saltwater to exchange. And
    we have got enormous problems permitting, even if we demanded
    somebody to go do it, it would take years and years for them to
    get permits to do that kind of work, would it not, if they had
    to do it as a private company?
        Mr. Rousselle. Yes, I believe that is correct.
        Mr. Tauzin. And so that getting those things done in the
    face of all those problems may be much more efficient done by
    government agencies through bond issues and state funding and
    Federal assistance, in the long run.
        Benny, one final thought. Our critics in this bill complain
    that we share money directly with you, with the counties, the
    parishes and boroughs of the county, and they claim that that
    is going to create an artificial incentive for more offshore
    development when in many parts of America, as you know, they
    object to offshore development.
        Could you answer that criticism? Why is it important that
    the money be shared directly with you in some of these cases?
        Mr. Rousselle. I believe because the local government is at
    the front line of this fight. If you look at what we are faced
    with, we are out there providing infrastructure for our local
    citizens who bare the impact of all of the OCS operations off
    of our coast. The criticism of encouraging or giving incentives
    for more drilling, I think we are past that stage, I think that
    the local governments now are trying to just recoup what was
    lost over many years.
        Mr. Tauzin. Other members of the panel, questions of Mr.
    Rousselle?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Tauzin. Benny, thanks again for your patience and I
    deeply appreciate it. Know again our commitment to make sure
    that we hold onto those positions that would give you a vital
    play in the solution to these problems.
        Mr. Rousselle. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
        Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, sir.
        We are now going to call our second panel which will
    consist of folks in Louisiana who are on the front lines, as
    Benny Rousselle pointed out trying to solve these problems. The
    Honorable David Camardelle, Mayor of the grandest island in
    Louisiana, Grand Isle; Barry Kohl, the Director and Past
    President of Louisiana Audubon Council; Ted Falgout, Executive
    Director of Greater Lafourche Port Commission; Alan Wentz,
    Group Manager for Conservation, Ducks Unlimited; Cynthia
    Sarthou, Executive Director of Gulf Restoration Network and
    Mark Davis, Executive Director of Coalition to Restore Coastal
    Louisiana, domiciled in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
        These, ladies and gentlemen, are folks who have been on the
    front lines of this battle and can tell us the good news and
    the bad news stories. We will start with the Mayor of Grand
    Isle, Mr. Camardelle.

    STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID CAMARDELLE, MAYOR OF GRAND ISLE, GRAND
                            ISLE, LOUISIANA

        Mayor Camardelle. My name is David Camardelle and I am the
    Mayor of Grand Isle. It is truly an honor to come before you
    today to offer some insight into the unique and special part of
    south Louisiana that I have lived in all my life and now have
    the privilege to represent. I am also honored for the
    opportunity to provide my testimony on H.R. 701, the
    Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999.
        Before I begin, please allow me a brief moment to do one of
    my favorite things in life and that is to talk about my good
    friend, Billy Tauzin. Considering that I may never have an
    opportunity or an audience like this again, I just cannot miss
    the chance to talk about him. Now the way that we talk about
    someone down here and they way they do in Washington is very
    different.
        You see, I have known Billy for practically all my life. I
    know his family and he knows mine. In fact, we are a family
    some way or another. We have fished together, eaten a lot of
    shrimp and crawfish together and on occasions have played a
    little bouree together. For those of you who do not know about
    bouree, all I am going to tell you is that this is a card game
    and it is still legal in Louisiana. As we coonasses say here,
    we know how to pass a good time and Billy is one of the best at
    doing it.
        I also want you to know that over the years, Billy and I
    have survived floods and hurricanes together. We have watched
    the oil and gas industry rise and fall and then rise again. We
    battled together on turtle devices, wetlands, brown pelicans
    and many other resource issues.
        I have said all of this to simply say that Bill Tauzin is
    always there for his people in the Third Congressional
    District. I know the people of Grand Isle are forever grateful
    for everything Billy has done and continues to do for us.
        Now that I have gotten all these things said about Billy
    that he asked me to say, let us get on.
        [Laughter.]
        Mayor Camardelle. So before offering my comments on H.R.
    701, allow me a few minutes to tell you about Grand Isle and
    the magnificent natural resources we have. I would also like to
    present to you the many challenges we face by virtue of being a
    small coastal community located in the Gulf of Mexico. I say
    that because we are Louisiana's only inhabited island in the
    mainland's first line of defense during the hurricane seasons.
    Please do not misunderstand me, for all the challenges and
    difficulties we face by living where we do, I would not want to
    live anywhere else in the world.
        The municipality of Grand Isle lies within the beginning,
    which is 9.4 miles of Louisiana Highway 1. As far as I am
    concerned, it is the longest street in the state of Louisiana.
    Grand Isle, Louisiana is the only barrier island resort
    positioned to provide hurricane protection to the gulf coast.
    Surrounding Grand Isle, there are 12 recorded archaeological
    sites, two of which have been determined potentially eligible
    for National Register as Historical Places--Manila Village,
    recognized by the Jefferson Parish Historical Society, is in
    close proximity to Grand Isle. The world's largest artificial
    reef donated to the State of Louisiana by Freeport Mac Marine
    is located within seven miles off the coast of Grand Isle.
    Grand Isle provides close and easy access to the above-
    mentioned sites.
        There are two distinct population groups. The first is the
    relatively small permanent residence population. The group has
    remained about 1,500 to 2,000 people on the island since 1960.
    Industrial analysts growth expectation is 3,186 residents by
    the year 2020 if the island does not wash away. The second
    group is comprised of tourists, camper owners--Billy's father-
    in-law camps on Grand Isle--and the petroleum companies and
    workers. At times, the population reaches upwards of 10,000
    people on weekends.
        Grand Isle is the staging area in offshore for oil
    exploration and production for Shell, Exxon and Conoco. Some
    600 employees transfer a week, traveling through the heliports
    supporting activities from the Port Fourchon facilities.
    Housing personnel, services, food supply and the Coast Guard
    assistance are directly dependent on Grand Isle. The Federal
    Government is currently right now spending $5 million on a face
    lift on the Coast Guard station in Grand Isle on the eastern
    end. Approximately 10 million pounds of Louisiana production of
    shrimp fisheries originate in Grand Isle. This generates about
    $18 million in Louisiana's economy. Figures estimating oysters
    and fish and other shellfish harvests are not available at this
    time.
        The Grand Isle Tarpon Rodeo, which is the oldest and the
    largest competitive sportfishing rodeo in the United States
    held its 77th consecutive rodeo in 1998. Officially there are
    10 sponsored fishing tournaments held each year in Grand Isle.
    With recreation fishing and boating being our greatest tourist
    attraction, we are able to provide 322 rental room facilities
    and 550 boat dock accommodations. Most are at full utilization
    throughout the year. One of the most successful state parks,
    which on some weekends provides entertainment for upward of
    5,400 in out of state vacationers, and the yearly figures
    indicate 101,000 visitors, is comprised of 148 acres on the
    east and 48 acres west of the island.
        The only fishing pier in the Gulf of Mexico waters is
    located in the state park in Grand Isle.
        Grand Isle has been plagued with water shortage for many
    years. Our neighboring parish, Lafourche, furnishes our current
    water supply. Increased construction throughout Lafourche
    Parish, especially at Port Fourchon, places a high demand on
    outdated infrastructure with Grand Isle being at the end of the
    line. Each year, beginning in April through September, our
    residents face the threat of non-potable water. Barging water
    and expensive short-term solutions cost us last year nearly
    $300,000. Six years of coordinating an effort between the
    government and agencies became a reality when the funding was
    approved through all agencies for $18 million to run a 32-mile
    pipeline, 16-inch water line, which will begin at the Lower
    Lafitte and extend through Barataria waterway in Grand Isle.
    Construction will begin sometime in June this year and
    completion early in 2000.
        My family has lived in Grand Isle for many generations. At
    one time, several small islands protected Grand Isle on the
    north side. The one I remember as a boy growing up was Bird
    Island. This island was approximately one mile long, one half
    mile wide. All the coastal species birds--the terns, the
    egrets, the pelicans and others were inhabitants on the island.
    The lushness of the vegetation attracted these birds to nest,
    others to feed as they crossed the gulf on their migratory
    course to the north. This course is still active today;
    however, the birds no longer stop on Bird Island because Bird
    Island no longer exists due to the coastal erosion. There is
    only one remaining island on the north. We named it, it is
    called Tern Island. Tern Island, which is renamed to compliment
    the former Bird Island, is abundant with the native vegetation
    such as the bay leaf and the guava trees that grow wild. This
    island is approximately 500 feet long and a quarter of a mile
    wide, small in comparison to what was once there and
    disappearing at an alarming rate.
        Grand Terre has not been spared for onslaught of storms and
    tidal actions. In October of 1998, my office received a letter
    from Mr. Frank Truesdale, acting Marine Laboratory Director on
    Grand Terre. Mr. Truesdale stated that what beach sand is
    available on the western end is washing over and filling the
    five-acre pond in front of the laboratory. The entire eastern
    portion of this pond which existed in 1980 has now liberated as
    either part of the new beach or part of the gulf. As the sand
    washes over, the new beds of peat are exposed as the surf
    erodes deeply into what had once been marsh, well into the
    beach. After the storms in 1998, eight foot strips of peat have
    been exposed in some places.
        The most vivid measure of how much Grand Terre has eroded
    and continues to erode is the wooden walkway that during the
    1980s crossed the five-acre pond to the beach, ending about 50
    feet above the high tide line. What is left of the gulf end of
    this walkway is now in the Gulf of Mexico about 40 feet seaward
    of the low tide line.
        Grand Terre is not only the home of the Marine Laboratory,
    but for Fort Livingston as well. The fort, completed some time
    in the early 1860s, is a part of Fort Livingston State
    Commemorative Area and has been placed on the National Register
    of Historic Places. It was abandoned in 1866, the state
    eventually took possession in 1923. The western wall now
    extends 75 feet into the Gulf of Mexico.
        In October of 1992, Grand Isle Independent Levee District
    was formed. As President and Director, I have monitored the
    land loss and recorded the data. Various agencies--Louisiana
    Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson Parish and the U.S.
    Corps of Engineers--have helped me complete three projects
    creating a segmented breakwater system. These breakwaters are
    strategically placed to protect LA-1, our only evacuation route
    in and out the island from tidal actions and severe weather
    conditions. To this date, approximately $2.9 million has been
    spent on these projects.
        I have a total of nine permits in my hands trying to find
    the right funding to put these projects to fight coastal
    erosion.
        Grand Isle experienced a very active hurricane season last
    year. I have called mandatory evacuations three times within a
    four week period the whole month of September. Although no such
    orders were issued for tropical storm Frances, this turned into
    a most damaging storm, 21 inches of rain on my island and
    strong winds produced staggering losses. To this date, as a
    result of these four storms, I lost 280 feet of land on the
    north side or the bay side of Grand Isle. The south side of
    Grand Isle in the state park, we have lost 400 feet as of this
    date in overnight camping areas. Our hurricane protection levee
    suffered considerable damage as a result of those storms.
        As I understand the various titles of H.R. 701, the
    proposed distribution the OCS funds would have a significant
    positive impact to communities like Grand Isle in funding much
    needed conservation and recreation programs. While we have been
    recipients of the Federal assistance from the Corps of
    Engineers and other agencies through cost share projects like
    our hurricane protection levee and our waterline, we
    desperately seek additional funding assistance for other what I
    call quality of life projects.
        We in Grand Isle are not wanting to look for a Federal
    handout. In fact, we have always attempted ourselves first from
    the local and state standpoint. When the project's costs have
    been beyond our funding capabilities, we have sought Federal
    assistance, but always provided local dollars to match the
    Federal funds.
        As I stated earlier, Grand Isle's proximity to the gulf
    makes its a natural location for those companies and government
    agencies that support the oil and gas activities in our region.
    With that comes jobs. This is obviously good for our local tax
    base and economy. However, it also comes with a high price to
    our island's infrastructure. It is virtually impossible to know
    what the impacts are from the OCS activities, but they are
    there and are obvious. From the wear and tear of our roads and
    the waterways to the threat of actual pass accidents in the
    gulf, we pay a dear price.
        I believe H.R. 701 would provide valuable funding resources
    to help communities like ours in maintaining and improving our
    various projects and programs. H.R. 701 offers a real balance
    between the oil and gas production and exploration and true
    natural resource conservation. The creation of an Outer
    Continental Shelf Impact Assistance Fund outlined in the bill
    will ensure these funds are properly recovered and distributed.
    This is very important for our future planning and will help
    expedite long-awaited wetland restoration and water quality
    projects, just to name a few. This goes to what we attempt to
    do every day in Grand Isle and throughout Louisiana,
    conservation and reinvestment in our resources.
        While I am a proponent of the oil and gas development, I
    particularly appreciate the fact that the bill will provide
    these important funds without offering or having to create more
    incentives for new oil and gas development. The bill's ability
    to do this will confirm what we have thought for a long time,
    that the State of Louisiana has not been getting its fair share
    of these revenues to help offset the impacts that activities in
    the gulf have on us.
        As I read the bill for the first time several weeks ago, I
    was struck by the recurring theme of how the bill provided for
    guarantees in annual funding. I am sure that I do not have to
    tell all of you that the state and local governments like ours
    with very limited funds, but enormous natural resources that we
    are ultimately responsible for protecting, most have these
    kinds of dedicated source of funding. The Land and Water
    Conservation Fund has provided valuable assistance to Louisiana
    in the past, but like most other programs, it never seems to be
    enough.
        In summary, I believe H.R. 701 is a comprehensive, fair
    approach to assist the state and local governments who have
    long protected, restored and helped manage our most valuable
    natural resources. For these and many other reasons, I am
    pleased to offer my complete support for this bill and applaud
    each of you in the efforts of getting this passed.
        Thank you, sir.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
        I would just advise the rest of the panel because we have
    another panel to follow, that we want to be able to hear from
    everybody who has prepared testimony today, any prepared
    remarks you have submitted will be made part of the record, so
    it would be best if you could summarize and try and stay within
    the five minutes and the lights will indicate the duration of
    the five minutes, just so that we can hear from everybody. I
    would hate for the Committee to have come here and not to hear
    from everybody on the next panel. So----
        Mayor Camardelle. I apologize.
        Mr. DeFazio. No, that is fine, Mr. Mayor. The Chairman was
    cutting a lot of slack with the Governor and mayors are more
    important than Governors to me, so we had to cut you some slack
    too.
        Mayor Camardelle. Thank you.
        Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Kohl.

    STATEMENT OF BARRY KOHL, DIRECTOR AND PAST PRESIDENT, LOUISIANA
                AUDUBON COUNCIL, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

        Mr. Kohl. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my
    name is Barry Kohl, I am director and a past president of the
    Louisiana Audubon Council. On behalf of the Council, I would
    like to express our appreciation to the Committee and Chairman
    Young for inviting us to come here today. The Louisiana Audubon
    Council is a not-for-profit organization comprised of local
    Audubon chapters, affiliates and members of the National
    Audubon Society. We are dedicated to the protection and
    restoration of Louisiana's coastal wetlands, bottomland
    hardwood forests and other critical wildlife habitats of the
    Lower Mississippi River.
        We are pleased that the proposals now before this Committee
    and before the Senate will invest in the management of the
    nations natural resources and address the coastal impacts of
    the production of offshore oil and gas.
        Many of the impacts have already been addressed by previous
    panelists, so I will summarize and only mention some of the
    issues that have not been addressed today. The details are in
    my written testimony which has been submitted.
        I would like to discuss the impacts of toxic chemicals.
    According to the most recent EPA Toxic Release Inventory
    Report, Louisiana is the nation's second largest polluter after
    Texas. Most of this pollution is tied to the petrochemical
    industry. Chemical pollution along the Mississippi River is so
    serious that nationally, the section between Baton Rouge and
    New Orleans has become known as cancer alley.
        There are presently 17 state mercury in fish health
    advisories for pregnant women and children under seven years of
    age as a result of past and current mercury pollution in the
    state of Louisiana. The Audubon Council is actively
    investigating these sources of the pollution.
        Permitting. As was mentioned earlier, permitting is very
    important, it controls a lot of the damage that is being done
    in the state of Louisiana and I want to address some of those
    issues.
        The protection afforded by the Clean Water Act has only
    affected oil and gas dredging since 1975. This was largely due
    to numerous lawsuits which increased the Corps' jurisdiction.
    Before that date, there were few Federal controls on dredging
    our marshes and swamps but during the 1980s, dredging permits
    issued to the energy industry were fast-tracked because of
    national priorities. Public notice comment periods were reduced
    to 15 days, giving the public and resource agencies
    insufficient review time. Today's method of reducing the
    effectiveness of the Federal permitting program is to cut the
    budgets of regulatory agencies. A district engineer recently
    wrote that, and I quote, ``the regulatory branch is
    deliberately underfunded each year as part of the grand game of
    give and take between private interests and public oversight.''
    Political influence is derailing the intent of the Clean Water
    Act and promoting the conversion of wetlands in Louisiana. This
    has to change. I suggest that some of the OCS revenues be given
    to the Federal agencies which have to regulate our coastal
    zone. Those agencies--EPA, Fish & Wildlife Service, the Corps
    and National Marine Fisheries Services. The money should be
    used to adequately staff and fund the Corps of Engineers who
    have over 2,000 permits a year to review.
        In the 1980s, the Federal Government considered setting up
    formal national sacrifice zones which would be used for
    national defense or nuclear waste repositories. The concept
    remains in fact, if not in name and we believe that Louisiana
    has become one of these areas.
        I would like to address specifically the legislation. We
    ask that the bills be strengthened. We support all the
    legislation in part that has been submitted to Congress. We do
    feel it should be strengthened. We are concerned that H.R. 701
    fails to ensure that Federal funds be provided to the states
    under Title III to be used to address the needs of non-game
    species. The Audubon Council has worked hard over the years to
    assure non-game species in Louisiana are properly protected.
    Any new money made available for state level wildlife
    conservation should be substantially dedicated to non-game
    species.
        We request that the Land and Water Conservation Fund be
    fully funded from OCS revenues. The money made available each
    year should be available on a permanent basis and independent
    of the annual appropriation process.
        We are concerned that under H.R. 701, there is not an
    effective Federal oversight over the spending of billions of
    dollars each year by the states. Based on our experience in
    Louisiana, it would be unwise to give money to the states
    without some accountability. Money given to local political
    subdivisions needs to be closely monitored. Louisiana's
    reputation for corruption is founded on fact and we are deeply
    concerned that 50 percent of the state's allocable share of OCS
    funds could be misappropriated or squandered by parish
    officials.
        In conclusion, I would just like to summarize and state
    that our recommendations that the past coastal impacts be used
    in the formula to allocate coastal impact funds; that there be
    oversight of local governments' spending and creation of a
    coastal impact trust fund for each state.
        Money given to the states and local governments should not
    stimulate more destruction of coastal environments, there
    should not be incentives to convert wetlands to developments
    even though they are for recreation.
        Oil and gas impacts should be fully addressed in any
    mitigation program. Toxic wastes present an insidious wildlife,
    human health problem. Cleaning up contaminated water bodies and
    reduction of toxic petrochemical discharges should be supported
    in any future bill.
        Also, funding should be used to expand the national
    wildlife refuge system.
        Since Louisiana has suffered the most coastal environmental
    damage as a result of oil and gas exploration and development
    and since the majority of OCS revenues come from leases off the
    Louisiana coast, it is only fair that Louisiana should be given
    more consideration in sharing these coastal impact funds.
        Thank you.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kohl follows:]

               Statement of Barry Kohl, Louisiana Audubon Council

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
        My name is Barry Kohl and I am a director and a past
    president of the Louisiana Audubon Council. On behalf of the
    Council, I would like to express our appreciation to the
    Committee and Chairman Young for inviting us to come here
    today. The Louisiana Audubon Council is a not-for-profit
    organization comprised of local Audubon chapters, affiliates
    and members of the National Audubon Society. We are dedicated
    to the protection and restoration of Louisiana's coastal
    wetlands, bottomland hardwood forests and other critical
    wildlife habitats of the Lower Mississippi River.
        We are pleased that the proposals now before this Committee
    and before the Senate will invest in the management of this
    nation's natural resources and address the coastal impacts of
    the production of OCS oil and gas.
        We also want to thank the Louisiana Congressional
    delegation for co-sponsoring the Young Bill, H.R. 701.
    Certainly we interpret this action as an affirmation that our
    delegation recognizes the far-reaching adverse impacts of the
    oil and gas industry on our state's waters, coastal zone,
    public lands and wildlife. We hope that members of this
    Committee will have the opportunity to fly over our coastal
    zone to see the damage for themselves.
        Louisiana has historically had the greatest environmental
    impacts from the exploration for oil and gas of any coastal
    state. Presently, the bulk of OCS oil and gas revenues come
    from the area off Louisiana's coast. We therefore believe that
    any bill which is to offset states for environmental losses
    should include, proportionally within its allocation formula,
    the historical environmental losses inflicted on each state.
        I want to begin my presentation by discussing the direct
    and indirect impacts to Louisiana's Coastal Zone from oil and
    gas exploration and production.

    Oil and Gas Impacts on the Coastal Zone:

        The first well drilled in a Louisiana coastal Parish was in
    1901. By 1941, over 18,800 wells had been drilled in the
    coastal marshes. By 1993, 32,000 oil and gas wells existed in
    coastal wetlands and there were 790 oil and gas fields. Many
    companies which explored in our swamps and marshes in the first
    half of this century moved offshore into OCS waters after 1947.
        According to the MMS, there are now 35,632 boreholes in the
    Gulf of Mexico OCS. Nearly 85 percent of these were drilled off
    Louisiana's coast. There are 3,973 producing platforms and 87
    percent of these are in OCS waters off Louisiana. These
    platforms producing the bulk of the OCS oil and gas nationwide.

    Navigation, pipeline and access canals:

        As of February 1998, 358 pipelines cross the Federal/state
    line from the OCS. There are more than 21,000 miles of
    pipelines in Federal offshore waters and thousands more inland
    criss-crossing our coastal zone. Many of these lie in dredged
    canals and continue to alter coastal hydrology.
        There are, additionally, thousands of oil and gas dredged
    canals onshore to access drill sites. Navigation canals
    authorized by Congress and dredged by the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers have added to coastal loss by introducing saltwater
    intrusion and secondary impacts. These navigation projects are
    used primarily by the oil, gas and chemical industries for
    transportation of commodities or for servicing the offshore oil
    industry.
        Though we all benefit from the oil and gas industry, there
    can be no doubt it has been at the expense of our coastal
    environments.

    Infrastructure impacts:

        There are 21 supply bases in coastal parishes which support
    OCS activities. One base, Port Fourchon, has converted almost
    2,600 acres of coastal wetlands to industrial use. Residential
    expansion is following this development. I need not remind the
    Committee that this is a hurricane prone area.
        Because of the demand for larger and larger production
    facilities, fabrication yards have been sited near major
    waterways along the Louisiana coast. Thousands of acres of
    wetlands have been cleared near Houma and Morgan City to build
    the giant offshore structures used in the deep water OCS.

    Toxic Chemicals:

        According to the most recent EPA Toxic Release Inventory
    report, Louisiana is the nation's second largest polluter after
    Texas. Most of this pollution is tied to the petrochemical
    industry. Chemical pollution along the Mississippi River is so
    serious that nationally the section between Baton Rouge and New
    Orleans has become known as ``cancer alley.''
        Toxic releases from petrochemical industries pollute our
    land, water and air. The Chlor-alkali industry, which produces
    caustic soda and chlorine gas from brine, is emitting two tons
    of mercury into our state's air each year. Two plants are still
    using archaic mercury-cell technology which contributes to the
    pollution of our streams and lakes. One of these sites has been
    polluting continuously since 1945!
        There are presently 17 state mercury-in-fish health
    advisories for pregnant women and children under 7 yrs of age
    as a result of past and current mercury pollution. The Audubon
    Council is actively investigating the sources of this
    pollution.
        EPA has designated the Calcasieu Estuary, in southwestern
    Louisiana, as one of the state's most contaminated waterbodies.
    Saltwater intrusion from the Calcasieu Ship Channel is causing
    additional habitat destruction.

    Drilling wastes:

        Because oil drilling wastes cannot be discharged offshore
    they are transported to onshore areas for disposal in open
    pits. In Louisiana, these disposal areas are mostly located in
    wetlands which are prone to hurricane tidal flooding. Leakage
    from these sites has allegedly caused health problems for
    nearby residents.

    Permitting:

        The protection afforded by the Clean Water Act has only
    affected oil and gas dredging since 1975. And this was largely
    due to numerous lawsuits which increased the Corps'
    jurisdiction. Before that date, there were few controls on
    dredging our marshes and swamps. But during the 1980's dredging
    permits issued to the energy industry were ``fast-tracked''
    because of ``national priorities.'' Public notice comment
    periods were reduced to 15 days giving the public and resource
    agencies insufficient review time.
        Today's method of reducing the effectiveness of the Federal
    permitting program is to cut the budgets of regulatory
    agencies. A District Engineer recently wrote that, ``the
    regulatory [branch] is deliberately underfunded each year as
    part of the grand game of give and take between private
    interests and public oversight.'' Political influence is
    derailing the intent of Clean Water Act and promoting the
    conversion of wetlands in Louisiana. This has to change.
        In the 1980's the Federal Government considered setting up
    formal ``National Sacrifice Zones'' which would be used for
    national defense or nuclear waste repositories. The concept
    remains in fact, if not in name, and we believe that Louisiana
    has become one of these areas.

    Sharing in Coastal Impact Assistance Funds:

        There is no doubt that the Louisiana environment has paid
    dearly to provide the energy for the rest of the nation for
    almost 100 years. If any state needs Coastal Impact Assistance,
    it is Louisiana. Presently the bulk of all OCS revenues come
    from the Central OCS Sale area off the coast of our state.
        We believe the revenues generated by the Federal Government
    from OCS leases and royalties should be shared by coastal
    states. The money should be allocated to the states based on
    the present OCS production and the known impacts to the states'
    coastal zone. Because of the 50 yrs of impacts from offshore
    oil and gas exploration and production, Louisiana deserves a
    significant portion of these OCS revenues.

    Comments on the Proposed Legislation:

        In addressing the bills before the Committee today I would
    like to say thatthe Audubon Council is pleased that there is a
    wildlife habitat preservation component. To the migratory
    waterfowl and neotropical birds which depend on hardwoods and
    wetlands for their survival, the Mississippi flyway and the
    Mississippi Delta are an international resource. We do ask that
    the bills be strengthened as follows:
    Wildlife Conservation and Restoration:

        We are concerned that H.R. 701 fails to ensure that Federal
    funds provided to the states under Title III will be used to
    address the needs of non-game species. None of the bills
    provide money for non-game species/habitat. Traditionally, 95
    percent of the money spent on wildlife conservation has gone to
    wildlife that is hunted and fished. This funding disparity must
    be addressed. The Audubon Council has worked hard over the
    years to assure that non-game species in Louisiana are properly
    protected. Any new money made available for state-level
    wildlife conservation should be substantially dedicated to non-
    game species.

    Land and Water Conservation Fund:

        The Audubon Council requests that the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF) be fully funded from OCS revenues. The
    money made available to the LWCF each year must be available on
    a permanent basis and independent of the annual appropriations
    process.
        The LWCF should receive a minimum of $900 million each
    year. At least half of this money should be allocated to
    Federal land acquisition, with the remainder going to the
    stateside matching grant program. Further land purchases with
    LWCF funds should not be restricted to in-holdings and should
    be available on all current and future National Wildlife
    Refuges.

    The Need For Oversight:

        We are concerned that under H.R. 701 there is not effective
    Federal oversight over the spending of billions of dollars each
    year by the states. Based on our experience in Louisiana it
    would be unwise to give money to the states without some
    accountability. We have seen the new partnership between state
    and Federal agencies in Louisiana as part of the CWPPRA and
    Coastal 2050 planning process. We would like to see a similar
    partnership with Federal agencies having input on the use of
    OCS funds for land acquisition or any other conservation
    purposes. We ask that there be a strong public component to any
    planning/task force.

    Potential Abuse:

        Money given to local political subdivisions needs to be
    closely monitored. Louisiana's reputation for corruption is
    founded on fact. Local sheriffs and assessors consider their
    parishes to be their personal fiefdoms. We are deeply concerned
    that 50 percent of the state's allocable share of OCS funds
    would be misappropriated or squandered by Parish officials.
        We are opposed to the provision under Section 104 of H.R.
    701 which would allow states and local governments to use the
    money for a vast array of purposes, including promoting highway
    construction, golf courses, drainage and levees, and other non-
    conservation uses. The money should be used primarily to
    restore and enhance coastal and ocean resources, rather than to
    further environmental degradation.
        We suggest that, since the OCS revenues will decline over
    the next 10 years, the revenues given to the states should be
    placed state trust funds to preserve some of the money for the
    long term. This would also assure a more prudent expenditure of
    the windfall.

    New Programs:

        Any new program should build on existing watershed, coastal
    management plans, or restoration plans that are already in
    existence. Considerable time and money 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 (CWPPRA), and others
    to produce strategies and plans for improving coastal resources
    and waters. It is sensible that the planning provisions of any
    new OCS legislation should build on planning that has already
    been done rather than begin anew.

    Allocation Formula:

        Under H.R. 701, 50 percent of the Title I funds are
    allocated to the coastal states on proximity to OCS production.
    The remainder will be distributed by population (25 percent)
    and length of shoreline (25 percent). we ask that there be a
    new allocation formula, one that includes as a major factor,
    the historic oil and gas activities which have degraded or
    destroyed the coastal environments. This is only fair. Neither
    H.R. 701 or H.R. 798 factor in the historic impacts. Louisiana
    has paid dearly by allowing the degradation of its coastal
    ecosystems to maintain the national energy supply. Are we to
    continue to be a ``national sacrifice zone?'' When the non-
    renewable OCS resources are gone, how will the damage be
    reversed?
        In considering the bills that are the subject of this
    hearing, this Committee and this Congress are undertaking the
    admirable task of determining how best to invest in the 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.

    Summary:

        We urge that in any final bill the following
    recommendations be considered:
             That past coastal impacts be used in the formula to
            allocate coastal impact funds.
             That there be oversight of local government spending
            and the creation of a Coastal Impact Trust Fund for each state.
             Money given to the states and local governments should
            not stimulate more destruction of coastal environments. There
            should not be incentives to convert wetlands to developments
            even though they are for recreation.
             Money made available for the LWCF must be permanent
            and independent of the appropriation process.
             Any new money made available for state-level wildlife
            conservation should be dedicated equally to non-game/game
            species.
             All oil and gas impacts should be fully addressed in
            any mitigation program. Toxic wastes present an insidious
            wildlife/human health problem. Cleaning up contaminated
            waterbodies and reduction of toxic petrochemical discharges
            should be supported in any future bill.
             Some funding should be used to expand the National
            Wildlife Refuges.
        Mr. Chairman, we believe that all the bills addressing the
    issuesdiscussed today have merit. We just need to refine the language
    and reconcile the differences between them. I would like to conclude
    with this thought. Since Louisiana has suffered the most coastal
    environmental damage as a result of oil and gas exploration and
    development and since the majority of the OCS revenues come from leases
    off the Louisiana coast it is only fair that Louisiana should be given
    more consideration in sharing these coastal impact funds.
        Thank you

       STATEMENT OF TED M. FALGOUT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GREATER
             LAFOURCHE PORT COMMISSION, GALLIANO, LOUISIANA

        Mr. Falgout. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio.
        Mr. DeFazio. Just state your name for recorder.
        Mr. Falgout. I am Ted Falgout, Port Director of Port
    Fourchon. I also have a written presentation that I have
    submitted.
        Port Fourchon is an increasingly significant busy port,
    located on the Gulf of Mexico. Historically, we have
    accommodated the shelf oil and gas activity, commercial
    fishing, Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP), foreign trade and
    recreational industries.
        Unlike many communities in the country, we have embraced
    the oil and gas industry since its beginning and have withstood
    the roller-coaster boom-bust cycles that are characteristic of
    this industry. We have tried our best to accommodate this
    industry's need and we take pride in our ability to provide
    safe navigation and state-of-the art facilities with little or
    no Federal assistance.
        With the passage of the Royalty Relief Act in 1996 and new
    technological advances, almost overnight the Gulf of Mexico
    changed from what was being called a dead sea to America's new
    frontier, and the rush to deepwater began.
        The post Royalty Relief shift to deepwater is dramatic, it
    is a decision of this nation that has been very rewarding with
    reduced foreign energy dependence, balance of trade and record
    lease sales and fat bonuses. But somehow in this frenzy, we
    have overlooked our responsibility to mitigate these impacts.
        Although the landside impacts are similar, the fiscal
    impacts are quite different. Instead of coastal states
    receiving lease payments

    and royalties to help mitigate these impacts, the Federal
    Government is receiving these billions of dollars and not
    supporting the impacted state in dealing with the consequences.
        Nowhere is the impact of OCS activity more evident than in
    Lafourche Parish, where Port Fourchon has become the focal
    point of intermodal transfer for support of nearly 75 percent
    of the deepwater projects in the central gulf. This sudden
    surge of activity has consumed us. Over 90 percent of today's
    business at the port is directly tied to the Federal OCS.
        Our port has doubled in size in just three years. Only five
    years ago, just before the deepwater explosion, we projected
    our existing development to be sufficient until the year 2010.
    Guess what? Last year we reached our 2010 projection and over
    100 companies and 1,000 trucks a day are operating out of our
    port.
        The U.S. Minerals Management Service, the Federal agency
    that administers the OCS drilling program, recently completed a
    study which concludes that as a result of heavy usage resulting
    from increased deepwater oil and gas development, Louisiana-1,
    the only road access to Port Fourchon, will experience
    significant reduction in its ability to provide adequate levels
    of services and will become increasingly strained. This study
    projects an 80 percent increase in truck traffic over the next
    decade and every fully loaded truck has the same impact on the
    highway as 9,600 passenger vehicles.
        This same agency in its most recent environmental impact
    statement describes the impacts on landside infrastructure,
    especially in focal point areas like Port Fourchon. The EIS
    includes statements like ``OCS program activities will continue
    to have a significant impact on infrastructure in south
    Lafourche Parish due to the increase in deepwater activity,''
    and other statements like, ``The cumulative impact is expected
    to result in potential for increased educational strain, strain
    on deteriorating conditions of existing infrastructure, some
    deleterious impacts to comprehensive land use plans and
    difficulties in delivering satisfactory levels of public
    services.''
        I have always thought that the purpose of an EIS was to
    identify the impacts so they can be properly mitigated. The
    impacts are clear and it is time to do something about them.
        A prime example of impact is the huge demand for high
    quality OCS drilling water. Port Fourchon is using 25 percent
    of south Lafourche's drinking water supply and has less than 1
    percent of its population. In addition, due to extremely low
    water pressure, we must barge water from other parishes. As a
    result of this surge of activity, our school system is
    strained, our law enforcement officials are constantly having
    to deal with transient workers and their impact, our landfills
    must accommodate millions of tons of OCS-generated solid waste.
    This is all in addition to the obvious environmental impacts.
        We strongly support H.R. 701. This bill will allow impacted
    states to share in OCS revenues so that we can sustain our
    landside infrastructure and restore our rapidly vanishing
    coastal wetlands, factors which are increasingly threatening
    our very existence in coastal Louisiana.
        Thank you.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Falgout, for a good summary.
        Dr. Wentz.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Falgout follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.164

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.165

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.166

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.167

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.168

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.169

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.170

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.171

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.172

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.173

     STATEMENT OF DR. ALAN WENTZ, GROUP MANAGER FOR CONSERVATION,
                  DUCKS UNLIMITED, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

        Dr. Wentz. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. DeFazio. Please state your name for the record.
        Dr. Wentz. My name is Alan Wentz of Ducks Unlimited.
        Both versions of this legislation recognize the desire of
    the American people to maintain healthy landscapes for future
    generations and the wildlife that is so much a part of our
    heritage.
        Ducks Unlimited has always recognized the value of habitat-
    based conservation to the long-term health of wildlife
    populations and to the well-being of humans. These bills will
    provide substantial amounts of funding to carry out the
    essential habitat conservation work for an array of wildlife
    species in ways that were never feasible before.
        Our state natural resource agencies are our front line for
    conservation. An investment in these programs is an investment
    in locally directed, effective and responsible land and
    wildlife stewardship. Passage of this legislation will build
    upon the support that states have historically received from
    hunters and anglers and will help equip state wildlife agencies
    with new conservation tools. This kind of investment in our
    country's infrastructure for natural resource management is
    absolutely essential to the future.
        State wildlife agencies have been given many new
    responsibilities over the last several decades. It is time for
    us to provide new sources of revenue to pay for these
    responsibilities.
        In addition to land acquisition, which obviously is a
    valuable conservation tool, this legislation will provide the
    resources for states to work with private landowners to find
    incentive-based, non-regulatory answers to conservation
    problems. Landowners are looking for assistance in restoring
    wetlands, native grasslands, forests and other habitats for
    both economic and wildlife benefits. For instance, landowners
    are finding that conservation easements are in many cases the
    best way to secure wildlife habitat and healthy landscapes
    while keeping the land economically productive.
        Our goal should be to keep the wildlife habitat and its
    private stewardship in place whenever possible without annual
    government or private subsidies. To do that, we must recognize
    that the landowner needs to create income from the land.
    Voluntary land protection and management programs where
    landowners are finding ways to preserve the integrity of their
    property while retaining ownership of the land are the wave of
    the future.
        One of the most contentious issues in conservation today is
    what to do about endangered species. Species that are hunted
    and have sufficient management tend to continue in abundance.
    On the other end of the continuum, species that are classed as
    endangered also receive a lot of management attention, but the
    majority of our wildlife species fall between these two groups,
    and we historically have not had sufficient funds to manage
    them. It is sensible to take actions that preclude the need for
    implementing controversial and expensive resource recovery
    plans once a species is listed.
        To paraphrase the motto of Partners in Flight, passage of
    this legislation will help keep common species common.
        DU applauds the authors of H.R. 701 for including
    provisions that make the interest earned from Title III monies
    available to the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund.
    Habitat conservation under the Wetlands Fund has been widely
    acclaimed in the conservation community. Providing additional
    funds to this proven successful program is a wise investment
    since every Federal dollar leverages an average of 2.3 non-
    Federal dollars. The Wetlands Act is one of the most successful
    partnership programs ever put into operation and new funds
    invested here will continue that effort and enhance the
    objectives of both of these important Congressional actions.
    These funds are seriously needed since last year only 42
    percent of the wetlands conservation projects submitted under
    the Act were funded.
        Since 1986, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan
    has been one of the great success stories in conservation.
    Through joint venture partnerships, public and private funds
    are combined to achieve results that are much greater than the
    sum of the parts. Following this lead, new partnerships are
    delivering habitat conservation that benefits all birds. Right
    now, there is an unprecedented climate of cooperation among
    bird conservationists. Never before has the conservation
    community been poised to provide for the habitat needs of such
    a large and diverse group of organisms. Science-based,
    landscape driven conservation plans for all song birds,
    waterfowl, shore birds and wading birds are being put into
    place. However, not only are we finalizing solid plans for the
    conservation of hundreds of species, but these plans will be
    integrated through efforts like the North American Bird
    Conservation Initiative which will maximize the effectiveness
    and efficiency of every dollar spent.
        The legislation under consideration here today will
    facilitate the success of these new and important partnerships.
    We hope the Committee will create final legislation that can be
    supported by the broadest group of organizations and
    individuals. We believe it is essential that Title III of H.R.
    701 be part of the final product.
        Thank you for inviting us to testify today. We support the
    concept of these bills because we, like so many other
    Americans, have a deep and abiding desire to see a healthy and
    thriving American landscape that provides for the needs of
    wildlife and people now and for our grandchildren and future
    generations.
        Thank you.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Your testimony will be given
    particular weight because you finished just before the red
    light went on.
        [Laughter.]
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Wentz follows:]

      Statement of Dr. Alan Wentz, PH.D., Group Manager for Conservation,
                             Ducks Unlimited, Inc.

        I would like to thank the Chairman, especially you
    Congressman Tauzin, and the other members of the Committee for
    inviting me to testify on behalf of Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
    regarding this important issue.
        Ducks Unlimited, Inc. (DU) is the world's largest, private
    waterfowl habitat conservation organization with over a million
    supporters in the United States. DU's mission is to fulfill the
    annual life cycle needs of North American waterfowl by
    protecting, enhancing, restoring and managing important
    wetlands and associated uplands. Since its founding in 1937, DU
    has conserved more than 8.8 million acres of prime wildlife
    habitat in all 50 states, each of the Canadian provinces and in
    key areas of Mexico. Some 900 species of wildlife, including
    many threatened and endangered species, use DU projects during
    some phase of their life cycles.
        We applaud the proposed reinvestment of Outer Continental
    Shelf oil revenues in the conservation of our natural
    resources. Enactment of this concept will leave a lasting
    legacy on the landscape of America's wild and natural places.
    Both versions of the legislation being heard today recognize
    the desire of the American people to maintain healthy
    landscapes for themselves and the wildlife that is so much a
    part of our heritage.

    The Approach is Visionary

        Ducks Unlimited has always recognized the value of habitat-
    based conservation to the long-term health of wildlife
    populations, and, in fact, to the well being of human
    populations as well. These bills provide substantial amounts of
    funding to carry out essential habitat conservation for an
    array of wildlife species in a way that has never been feasible
    before.
        State natural resource agencies are on the front line for
    conservation on the landscape level. They manage land and are
    very responsive to the citizenry. The Conservation and
    Reinvestment Act (CARA) provides much needed funds to states to
    bolster their conservation programs. An investment in these
    programs is an investment in locally directed, effective, and
    responsible land and wildlife stewardship. By building upon the
    support that states have historically received from hunters and
    anglers, CARA recognizes that a grand variety of wildlife
    benefits from conservation and the program will help equip
    state wildlife agencies to use a variety of conservation
    strategies. This kind of investment in our country's
    infrastructure for natural resource management is absolutely
    essential to our future. State wildlife agencies have been
    given many new responsibilities over the last few decades. It
    is time for us to provide new sources of revenue to pay for
    these responsibilities.
        In addition to land acquisition, which is a valuable
    conservation tool, CARA will provide the resources for states
    to work with private landowners to find incentive-based, non-
    regulatory answers to conservation problems. Ducks Unlimited
    works with landowners across the North American continent and
    we believe strongly in private property rights and values.
    Because of that we work with voluntary land protection and
    management programs where landowners are finding ways to
    preserve the integrity and health of their property, while
    retaining ownership of the land. Our efforts include assistance
    in restoring wetlands, native grasses, and natural forests for
    the benefit of the landowner and wildlife. There is a very high
    demand for these kinds of assistance. One of our beliefs is
    grounded in the fact that when you find land management
    practices that benefit both wildlife and the economic interests
    of the landowner you can expect those practices to continue
    without government or private subsidies.
        One of the tools we at DU increasingly use is the voluntary
    conservation easement. In fact, landowners are finding that
    conservation easements are, in many cases, the best way to
    secure wildlife habitat and healthy landscapes into the future,
    while keeping the land economically productive. DU holds
    conservation easements in many states. Our focus is on
    ``working'' lands that produce agricultural crops, timber or
    other products. The goal is to keep the wildlife habitat and
    its private stewardship in place for the future and to do that
    we all must recognize that the landowner needs to create an
    income stream from the land. Hopefully one of the ways state
    wildlife agencies will use a portion of the funds they receive
    under CARA is to facilitate creation of these types of
    easements.
        One of the most contentious issues in conservation today is
    what to do about endangered species. CARA provides resources
    for conservation of habitats before populations become
    perilously low. History has shown that species that are hunted
    and have sufficient management in place tend to be kept in
    abundance. On the other end of the continuum, species that are
    classed as endangered also receive a lot of management
    attention. But the majority of our wildlife species fall
    between these two groups and we historically have not had
    sufficient funds to manage these species. It is sensible to
    take actions that preclude the need for implementing
    controversial and expensive recovery plans once a species is
    listed. To paraphrase the motto of a Neotropical bird
    conservation effort--``Partners in Flight''--CARA will help us
    keep common species common.
        CARA would also provide states with funding for wildlife
    education and nature-based tourism, an important aspect of
    conservation in today's society. Natural resources conservation
    efforts that also educate the public about the values and
    benefits of those resources have the greatest potential for
    long-term success. The American public spends $100 billion each
    year in wildlife-related recreation. CARA will enhance that by
    helping to maintain healthy wildlife populations and provide
    for appropriate access, education, and related services.
        DU applauds the authors of CARA for including provisions
    that make the interest earned from Title III monies available
    to the North American Wetlands Conservation Act program.
    Habitat conservation under NAWCA has been widely acclaimed in
    the conservation community. Providing additional funds to this
    proven, successful program is a wise investment since an
    average of $2.3 non-Federal dollars matches every Federal
    dollar committed. NAWCA is one of the most successful
    partnership programs ever put into operation and new funds
    invested here will continue that effort and enhance the
    objectives of both of these important congressional actions.
        Finally, CARA is visionary in that it recognizes that
    landscapes rejuvenated and enhanced for wildlife help ensure
    the quality of life for Americans today and tomorrow because we
    all depend on the same clean and abundant water, air, and soil.

    Action is Timely

        Right now, there is an unprecedented climate of cooperation
    and integration among bird conservation initiatives. Never
    before has the conservation community been poised to provide
    for the habitat needs of such a large and diverse group of
    organisms. Science based, landscape driven conservation plans
    for all songbirds, waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds are
    being put into place as we enter the new millenium. However,
    not only are we finalizing solid plans for the conservation of
    hundreds of species, but these plans will be integrated through
    efforts like the North American Bird Conservation Initiative to
    maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of every dollar
    spent.
        Since 1986, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan,
    through partnerships known as joint ventures, has been one of
    the great success stories in conservation history. Through
    these partnerships, public and private funds are combined to
    achieve results that are much greater than the sum of the
    parts. Following this lead, new partnerships are forming to
    deliver habitat conservation that benefits all birds. CARA will
    provide increased public funds to facilitate the success of
    these new and important partnerships.

    Cooperation is Important

        It is our hope that the legislation that emerges from
    Congress can respond to the interests of both bills being
    discussed today. We believe it is healthy for the Committee to
    operate in a climate of cooperation to create final legislation
    that can be supported by the broadest group of organizations
    and individuals. We believe it is essential that Title III of
    H.R. 701 should be part of the final product.
        Thank you for inviting Ducks Unlimited to participate
    today. Ducks Unlimited supports the concept of these bills
    because we, like so many others, have a deep and abiding desire
    to see a healthy and thriving American landscape that provides
    for the needs of wildlife and people now and for our
    grandchildren and future generations.

       STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA M. SARTHOU, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GULF
              RESTORATION NETWORK, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

        Ms. Sarthou. Hello. My name is Cynthia Sarthou and I am
    Executive Director of the Gulf Restoration Network. We have
    submitted formal written testimony. The GRN is a member of the
    Marine Fish Conservation Network, a network of 80 groups
    nationally who fight for the conservation of marine fish. We
    have submitted a statement on their behalf as well.
        The Gulf Restoration Network is a network of over 40
    environmental, social justice, citizen and labor groups and
    individuals concerned about the long and short-term health of
    the Gulf of Mexico and dedicated to restoring it to a
    sustainable condition. Since 1994, we have striven to raise
    awareness of the need to address the threats to water quality,
    wetlands and coastal shorelines in the Gulf of Mexico.
        To understand our perspective, we must look at the impacts
    which the Gulf states as a whole have suffered as a result of
    oil and gas development. I am not going to go into any detail
    because I think you have heard it pretty extensively today. But
    we would like to note that it is not just Louisiana that
    suffers these impacts. The states of the western and central
    gulf, particularly Louisiana and Texas, support virtually all
    of the existing OCS activity in this country and the impacts on
    those states and their environment is undeniable.
        The communities of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and
    Texas are required to face the increased risks posed by
    continuing wetlands loss, degrading water quality and pollution
    from oil and gas development and the scarcity of funds to
    address those problems. Faced with this predicament in Gulf
    communities, the GRN is very hesitant to support any
    legislation that would provide incentives that could
    potentially inflict a similar fate on other communities of the
    United States. It is within this context that we have analyzed
    H.R. 701 and H.R. 798.
        Looking first at H.R. 701, we appreciate the intent behind
    H.R. 701 and the funds that it would provide to impacted
    states. However, we believe that H.R. 701 provides incentives
    for development in other coastal areas, including sensitive
    frontier areas which are not currently protected by the
    moratorium, and thus are very concerned with this legislation.
        To eliminate these incentives, the exclusion of revenues
    from leased tracts in areas under a moratorium must apply to
    all revenues under all three titles of the bill. Additionally,
    the definition of the term ``qualified outer continental shelf
    revenues'' in section 102 should exclude all revenues from
    bonus bids from leases issued after the date of enactment and
    revenues from new production on existing leases outside the
    western and central gulf.
        We also believe that the definition of ``eligible political
    subdivision'' in section 102.6 and the determination in section
    103(e) of an otherwise eligible local subdivision's share
    should explicitly exclude consideration of tracts leased after
    enactment.
        We are also concerned that the authorized uses in section
    104 of H.R. 701 do not ensure that the revenues will be used to
    restore and enhance coastal and ocean resources which we
    believe is critical. In fact, H.R. 701 would free states and
    localities to use the money for a huge array of purposes,
    including promoting more offshore oil drilling, highway
    construction unrelated to restoration efforts and similar
    activities.
        We prefer an approach such as that taken in Congressman
    Miller's bill, which specifically allocates funds for the
    conservation of coastal and marine environmental resources. At
    a minimum, the use of OCS impact assistance should be
    restricted to the amelioration of adverse environmental impacts
    resulting from siting, construction, expansion or operation of
    OCS facilities; projects and activities, including habitat
    acquisition, that protect or enhance air quality, water
    quality, fish and wildlife habitat or wetlands in the coastal
    zone; the collection of fisheries data and monies for fisheries
    management; protection of essential fish habitat; and
    administrative costs incurred in approving, disapproving or
    permitting OCS development.
        Specific consideration should be given to targeting monies
    to existing under-funded marine and coastal conservation
    programs such as coastal zone management, fisheries management,
    essential fish habitat or marine sanctuaries.
        Finally, under H.R. 701, we believe that there must be
    Federal oversight of the spending of the billions of dollars
    disbursed under that Act. We would also suggest that any
    required plan and all coastal impact assistance provided under
    the bill build upon existing watershed, coastal management or
    restoration plans that may already be in existence.
        Turning to H.R. 798, we are much more comfortable with the
    approach taken by this bill. The bill does not provide
    incentives for new offshore leasing or drilling, excludes from
    the definition of qualified OCS revenues all revenue from new
    leasing and production and requires that Title VI monies be
    spent on conservation of living marine resources.
        Finally, the bill provides significant new funding
    specifically for marine conservation, which we believe is
    important. Our only concern with H.R. 798 is that it fails to
    include a provision which specifically targets substantial
    funding to address the damages to coastal environments
    associated with existing oil and gas activity.
        We believe it is time to take seriously the damage that has
    been suffered by our states, particularly those in the western
    and central gulf, as the result of oil and gas activity.
    Funding to address this damage should be incorporated as an
    integral part of this or any legislation which seeks to refocus
    the use of Federal OCS revenues.
        We thank you for this opportunity to testify and we thank
    the Louisiana delegation for bringing these issues forward for
    discussion.
        Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, Ms. Sarthou.
        And finally, Mr. Mark Davis, Executive Director of the
    Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana. Mark.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Sarthou follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.174

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.175

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.176

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.177

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.178

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.179

       STATEMENT OF MARK DAVIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COALITION TO
           RESTORE COASTAL LOUISIANA, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA

        Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
    the Committee, particularly yourself and Congressman John for
    your leadership in bringing this issue forward and, of course,
    Chairman Young for allowing this event to take place.
        The Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana was founded in
    the mid 1980s expressly to deal with the issues of coastal land
    loss and coastal stewardship in Louisiana. The Coalition is
    made up of a broad array of interests, conservationists,
    fishermen, environmentalists, local governments, just about
    anybody who has a stake in the future of this, you know,
    national treasure.
        I think it is important to take a moment to really commend
    the authors of--and sponsors of both H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 for
    really charting a course that lays out historic opportunity for
    us to take up the stewardship challenge of our marine
    resources, public lands, historic properties and wildlife as we
    enter the next century. We support those initiatives and, you
    know, again think that both bills have much to commend them.
    Obviously there will be some fine tuning to do. However, it is
    the issue of coastal impact assistance that really I would like
    to spend the balance of my testimony on this morning. We also
    have a written statement which we would like the record to
    include.
        Mr. Tauzin. That is automatic. All of your written
    statements are a part of the record.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Our coasts are in crisis, as you have heard today, and this
    is not just a local problem. I think it has been made clear
    today that it is a combination of local activities and national
    policies that have created a situation in which we have a
    crisis which is both natural, cultural and economic, and that
    there is no easy way of, you know, splitting out a responsible
    party. Much of this started happening in the early part of this
    century before we knew better, while we had different values,
    and while some of the decisions may have been the best at that
    time, they are not necessarily the best decisions or policies
    to continue to pursue. This is a responsibility challenge, not
    necessarily a blame exercise, but it is an induced crisis. I
    think that has been made clear as well. Naturally this coast is
    a dynamic coast. Obviously we would have land loss but we would
    have land building. Since the turn of the century we have lost
    a million acres of our coast and we continue to lose. It is
    going to require a committed national response. I don't mean
    just a Federal response, I mean a national response that
    includes Federal, state, local, private and public because
    interests that affect all are concerned. You heard that from
    Mayor Morial as well.
        We believe that the approach taken by H.R. 701 in at least,
    you know, putting forth the coastal impact issue is preferred
    over H.R. 798, at least as we understand it to be written at
    this time. However, we do believe that it does need to be
    refined, and we understand that efforts, you know, are underway
    and we would support those. Specifically, we believe for this
    initiative to work it must pursue a partnered approach, which
    is again national in scale. We don't believe that this is just
    a program--it is going to involve combining the authorities
    that Mr. Westphal indicated earlier. It is going to require the
    combining of authorities for other agencies and it is going to
    require a commitment of new resources. As Ms. Sarthou just
    pointed out, we believe that instead of creating a whole new
    planning infrastructure, we need to build on those planning
    efforts that have already been undertaken. In Louisiana, we
    have quite a few. We have NEP programs, we have Coast 2050, we
    have things that have involved communities at all levels, and
    more importantly engage Federal partners on a day-to-day basis,
    not merely in a remote, you know, sign-off capacity. That is
    also the case in places like the Everglades and many other
    coastal areas in the country. So we strongly urge that we not
    compete with those works that have been done.
        In order for it to work, we don't believe it can prove new
    incentives for off-shore oil and gas development, not should it
    be a vehicle for expanding moratorium. That is not the purpose
    of this bill. This is not a policy bill, this is a
    responsibility bill. It can't be just a handout. I don't think
    we are asking for a block grant with no oversight or
    accountability. I don't know of a local government that prefers
    that option. We do not want a tobacco settlement situation, we
    want things which can go into problem solving immediately.
        For it to work, it cannot wait. We have a situation where
    we are losing--as Speaker Downer mentioned this morning, we are
    losing as we speak. Even if we were to stop all development,
    all oil activity, all navigation tomorrow, the crisis would
    continue. We would lose, again, a continued 25 square miles
    each year. So the question really is not how to do this--it
    should be how to do this, not should we do this. This is a
    national undertaking, and I believe we will be judged by
    history very, I guess, sternly if we do not take this challenge
    up.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:]

     Statement of Mark Davis, Executive Director, The 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 of 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 central 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 the 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
    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 to 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 promises of 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, in
    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. We
    strongly believe the best way of dealing with the incentive
    concern is to ensure that there are no incentives created. This
    initiative is not the place to debate our nation's policies on
    incentives or moratoria. It is the place to craft solutions to
    impacts that have already been loosed as a result of the
    existing and historical mineral development activities and
    policies. 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 destined to be lost forever--areas like
    the great Mississippi River delta and its neighboring coastal
    plain. These areas have already lost more than 1 million acres
    of coastal wetlands and barrier islands this century and they
    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 in 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
    not 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 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 off
    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 harm's 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 previous work
    rather than competing with it.
        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 Representatives Chris John and Billy Tauzin and the other
    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.

        Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.
        Let me first ask a general question and get your comments
    on it. It is often said if you don't read about it in the
    Washington Post in Washington it is not really happening, at
    least to Members of Congress, you know, and for that reason,
    when the Chesapeake became a topic of conversation in the
    Washington Post, the Chesapeake suddenly got a lot of
    attention. I am not decrying that, I am glad it did. You know,
    I think the Chesapeake is--I am sure you all agree, is an
    enormous national resource and preserving it and protecting it
    from the damages it was suffering and continues to suffer is
    critical.
        I think it was helpful to have the new head of the EPA come
    out of the state of Florida, that, you know, Florida got such
    attention in the Everglades. I am not saying that is bad. I
    think Carol Browner was an instrument of great, you know, good
    and successful, you know, arguments for the Everglade program.
        If I am right about that, obviously we are at a
    disadvantage. We have a huge ecological disaster occurring off
    the coast of Louisiana that does not get written about in the
    Washington Post frequently. We do not have the head of the EPA,
    you know, daily reminding people about the problems that she
    personally encountered as head of her own state agency with the
    Everglades. How do you help us overcome that? Tell me if you
    think it is a problem, and if it is a problem, how do we
    overcome it? Obviously getting our friends from New Mexico and,
    you know, Oregon to come and see the problems and witness the
    damage as they have today--and I know Tom and Peter have been
    tremendously impressed by what they have seen as part of it.
    What else can we do, and how bad is it, Mark?
        Mr. Davis. I will take a whack at that Congressman. First
    of all, I think we have to continue to work on letting the rest
    of the nation know that again this is not a Louisiana asset or
    a Louisiana crisis. There is not a person in the United States
    who will not be affected in one way or the other as to what we
    do or don't do here.
        Also, I think people need to understand better, and we need
    to do a better job I think of touting the Louisiana Delta and
    coast as unique national treasures. They are. There are as
    unique as the Grand Canyon and we sometimes are maybe more
    parochial than we should be in our outlook.
        I think the other crucial thing that is different now than
    has been in the past is that I think you have to have a
    governor and state legislature who are prepared to lead and put
    their--I guess their bid on the table. You cannot wait for the
    national government to come and solve your problem. You have to
    recognize you have one to begin with before anyone else will
    come. That is what has happened in places like the Everglades.
    That is what happens in the Chesapeake.
        Mr. Tauzin. Is that beginning to happen here?
        Mr. Davis. Yes. I think that is one of the good signs of
    having Governor Foster here this morning.
        Mr. Tauzin. And Jack Caldwell, too.
        Mr. Davis. Jack Caldwell having the Coast 2050 plan. Again,
    I believe we have--you know, if not turned the corner, we can
    see the corner. And again, hearings like this today. But again,
    it is not a press conference kind of awareness. I think it is
    really going to require, you know, an actual campaign to show
    why this is an investment not merely an entitlement.
        Mr. Tauzin. Some of you are associated with national
    organizations, the Audubon Society.
        Mr. Kohl. The National Audubon Society is focusing on
    Louisiana from the standpoint of the Atchafalaya Basin and we
    are very impressed that the--of the state's master plan for the
    Atchafalaya Basin and it has become a national priority for the
    National Audubon Society in giving support.
        Mr. Tauzin. If it just had a name that people could
    pronounce it might have gotten better attention.
        [Laughter]
        Mr. Davis. A lot of people do mispronounce it, but I think
    it does get attention. It is a large enough area. It is an area
    that a lot of people have come to Louisiana to see. It is, I
    think, appreciated by people outside the state. But I think
    mainly it shows that the state and the Federal Government is
    working together on an issue in a particular area to try to
    increase the conservation, the productivity in the area, et
    cetera. That, I think is a mechanism to get Louisiana back on
    the map, the national map. Take a unique area like the
    Atchafalaya----
        Mr. Tauzin. And highlight it.
        Mr. Davis. [continuing] and highlight it, get it in
    national articles, show what the state is doing, all of the
    positive aspects.
        Mr. Tauzin. Keep that up. It is very important.
        Let us talk about--before my time is up, I want to focus on
    something. We hear a lot about concern that--the proximity to
    production element in the current formula, it might encourage
    production. How can we on the one hand recognize that because
    of all of the pipelines, because of all the support activities,
    canals, the other transportation corridors we have built, and
    all of the use we have put to those facilities, which is, you
    know, not just building them, but as many witnesses pointed
    out, it is all the use you put to a canal system that
    eventually creates a lot of erosion and saltwater problems. How
    can you on the one hand ask the country to recognize that we
    have helped--at least accelerated, not cause a lot of this
    damage by being so open in terms of our willingness to develop
    the Gulf of Mexico for our nation's energy needs and at the
    same time not have that part of the formula so that the money
    goes to where the needs are? If the needs--the damage is
    related to proximity to production and you want to direct the
    money to the place where the needs are greatest, how can you do
    that without connecting the two? If you do not, theoretically
    at least, the money goes to places where it is not really
    needed because there is not as much damage. How do you answer
    that?
        Ms. Sarthou. Well the concern is not that it not be linked
    to the historical uses of oil and gas. In fact, it is my
    understanding and from our prospective there is no objection to
    it being linked to the historical perspective of how much
    production has been done historically. The question and the
    incentive is created when you, in fact, link part of it to
    anything that may be leased or developed after the date of
    enactment.
        Mr. Tauzin. So you are more concerned prospectively----
        Ms. Sarthou. Yes.
        Mr. Tauzin. [continuing] as to how it functions?
        Ms. Sarthou. Yes.
        Mr. Tauzin. That is the concern we heard in Washington as
    well.
        Ms. Sarthou. That is the concern because historically--I
    mean we agree with everyone that the states that have taken the
    biggest brunt of the industry need to get some monies to
    affect----
        Mr. Tauzin. You have got to stay close to it, you cannot
    avoid that.
        Ms. Sarthou. Right. But it is a historical issue, it is not
    a perspective issue.
        Mr. Tauzin. You cannot leave, by the way, without
    mentioning--I know, Mr. Kohl, you mentioned--somebody said I
    should make the point about corruption in local governments. I
    can assure you I--I always thought we had a lot in Louisiana
    until I have gone around the country. We have got a lot all
    over America. We are not unique in that.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Tauzin. We are unique in a lot of things but we are not
    unique in that respect. Those problems exist everywhere in
    America and I don't think we have any more or any less than
    Chicago or some other places.
        Mr. Kohl. Well it is a point well taken. That is one of the
    reasons that I felt that there needed to be built into the
    bills accountability not only for the state of Louisiana but
    for other states. I thought----
        Mr. Tauzin. I understand that point. I just didn't want us
    to get a rap that wasn't due to all quarters of this country.
        Mr. Kohl. I've lived here long enough that I've seen
    everything first hand here.
        Mr. Tauzin. Other members of the Committee. Mr. John.
        Mr. John. Yeah, just a couple of brief comments, Ms.
    Sarthou, to talk about--to expand on what Congressman Tauzin
    was talking about. I guess working on this piece of legislation
    from the national perspective and looking at the historic
    avenues that similar pieces of legislation have taken in the
    past a recurring poison pill has been drilling incentives.
    Those have really killed these types of legislation. So we took
    a calculated--calculated approach to this particular
    legislation to make sure that we went over and above to ensure
    that drilling incentives were not part of this bill. So I think
    that anyone who looks at this piece of legislation and uses
    that argument really reaches, because we have gone way, way out
    and beyond to try to make sure that the incentives were not
    there. And to be totally honest with you, when Shell Oil is
    contemplating a billion dollar investment offshore, I really do
    not think that a small part of OCS/CARA 1999 enters into their
    decision as to whether they are going to drill that well and
    Plaquemines Parish might get $17,000 from that particular piece
    of legislation. So that troubles me that that issue continues
    to surface time and time again, where I believe that you have
    to agree that we have gone over and above to try to squash that
    issue because we understand that historically that has been a
    problem. Could you comment a little bit about that?
        Ms. Sarthou. Yeah. In reading the legislation--in fact, the
    wording is rather broad. It talks about any revenues from
    leasing in many instances and specifically under the second two
    titles in relation to proximity. If you take certain
    situations, such as there is the fight now over whether Florida
    will remain in the moratorium. There are 65 leases already held
    in the offshore waters off of Florida. The citizens of Florida
    are very concerned that the titles of this bill could be used
    by persons already holding leases in the waters off of Florida
    as a basis to pressure coastal cities or communities to support
    what they would otherwise resist because the resistance in
    Florida to oil and gas drilling has always been that they get
    no revenues, therefore why should they risk their coast when in
    fact they would get no income source to offset anything
    attributable----
        Mr. John. I think that is a big reach.
        Ms. Sarthou. Well, I mean, I have read the legislation and
    I feel that that is the way it is written.
        Mr. Tauzin. I can solve this quickly. The authors have
    already agreed to use the Title I language in Title II and III.
    That will solve your problem.
        Ms. Sarthou. Right, that would solve the problem.
        Mr. Tauzin. Mary Landrieu was quoted in the Times Picayune
    yesterday as saying the same thing, that the Senate bill, as
    well as our bill, we have really tried hard to make it neutral
    on that question and the concerns raised in Washington, that
    the language was not used in Title II and III have been taken
    seriously. Mr. John, Don Young and I have already agreed to use
    the same language in the other two titles. That may solve the
    problem for you.
        Ms. Sarthou. I think that would probably solve largely the
    problem.
        Mr. Tauzin. Thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. John. Okay.
        Finally, I need to ask Ms. Sarthou one more question. You
    mentioned in your testimony that the revenues should be limited
    to the leases in the Gulf of Mexico. Do you believe that that
    is fair, first, and second; why should the revenues that will
    be generated to fund nationwide programs be limited in origin
    only to the Gulf of Mexico?
        Ms. Sarthou. That is not what I meant by my testimony. What
    I meant by my testimony was any revenues from existing drills.
    In other words, existing oil and gas production is fine. The
    problem is prospective oil and gas development risks other
    communities or coastal communities and their environment and
    that troubles us. But as Mr. Tauzin has said, that may in fact
    be solved by the language that you are now proposing to add to
    your bill.
        Mr. John. Right.
        Ms. Sarthou. I don't believe, and I never have, that the
    oil and gas developed in the state of Louisiana and in Texas
    should go to other states to fund what they are doing. I mean,
    I really believe that we need coastal impact----
        Mr. John. I am glad you clarified that because there are
    four different proposals out there and this legislation has a
    long way to go. We are going to integrate these pieces of
    legislation in this.
        Finally, if I may, Mr. Kohl, I am glad you had the little
    conversation with Congressman Tauzin because I found your
    comments a little offensive about the corruption of Louisiana
    government and local governments. I am glad that you recognize
    that this is just not unique to us because I did find that very
    offensive.
        Mr. Kohl. Well, I made the point mainly because of my
    experience with Federal revenue sharing funds here in the
    coastal parishes and the abuse that was--during the--those--at
    that time.
        Mr. John. And that in your eyes was unique to Louisiana,
    that that did not happen amongst other states and local
    communities?
        Mr. Kohl. I have lived in Louisiana now for 35 years, so I
    have observed mostly locally. I have not traveled that
    thoroughly and lived in other areas to know whether or not the
    abuses are of the same standard that we have here in Louisiana.
    All I am asking is that we recognize that abuses could take
    place and build into the bills a way of making sure that the
    money, the 50 percent that would be allocated to the local
    governments, that there be some accountability. I would even
    suggest putting that money in a trust fund since we are looking
    at only--probably only 10 years worth of money coming from the
    OCS. That money then hopefully would last longer than 10 years,
    be stretched out, because--as the decline in production takes
    place. But in that process, there could be accountability built
    in. I am just afraid that the windfalls, no matter what state,
    when it is--millions of dollars given to a local parish, that
    there is going to be abuse. I think in forming these bills that
    that should be built in. If it is, I withdraw my criticisms.
        Mr. John. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Tauzin. Any other member of the Committee?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Tauzin. Let me conclude by thanking you and urging you
    to do that thing I tried to focus on at the beginning. If we
    are going to be successful, we have to obviously work out any,
    you know, lasting concerns that we have and we are going to try
    to do that. I think I made that clear. But we also have to
    bring together an awful lot of people in this country from a
    lot of different perspectives. We are getting criticized on the
    right because our bill in the eyes of some does not protect
    private property enough, allows for too much acquisition of
    lands in western states, which 80 percent are already owned by
    the Federal Government in many cases. And we are being
    criticized somewhat on the left by not being environmental
    enough in the bill or, you know, careful enough to make sure
    the money is used for the purpose it--we are getting a lot of
    heat from both sides and if we are going to have a critical
    mass at the center that is going to pass this, we need two
    things. First of all, we need to resolve these outstanding
    concerns you have. Chairman Young has asked me to ask you all
    again to be as open minded as you can and respect the fact that
    we have got to balance a lot of votes before we get a critical
    mass to pass this and to find the money to fund it, which is
    going to be the second critical mass. So please work with him
    and his staff and with us and see if we cannot resolve lasting
    concerns to bring our bills together because Mr. Miller is an
    important player here and we want him on board. We want to have
    a bill that we can all support at the end.
        Finally, and probably the most important thing, everything
    you can do to make this into a national issue for us is
    critical. Everything you can do to make Americans recognize and
    wake up to the fact that this is, as you said, Mark, is not a
    Louisiana ecological disaster, this is a world disaster. This
    is the biggest land loss occurring anywhere in the world, on
    any coast of any country in the world, right here in Louisiana.
    And unless Americans recognize how awful it is--because they
    don't read about it in the Wall Street--I mean in the
    Washington Post every day, we are going to have a hard time
    getting this through. The good news I want to tell us is, the
    President has expressed some very positive things for our
    effort. When he came down to Louisiana to visit Ft. Polk, he
    had some very good comments to make to our delegation members
    on board with him. The bad news is this Kosovo thing. Finding
    the money is going to be tough. If we are divided it is not
    going to happen. We all have to be part of this plan.
        Again, thank you. My compliments to your testimony. As I
    have said, all of it is part of our record and I think it will
    enhance the progress of the bill. Thank you very much.
        Our last panel will be assembled. They will include the
    Honorable Willie Mount, Mayor of the City of Lake Charles,
    Louisiana which is a major community in Chris John's district;
    Mr. Paul Davidson, Executive Director of the Black Bear
    Conservation Committee out of Baton Rogue who, by the way, is
    doing a fabulous job of bringing the black bear back in
    Louisiana. I want to thank you for that. Mr. Ronald Anderson,
    President of Louisiana Farm Bureau; Ms. Patricia Gay, Executive
    Director of the Preservation Resource Center; Randy Lanctot of
    the Louisiana Wildlife Federation, Baton Rouge and Mr. Clifford
    Smith, President of T. Baker Smith and Son of Houma, Louisiana.
    Clifford, what is your official title so I can have it in the
    record?
        Mr. Smith. Member of the Mississippi River Commission.
        Mr. Tauzin. Member of the Mississippi River Commission. A
    presidential appointment to that very important commission.
        Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your patience today. We
    are going to give you again instruction that your written
    testimony is part of our record. You don't have to read it. If
    you would engage in a conversational discussion of your
    concerns and issues and comments. We will start with Mayor
    Mount. We welcome you all. Again, your testimony is welcome.

    STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIE T. MOUNT, MAYOR, CITY OF LAKE CHARLES,
                               LOUISIANA

        Ms. Mount. Thank you.
        Congressman Tauzin, members of the Committee on Resources,
    honored guests, ladies and gentlemen. It is my great privilege
    and honor to speak to you today as a representative of local
    government in a coastal area about the importance of the
    Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 to coastal
    communities throughout our state and our nation.
        The erosion of our fragile coastline is a national threat
    which is occurring incrementally and with deafening silence. As
    observed by Mark Davis in No Time to Lose, The Future of
    Louisiana, ``Louisianians will face disastrous consequences as
    communities, jobs and entire industries are reconfigured and
    abandoned. Commerce and communities throughout the U.S. will
    incur billions in unforeseen costs.''
        Coastal communities, better than anyone, understand the
    serious consequences of the loss of the wetlands. While
    challenged with these effects to land mass, fisheries, wildlife
    and tourism, to mention only a few, coastal communities have
    been called upon to focus their resources on roads and other
    infrastructure to service the exploration industry because that
    industry has been so important to the economies of those areas.
        This challenge points to the need for the assistance of the
    Conservation and Reinvestment Act. By resolving the oil and gas
    revenue distribution inequity nationally, the Conservation and
    Reinvestment Act provides for programs to address coastal
    restoration, provides funds to local governments to mitigate
    the impact of the offshore exploration and supports funding for
    the development of additional recreation to improve the quality
    of life in our cities and in our parishes.
        The experts will be presenting to you today great detail
    about the economic and statistical effect of the loss of our
    coastline. They will tell you about the staggering amounts of
    infrastructure that we stand to lose as a result of wetlands
    loss. They will tell you about the economic effects of coastal
    erosion on fisheries, on wildlife, on tourism and on hurricane
    and storm impact and more. Allow me to add a human face to
    those statistics.
        One of the most unique features of our great state is our
    marshes, wetlands and coast. Generations of local residents
    join people who take up temporary residency to enjoy fishing,
    hunting, bird watching and other recreational activities in a
    habitat that is unlike any other. Louisiana truly boasts a
    natural setting unlike virtually anywhere in this nation or the
    world.
        Yet the communities of our wetlands are seriously
    threatened by coastal erosion. For example, the residents of
    the Holly Beach area along Highway 82 in southwest Louisiana
    have the shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico at the highway as a
    result of coastal erosion. Let me say that again, despite the
    relocation of the highway and much reinforcement to protect its
    position, the edge of the highway is the shoreline of the Gulf
    of Mexico. That means that the highway is buffeted by every
    weather event that stirs up the Gulf of Mexico. Because the
    highway is the last natural ridge, or chenier as we call it,
    before the marsh, loss of the highway would lead to interior
    marsh loss. As a result, the communities are facing relocation
    because their hurricane evacuation route as well as their means
    of conducting everyday business will be lost with the loss of
    the highway. While the economic loss of communities is
    overwhelming, the human loss is even more calamitous.
        Let us look at another part of the state. The village of
    Cocodrie in Terrebonne Parish is entirely surrounded by marsh
    and there is no hurricane protection for the area. Home to
    recreational and commercial fishing alike, Cocodrie is also the
    home to the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, a 75,000
    square foot marine center with a replacement value of $24
    million. Cocodrie has a valuable and unique contribution to
    make to our state, our nation and our world. The experts
    predict that by 2050 over 55 percent of the marsh north of
    Cocodrie will be gone along with 65 percent of the marsh to the
    east; 35 percent of the marsh to the west and south will have
    turned to open waters. Should the community have to relocate,
    the economic impact of the infrastructure loss would cost up to
    $53 million according to the Coast 2050 study. But even more
    importantly, our people, our state and our nation will have
    lost a precious and unique area forever.
        Add to those communities the risk to numerous other areas
    in our state such as New Orleans and South Lafourche Parish,
    and you see the potential economic, social and human toll to
    communities at immediate risk as well as neighboring parishes,
    our entire state and nation.
        And the looming concern is that the human loss in the
    coastal parishes may be repeated over and over again, inching
    further and further inland, if the loss of coastline is not
    reversed. The effects are progressive and already are impacting
    areas some 100 miles inland. Neighboring communities such as
    ours are currently experiencing the effects on such features as
    transportation and flood and drainage capacity which depend
    heavily on the existence of the wetlands.
        Or as the Coast 2050 report states. ``The opportunity now
    exists to slow the loss of the wetlands, which will preserve
    the natural system while at the same time help these
    communities to continue to exist. It is a wiser decision to
    save wetlands rather than to move communities or replace that
    infrastructure.'' The experts are telling us what we know
    intuitively, that sustaining and preserving our wetlands is
    crucial to the future of all our communities in Louisiana.
        Ladies and gentlemen, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act
    of 1999 is about fairness. It is about fairness to our coastal
    communities and parishes; it is about fairness to our state and
    other states to receive a fair share of the offshore revenues;
    it is about fairness to our people; and it is about fairness to
    the continuation of a way of life that is unique and precious
    to our state and our country. Thank you for your favorable
    consideration of this Act.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Mount follows:]

        Statement of Hon. Willie L. Mount, Mayor, City of Lake Charles,
                                   Louisiana

        Congressman Tauzin, members of the Committee on Resources,
    honored guests, ladies and gentlemen. It is my great privilege
    and honor to speak to you today as a representative of local
    government in a coastal area about the importance of the
    Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 to coastal
    communities throughout our State and our nation.
        The erosion of our fragile coastline is a national threat
    which is occurring incrementally and with deafening silence. As
    observed by Mark Davis in No Time to Lose: The Future of
    Louisiana, ``Louisianians will face disastrous consequences as
    communities, jobs, and entire industries are reconfigured and
    abandoned. Commerce and communities throughout the U.S. will
    incur billions in unforeseen costs.''
        Coastal communities, better than anyone, understand the
    serious consequences of the loss of the wetlands. While
    challenged with these effects to land mass, fisheries,
    wildlife, and tourism, to mention only a few, coastal
    communities have been called upon to focus their resources on
    roads and other infrastructure to service the exploration
    industry because that industry has been so important to the
    economies of those areas.
        This challenge points to the need for the assistance of the
    Conservation and Reinvestment Act. By resolving the oil and gas
    revenue distribution inequity nationally, the Conservation and
    Reinvestment Act provides for programs to address coastal
    restoration, provides funds to local governments to mitigate
    the impacts of offshore exploration, and supports funding for
    the development of additional recreation to improve the quality
    of life in our cities and parishes.
        The experts will be presenting to you today great detail
    about the economic and statistical effect of the loss of our
    coastline. They will tell you about the staggering amounts of
    infrastructure that we stand to lose as a result of wetlands
    loss. They will tell you about the economic effects of coastal
    erosion on fisheries, on wildlife, on tourism, and on hurricane
    and storm impact and more. Allow me to add a human face to
    those statistics.
        One of the most unique features of our great state is our
    marshes, wetlands, and coast. Generations of local residents
    join people who take up temporary residency to enjoy fishing,
    hunting, bird watching and other recreational activities in a
    habitat that is unlike any other. Louisiana truly boasts a
    natural setting unlike virtually anywhere in the nation or the
    world.
        Yet the communities of our wetlands are seriously
    threatened by coastal erosion. For example, the residents of
    the Holly Beach area along Highway 82 in Southwest Louisiana
    have the shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico at the highway as a
    result of coastal erosion. Let me say that again, despite the
    relocation of the highway and much reinforcement to protect its
    position, the edge of the highway is the shoreline of the Gulf
    of Mexico. That means that the highway is buffeted by every
    weather event that stirs up the Gulf of Mexico. Because the
    highway is on the last natural ridge, or chenier as we call it,
    before the marsh, loss of the highway would lead to interior
    marsh loss. As a result, the communities are facing relocation
    because their hurricane evacuation route as well as their means
    of conducting everyday business will be lost with the loss of
    the highway. While the economic loss of communities is
    overwhelming, the human loss is even more calamitous.
        Let's look at another part of the state. The village of
    Cocodrie in Terrebonne Parish is entirely surrounded by marsh
    and there is no hurricane protection for the area. Home to
    recreational and commercial fishermen alike, Cocodrie is also
    the home to the Louisiana University's Marine Consortium, a
    75,000 square foot marine center with a replacement value of
    $24 million. Cocodrie has a valuable and unique contribution to
    make to our state, our nation, and our world. The experts
    project that by 2050, over 55 percent of the marsh north of
    Cocodrie will be gone along with 65 percent of the marsh to the
    east; 35 percent of the marsh to the west and south will have
    turned to open waters. Should the community have to relocate,
    the economic impact of the infrastructure loss would cost up to
    $53 million according to the Coast 2050 study. But even more
    importantly, our people, our State, our nation will have lost a
    precious and unique area forever.
        Add to those communities the risks to numerous other areas
    in our state such as New Orleans and South Lafourche parish,
    and you see the potential economic, social and human toll to
    communities at immediate risk as well as neighboring parishes,
    our entire state and nation.
        And the looming concern is that the human loss in the
    coastal parishes may be repeated over and over again, inching
    further and further inland, if the loss of coastline is not
    reversed. The effects are progressive and already are impacting
    areas some 100 miles inland. Neighboring communities such as
    ours are currently experiencing the effects on such features as
    transportation and flood and drainage capacity which depend
    heavily on the existence of the wetlands.
        Or as the Coast 2050 report states, ``The opportunity now
    exists to slow the loss of the wetlands, which will preserve
    the natural system while at the same time help these
    communities to continue to exist. It is a wiser decision to
    save the wetlands rather than to move communities or replace
    the infrastructure.'' The experts are telling us what we know
    intuitively, that sustaining and preserving our wetlands is
    crucial to the future of all communities in Louisiana.
        Ladies and gentlemen, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act
    of 1999 is about fairness. It is about fairness to our coastal
    communities and parishes; it is about fairness to our State and
    other states to receive a fair share of the offshore revenues;
    it is about fairness to our people; and it is about fairness to
    the continuation of a way of life that is unique and precious
    to our State and our country. Thank you for your favorable
    consideration of this Act.

        Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, Mayor Mount. I know that
    you have a schedule to keep and I am going to interrupt and
    allow members who would like to dialogue with you----
        Ms. Mount. Thank you.
        Mr. Tauzin. [continuing] and I know your own Congressman,
    Chris John, would like to do so. I am going to recognize him
    right now.
        Ms. Mount. Thank you.
        Mr. John. I am going to be very brief. Thank you for your
    patience, Mayor, and thank you for putting a human face, as you
    mentioned, on to this testimony with the mention of Highway 82.
    Let me say it to reinforce it one more time. LA 82 is the
    barrier island, the last defense from between the Gulf of
    Mexico and a huge resource, a marsh resource that is home to
    birds and bird watchers and alligators and ducks and fish and
    everything else. So it is a real critical situation down there.
    Thank you very much for coming and sharing those thoughts with
    us.
        Ms. Mount. Thank you Congressman John.
        Mr. Tauzin. Any other member of the Committee?
        [No response.)
        Mr. Tauzin. Mayor, we thank you very much. I know you have
    to keep a schedule. We appreciate your testimony, and as I
    said, it is all part of the record now.
        Ms. Mount. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity.
        Mr. Tauzin. We are pleased to welcome our black bear man,
    Mr. Davidson, to the Committee. By the way, I just saw a
    program on CNN on Teddy Roosevelt. I learned the teddy bear was
    named after the black bear here in Louisiana.
        Mr. Davidson. That's right.
        Mr. Tauzin. A little cub bear that he spared on a hunting
    trip or something. Mr. Davidson.
        Mr. Davidson. Maybe we will hear more about Teddy Roosevelt
    coming back down to go bear hunting, but it is a different kind
    of hunting, in a few months. We will see how that works out.
        Mr. Tauzin. That is right.

      STATEMENT OF PAUL DAVIDSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BLACK BEAR
             CONSERVATION COMMITTEE, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA

        Mr. Davidson. I would like to express my thanks to this
    Committee for allowing me to give my thoughts on these very
    important legislative initiatives and thank Chairman Young and
    Congressman Miller for their leadership in working to find a
    mechanism to conserve our nation's natural heritage.
        My name is Paul Davidson and I am Executive Director of the
    Black Bear Conservation Committee which is a diverse coalition
    of interest representing conservation organizations, timber and
    agricultural interest, state and Federal agencies and several
    universities working to restore the threatened Louisiana black
    bear to its historic range in Louisiana, Mississippi, southern
    Arkansas and east Texas. Both H.R. 701, the Conservation and
    Reinvestment Act of 1999 and H.R. 798, the Permanent Protection
    for America's Resources 2000 Act have the potential to rank
    with the most important conservation initiatives in America's
    history.
        I will start by stating that I have never seen the natural
    resource management community as excited about any proposed
    legislation as they seem to be about these. The possibility of
    a stable funding mechanism for the land and water conservation
    fund is a sound initiative that is long overdue. As a native of
    this great and beautiful state of Louisiana, I am tired of
    dealing with the negative environmental impacts of outer
    continental shelf oil and gas without any compensation. We
    deserve compensation and mitigation for these adverse impacts.
    It is only fitting that some of this money be used to mitigate
    the damages to our coast.
        I am concerned about some of the possible restrictions
    associated with the funding for Land and Water Conservation
    Fund. Prioritization of land acquisition should be based on
    sound science, both biological and social, not politics. To
    restrict acquisition to land in and around existing Federal
    properties will mean that many biologically, socially and
    economically significant areas cannot be protected. Flexibility
    is essential.
        Based on my experience with the federally listed Louisiana
    black bear, I am excited that we are finally looking at
    incentives for private landowners willing to manage for listed
    species. Incentives, especially in the South, where 90 percent
    of the forested habitat is privately owned, can go a long way
    in taking the conflict and controversy out of endangered
    species. When Congress established the Wetland Reserve Program
    in the 1990 Farm Bill it created an incentive for farmers to
    protect and restore farmed wetlands. Over 100,000 acres--a
    little over 113,000 to be exact--of nonproductive farm land has
    been enrolled in WRP in Louisiana since 1992. In northeast
    Louisiana where there exists a population of black bears,
    landowners wishing to enroll their property in the Wetlands
    Reserve Program are given extra points toward their ranking if
    their property is near occupied habitat of black bears. The
    bear, even though it is federally listed, is perceived as an
    asset to the property owner. Landowners in that part of the
    state embrace our efforts to restore bear populations and are
    actively involved in our work. By contrast, in south central
    Louisiana in Congressman Tauzin's district where another bear
    population exists there is no real need or incentive to enroll
    in WRP, so we have not been able to create a positive attitude
    associated with bears. Landowners have fears, and legitimate
    ones, of government regulation and have a total lack of trust
    in the Fish and Wildlife Service.
        This is a great example of an incentive that has worked.
    The Wetland Reserve Program is the perfect example. If we can
    mimic that with the Endangered Species, we are going to do it
    and we are going to do it right. I have in my written testimony
    some other examples but I will forgo those to try to expedite
    this.
        The prospect of sending more money to the states for fish
    and wildlife conservation has agencies buzzing. State wildlife
    agencies currently get the bulk of their Federal funding from
    Pittman/Robertson and Dingle/Johnson programs. These are
    dollars based on the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and
    are generally used to fund programs to improve hunting and
    fishing opportunities. This new source of money comes from a
    broader base of taxpayers, so should be used in ways to work
    for all the stakeholders. For efficiency and accountability we
    need a comprehensive plan from each state that shows how these
    monies will be spent. Those states with strong science-based
    landscape scale plans can identify areas that need protection
    and then can effectively prioritize projects and fund them in
    ways that give the taxpayer the most for their money. I think
    that each state agency needs a coordinator for this funding and
    that there be a network--a national network in place where
    these coordinators can communicate with one another. There are
    many opportunities for major projects that cross political
    boundaries. Cooperative projects among two or more states
    should be promoted and pooling resources should make for a
    bigger and hopefully better project.
        Dr. Wentz mentioned some of the projects that are ongoing
    involving state, Federal agencies, private landowners, Partners
    in Flight, some other organizations. There are some
    conservation initiatives going on right now--Ducks Unlimited is
    a major partner in those--to look at neotropical migratory
    birds priority conservation areas and we have met with these
    people. We have now put the highlighter on the maps on the wall
    to tie these priority areas together to provide corridors for
    bears to move back and forth. So we believe that there are some
    major conservation projects and some major initiatives in this
    region that are as progressive as any conservation initiative
    in the world right now. Ten years ago, you know, if you would
    have said it could work I would say no, but right now we have
    enough people working together, private landowners, large and
    small, are major partners in this and that is the key. Like Dr.
    Wentz said, the private landowner is the key to success in
    conservation in the South.
        Mr. Tauzin. What happened to that Florida bear that visited
    Baton Rouge, Paul?
        Mr. Davidson. He went back home.
        Mr. Tauzin. He went back home?
        Mr. Davidson. I think they took the collar off him when
    they got him back to Florida so they would not know where he
    went.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Tauzin. I am pleased to welcome Mr. Ronald Anderson,
    President of the Louisiana Farm Bureau.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Davidson follows:]

         Statement of Paul L. Davidson, Executive Director, Black Bear
                             Conservation Committee

        I would like to express my thanks to this Committee for
    allowing me to express my thoughts on these very important
    legislative initiatives and thank Chairman Young and
    Congressman Miller for their leadership in working to find a
    mechanism to conserve our nations natural heritage. My name is
    Paul Davidson and I will give the perspective of a biologist
    and conservationist that has for the past twenty years worked
    on natural resource management issues.
        I have had the privilege of working for an organization
    called the Black Bear Conservation Committee for the past seven
    and a half years. The Committee is a diverse coalition of
    interests representing conservation organizations, timber and
    agricultural interests, state and Federal agencies, and several
    universities working to restore the threatened Louisiana black
    bear to its historic range in Louisiana, Mississippi, southern
    Arkansas, and east Texas. Our experience in working with the
    diverse stakeholders in the natural resource arena will
    influence my statements this morning.
        Both H.R. 701, the ``Conservation and Reinvestment Act of
    1999'' and H.R. 798, the ``Permanent Protection for America's
    Resources 2000 Act'' have the potential to rank with the most
    important conservation initiatives in America's history.
        I will start by stating that I have never seen the natural
    resource management community as excited about any proposed
    legislation as they seem to be about these. The possibility of
    a stable funding mechanism for the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund is a sound initiative that is long overdue. And as a
    native of Louisiana, I, as well as many others from this
    beautiful state, are tired of dealing with the negative
    environmental impacts of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas
    operations so that places like Disneyworld can stay lit up like
    a Christmas tree. We deserve compensation and mitigation for
    these adverse impacts.
        I am concerned about some of the possible restrictions
    associated with this funding. Prioritization of land
    acquisitions should be based on sound science, both biological
    and social, not politics. To restrict acquisition to land in
    and around existing Federal properties will mean that many
    biologically, socially, and economically significant areas
    cannot be protected. We should work to get the most for our
    money, but with these restrictions, we will miss countless
    opportunities to get the best deals and protect the best
    habitat. Flexibility is essential, not restrictions.
        We also need to be able to respond quickly when
    opportunities become available. We see numerous potential
    acquisition opportunities missed because the landowners are not
    able to wait two or three years for Congress to appropriate the
    money to buy their property.
        Based on my experience with the federally listed Louisiana
    black bear, I am excited that we are finally looking at
    incentives for private landowners willing to manage for listed
    species. I think that we should also look at a mechanism to
    support those willing to enhance populations of ``candidate
    species'' as well. If we can do a better job of managing these
    species, populations will never get so low that they have to be
    listed. The lower the population, the more perilous the
    situation, and the less chance of recovery. The solution is to
    never allow the populations to get so low as to require
    listing. Incentives, especially in the South where 90 percent
    of the forested habitat is privately owned, can go a long way
    in taking the conflict and controversy out of endangered
    species issues.
        In Northeast Louisiana, where there exists a population of
    black bears, landowners wishing to enroll their property in the
    Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) are given extra points toward
    their ranking if their property is near habitat occupied by
    bears. The bear, even though it is federally listed, is
    perceived as an asset to the property owner. Landowners in that
    part of the state embrace our efforts to restore bear
    populations and are actively involved in our work.
        By contrast, in south-central Louisiana, where another bear
    population exists, there is no real need or incentive to enroll
    in WRP, so we have not been able to create a positive attitude
    associated with bears. Landowners have fears, and legitimate
    ones, of government regulation and have a total lack of trust
    in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Much of this lack of
    trust can be attributed to poor communication between agency
    personnel and the local communities.
        Common sense should tell us that landowners are not going
    to protect something on their property if it is not in there
    best interest to do so. If there are incentives that make
    managing for a given species an asset to the individual
    landowners, I think that we will see attitudes change very
    quickly.
        When Congress established the Wetland Reserve Program in
    the 1990 Farm Bill, it created an incentive for farmers to
    protect and restore farmed wetlands. Over 100,000 acres of non-
    productive farmland has been enrolled in WRP in Louisiana since
    1992. This has all been planted back to trees. This acreage
    will serve the needs of wildlife, but will also have positive
    implications on water quality, groundwater recharge, will
    reduce soil erosion and non-point source runoff, and reduce
    maintenance costs for drainage projects. These young forests
    will become economically viable in the future and can be a
    source of sustainable income for the landowner. Taking this
    acreage out of agricultural production also gives greater
    stability to farm prices.
        This is a great example of an incentive that has worked. It
    is popular with landowners, conservation and environmental
    interests, as well as financial institutions. It is a win-win
    scenario.
        The same can be done with endangered and threatened
    species. We just need to provide the incentives for private
    landowners so that it is in their best interest to protect
    these species. This will be a habitat issue. For example, the
    federally listed red-cockaded woodpecker prefers longleaf pine
    forests with mature trees that are 80 years old or older. Less
    than 4 percent of the historic longleaf pine ecosystem remains,
    so it is easy to understand why the woodpeckers are in trouble.
    Conversion of historic longleaf pine stands to faster growing
    slash and loblolly pines have eliminated woodpecker habitat.
    Incentives for landowners to plant and maintain longleaf pine
    stands will have a beneficial impact on woodpeckers, as well as
    other plants and animals indigenous to the longleaf pine
    ecosystem. This can also be economically advantageous to the
    landowner as longleaf pine timber is some of the most valuable
    in the southeastern United States.
        The incentives can be in the form of tax breaks, mitigation
    points, cash payments or any other mechanism that provides the
    necessary incentive. I think that flexibility is the key. A
    wealthy individual may be more inclined to participate for a
    tax break. Others may want cash. Some may want to form a
    mitigation bank for the species and collect money from others
    who want to convert habitat elsewhere.
        With the proper incentives, I believe that the controversy
    over endangered and threatened species can be turned around.
    But the program has to be properly designed and, of course,
    funded appropriately.
        The prospect of sending more money to the states for fish
    and wildlife conservation has agencies buzzing. It is exciting
    for all of us in the wildlife management business. But we need
    to be very careful in how this is done. In other words, I think
    a plan is needed.
        State wildlife agencies currently get the bulk of their
    Federal funding from Pittman-Robertson and Dingall-Johnson/
    Wallup-Breaux programs. These are dollars based on the sale of
    hunting and fishing licenses and are generally used to fund
    programs to improve hunting and fishing opportunities. This is
    as it should be.
        But this new source of money comes from a broader base of
    taxpayers so should be used in ways to work for all the
    stakeholders. Many Americans spend millions of dollars annually
    in pursuit of non-consumptive outdoor experiences like bird
    watching, camping, hiking, canoeing, and other wildlife
    viewing. Their needs should be addressed as well.
        One of the realities of dealing with state agencies is that
    every four years or so the leadership changes, depending on who
    gets elected governor. So the direction and leadership during
    one administration can change 180 degrees when a new
    administrator take charge. Programs initiated by one
    administration, which may have consumed millions of taxpayer
    dollars, can be completely derailed by the next administration
    focused in a different direction. This is not efficient use of
    taxpayers money.
        For efficiency and accountability, we need a comprehensive
    plan from each state that shows how these monies will be spent.
    Those states with strong science-based, landscape scale plans,
    can identify areas that need protection and then can
    effectively prioritize projects and fund them in a way that
    gives the taxpayer the most for their money.
        I think that each state agency needs a coordinator for this
    funding and that there needs to be a national network of these
    coordinators so that they can communicate with each other.
    There are many opportunities for major projects that cross
    political boundaries. Cooperative projects among two or more
    states should be promoted. Pooling resources should make for
    bigger and hopefully better projects.
        There are ongoing programs in the Lower Mississippi River
    Valley that are focusing on the habitat needs of neo-tropical
    migratory birds and black bears and developing plans to enhance
    populations of both by partnering to promote habitat protection
    and enhancement, corridor development, reduction of
    fragmentation, and coordinating activities over the entire
    ecosystem. Bears and songbirds require expansive areas of
    suitable habitat to thrive. Biologists can use them as a tool
    to focus on the landscape and address habitat needs throughout
    the ecosystem. All other species, game and non-game, plants and
    animals, as well as humans, are the beneficiaries. The needs of
    local communities are addressed as well as the needs of the
    species of focus. No plan will work without the human dimension
    factored into the equation.
        State and Federal agencies, conservation organizations, the
    academic community, as well as private landowners are all
    active participants. These pro-active efforts will bear fruit
    because the resources are being pooled and input is solicited
    from all the stakeholders. These types of projects should be
    encouraged with this new funding. This will require
    coordination and cooperation among the different state agencies
    but the potential rewards will be worth the effort.
        There might even develop a sense of competition from the
    various regions of the country where partners in one region
    work to develop better and more beneficial projects than those
    in other regions. Cooperative projects in the South like the
    bear and songbird initiatives are cutting edge conservation
    biology, efforts that are as progressive as any conservation
    program in the world.
        In conclusion, I believe that we have a historic
    opportunity in the 106th Congress to pass legislation to fund
    programs that will help protect our treasured natural heritage
    into the next century. If there is anything that I or my
    organization can do to work with Committee staff to help move
    this process forward, please let us know.
        Thank you again for your efforts and the opportunity to
    speak to you today.

    STATEMENT OF RONALD ANDERSON, PRESIDENT, LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU,
                         BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA

        Mr. Anderson. Thank you.
        Good morning, I am Ronnie Anderson and I am a farmer from
    Ethel, Louisiana and I serve as President of the Louisiana Farm
    Bureau Federation. I would like to express our appreciation for
    the opportunity to provide your Committee with some of our
    comments.
        From a general Louisiana perspective it is important that
    adequate resources are provided to mitigate the various impacts
    of outer continental shelf activities and to support
    sustainable development of renewable resources. Farmers are not
    only interested in the stewardship of natural resources but
    practice it every day. Farmers in our coastal area have even
    more interest and concerns with the loss of these resources.
    Simply put, coastal resources are vital to their survival. The
    bills provide the means for addressing many concerns related to
    coastal resource losses. Coastal wetland deterioration in
    Louisiana has been caused primarily by secondary effects of
    various channelizing projects. We believe Federal policy must
    address this issue and provide adequate long-term remedy to
    this significant cause of loss. Assistance to private
    landowners through incentives such as cost-share and technical
    assistance programs is preferred to the sometimes adversarial
    role of agencies that can discourage private wetlands
    enhancement programs. Hopefully, in part, these funds can be
    used in this manner to help the enhancement, restoration and
    maintenance of viable coastal wetlands. We have long felt that
    Federal policy should clearly establish that major losses of
    wetlands in coastal Louisiana are attributable to human
    activities benefiting national interests.
        Both of these bills provide dedicated sources of funding
    for revenues derived from OCS lease and a variety of programs
    other than OCS impact assistance such as land acquisition,
    payment in lieu of taxes, urban parks, recreational development
    and wildlife enhancement.
        Because farmers and ranchers own much of the remaining
    privately owned open spaces in the country, they are natural
    targets for having their land appropriated by government
    entities and various--for various purposes.
        We are pleased that H.R. 701 contains such safeguards with
    respect to Federal--to the Federal component of Land and Water
    Conservation Fund amendments 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.
        We believe the provisions that seek to further the
    partnership between private landowners and the government to
    enhance wildlife and its habitat are very important. The Farm
    Bureau believes that an appropriate balance between the needs
    of species and the needs of people can be struck.
        This whole program would enhance the conservation of
    species because it provides for their active on-the-ground
    management by affected landowners instead of current passive
    government management practices of easement and land use
    restrictions. At the same time it provides landowners with
    flexible management of their property. The HRP thus provides
    benefits to both species and landowner. This is the type of
    win-win scenario that is needed.
        Farm Bureau policy supports addressing a number of natural
    resource issues through voluntary non-regulatory strategy that
    balances the cost benefits of regulations, economic growth and
    environmental quality.
        I just skipped through and summarized some of these
    comments. The details are in the comments that are there. We
    appreciate the opportunity to be here. Our staff will be
    monitoring the progress and will be available to give you any
    more support information or anything that we might could do to
    assist in the formation of the legislation. Again, thank you.
        Mr. Tauzin. Ronnie, thank you. We have appreciated the
    enormous help your organization has given us in this process.
    We certainly continue a dialogue.
        Ms. Patricia Gay, the Executive Director of Preservation
    Resource Center, New Orleans, Louisiana.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]

        Statement of Ronald Anderson, President, Louisiana Farm Bureau
                                   Federation

        Good morning, my name is Ronald Anderson. I am a farmer
    from Ethel, Louisiana, and serve as President of the Louisiana
    Farm Bureau Federation. I would like to express our
    appreciation for providing this opportunity to provide your
    Committee with our views on the Conservation and Reinvestment
    Act and the Resources 2000 Act. I am appearing today on behalf
    of the Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation. Farm Bureau is an
    independent, nongovernmental, voluntary organization of farm
    and ranch families united for the purpose of analyzing their
    problems and formulating actions for solutions.
        From a general Louisiana perspective, it is important that
    adequate resources are provided to mitigate the various impacts
    of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) activities and to support
    sustainable development of nonrenewable resources. Farmers are
    not only interested in the stewardship of natural resources but
    practice it everyday. Farmers in our coastal areas have even
    more interest and concerns with the loss of these resources.
    Simply put, coastal resources are vital to their survival. The
    bills provide the means of addressing many concerns related to
    coastal resource losses. Coastal wetland deterioration in
    Louisiana has been caused primarily by the secondary effects of
    various channelization projects. We believe Federal policy must
    address this issue and provide an adequate long-term remedy to
    this significant cause of loss. Assistance to private
    landowners through incentives such as cost-share and technical
    assistance programs is preferred to the sometimes-adversarial
    role of agencies that can discourage private wetlands
    enhancement programs. Hopefully, in part, these funds can be
    used in this manner to help the enhancement, restoration, and
    maintenance of viable coastal wetlands. We have long felt that
    Federal policy should clearly establish that major losses of
    wetlands in coastal Louisiana are attributable to human
    activity benefiting national interests.
        Both bills provide a dedicated source of funding from
    revenues derived from OCS leases for a variety of programs
    other than the OCS impact assistance such as land acquisition,
    payment in lieu of taxes, urban parks and recreational
    development, and wildlife enhancement. We will direct our
    remaining comments to those programs that involve land
    acquisition and wildlife habitat enhancement.
        One section of the respective bills 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, as well as 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 total billions of dollars. For
    example, the U.S. Forest Service issued a moratorium on further
    road building in the national forests because it could not keep
    up with maintenance of existing roads.
        We should first use any funds to take care of the lands
    that we have. If our national parks are truly to be considered
    ``American jewels,'' we would all 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. Individuals other than
    landowners are often affected and should be considered when
    acquisitions are being planned. 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. Possibly the bill should 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. It is also important to recognize the impact of Federal
    acquisitions on adjacent landowners and agricultural interest
    in a given region. In many instances the Payment in Lieu of
    Taxes program has not made up the losses in tax receipts by
    local governing bodies and does not begin to replace the losses
    in economic activity.
        We believe the provisions that seek to further the
    partnership between private landowners and the government to
    enhance wildlife and its habitat are very important. 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 the Endangered Species Act is going to work. Private
    landowners are clearly the key to the Act's success.
        The Farm Bureau 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 also provides
    that the owner and the operator must enter into the agreement
    in cases where the operator of the affected land is not the
    owner. 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 it 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. Farm Bureau policy supports
    addressing a number of natural resource issues through a
    voluntary non-regulatory strategy that balances the cost/
    benefits of regulations, economic growth, and environmental
    quality.
        Again, we appreciate the opportunity to appear here today
    and provide our views. We look forward to working with the
    Committee on the issues we have addressed.

    STATEMENT OF PATRICIA H. GAY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PRESERVATION
                RESOURCE CENTER, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

        Ms. Gay. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this
    important Committee today. I have been active in historic
    preservation for many years as a volunteer and professionally
    at the local, state and Federal levels. On behalf of the
    Preservation Resource Center of New Orleans and the Louisiana
    Preservation Alliance I urge you to include the Historic
    Preservation Fund at the level of $150 million as a critical
    element in any resource initiative. The National Preservation
    Program, which this fund makes possible, has been
    extraordinarily effective. In addition to preserving historic
    resources throughout our country, this modest program has also
    had an impact on the tragic sociological, economic and
    environmental problems that have plagued our country for
    several decades as a result of urban decline and suburban
    sprawl. Only H.R. 798 currently includes it. We are optimistic
    that the final bill will include the Historic Preservation
    Fund.
        Today, I would like for you to think not only of historic
    and natural resources, I urge you to think of our towns and
    cities as an important national resource as well.
        First, our appreciation to Congressman Tauzin and others
    for their efforts to establish funding for the protection of
    our natural resources, especially for the coastal wetlands of
    Louisiana. We support these efforts.
        Just as we have been losing wetlands, we have been losing
    our towns and cities. This decline is a major factor also in
    the decline of wildlife, forest, wetlands and other components
    of our natural environment. Given the impressive effectiveness
    of preservation programs and given the problems that we have
    lived with for several decades now as a result of increasingly
    dysfunctional towns and cities, I have been astounded year
    after year that preservation programs are often overlooked,
    even ignored. For example, the National Town Meetings for a
    Sustainable America currently taking place do not include the
    tried and proven programs such as Main Street, the Federal
    rehabilitation tax credit, historic district commissions. Even
    the relatively young city of Phoenix uses this strategy to
    maintain stability or sustainability, if you will, in older
    neighborhoods and many other preservation programs which have
    had so much success in reversing decline and creating
    sustainable communities.
        Preservation programs have succeeded in spite of negligible
    funding primarily because they involve an irreplaceable
    resource that has substantial value because of the dedication
    of the volunteers and staff and because partnerships at the
    local, state and Federal levels that preservation programs
    involve. Perhaps most importantly, they succeed because these
    programs attract private sector investments. Please remember
    however that the problems still exists. These successful
    programs must be strengthened, not ignored.
        Consider: Over $19 billion in private dollars has been
    invested in deteriorated and predominately abandoned historic
    properties and neighborhoods through the Federal tax credit for
    historic rehabilitation. Decline has been reversed in many
    urban centers across the country by private dollars stimulated
    by the Federal tax credit, the implementation of which this
    fund makes possible.
        Consider: Over $8.6 billion private dollars invested in
    1,400 towns and urban neighborhoods has brought them back to
    life through the National Main Street Program. In Louisiana the
    ratio of private dollars is 1 to 62. Since initiated in 1984
    over $97 million has been invested in 24 Louisiana towns under
    50,000 in population. The Historic Preservation Fund makes Main
    Street an exemplary local, state and Federal partnership
    possible throughout the country.
        Consider: Over 2,500 local historic districts have been
    established throughout the United States creating a better
    quality of life and more stabilized environment for investment
    in historic districts by home buyers and business. In New
    Orleans many once declining neighborhoods that have been
    designated local historic districts are now thriving and have
    never looked better reflecting a greatly improved quality of
    life and economy. The historic preservation fund has been a
    support and a catalyst for local historic districts throughout
    the country. Recently suburban sprawl has begun to attract
    attention, even of Congress. Regardless of the findings of the
    recently released Congressional report on the subject, I submit
    to you that the significant resource of the towns and cities of
    America merit as much attention as suburban sprawl and urge you
    to take action by establishing annual funding for the Historic
    Preservation Fund which has made possible programs that have so
    effectively reversed their decline and that could be an
    effective tool for alleviating the problems of suburban sprawl.
        We also submit an additional recommendation for your
    consideration. The creation of a new subcommittee of your
    Committee for an overlooked, invaluable and endangered national
    resource: the towns and cities of America. Such a subcommittee
    need not regulate or fund programs but would serve every
    constituency by providing coordination and utilization of
    existing Federal programs in

    order to address more effectively the alarming decline of our
    towns and cities and the problems this has generated in
    communities everywhere. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Gay follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.180

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.181

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.182

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.183

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.184

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.185

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.186

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.187

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.188

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.189

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.190

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.191

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.192

        Mr. Tauzin. You didn't mention the termite, I am going to
    ask you about that later on. It is a big problem for all of us.
        Ms. Gay. It certainly is.
        Mr. Tauzin. Randy Lanctot, Executive Director of the
    Louisiana Wildlife Federation. Welcome, Randy.

       STATEMENT OF RANDY LANCTOT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LOUISIANA
              WILDLIFE FEDERATION, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA

        Mr. Lanctot. Thank you, Mr. Tauzin. I want to say that I
    have had the great opportunity over the years to visit the
    states of Oregon and New Mexico, the wilderness areas like the
    Gila, Pecos and Aldo Leopold, and the beautiful, wonderful
    coast of the state of Oregon. It certainly is a wonderful and
    gorgeous country that we all live in. I hope you gentlemen will
    appreciate the finer natural resources we have here in our
    state as well.
        My name is Randy Lanctot and I have served as Executive
    Director of the Louisiana Wildlife Federation since 1980. The
    Federation is 60 years old with a long and proud tradition of
    defending habitat and winning advances for conservation and the
    environment. It represents a broad constituency of hunters,
    fishers, campers, birders and others that enjoy the great
    outdoors in the Bayou State. We have over 14,000 members and 35
    local affiliated clubs. We were a founding member of the
    Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana and we are the state
    affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation.
        I want to thank Chairman Young and members of the Committee
    for coming to Louisiana and inviting us to appear before you to
    testify on legislation that we believe is the most significant
    proposal ever for conservation funding. It is a big one that we
    can't afford to let get away.
        As I am sure you have heard in testimony to the Committee
    by others there is a great need and strong support throughout
    the nation for investing in the conservation of renewable
    natural resources. Although a few discordant voices have been
    raised with regard to the effects these proposals may have on
    private property rights, we feel that those concerns are
    adequately met with provisions in the bills that restrict
    acquisitions to willing seller only agreements and agency
    policies that are already in place to ensure public input to
    Federal land acquisition proposals. Particularly in Louisiana,
    the need to restore our coastal habitats for both people and
    wildlife is urgent. Our coast is sustaining a loss of more than
    30 square miles a year.
        The concept of using revenue from the depletion of non-
    renewable public trust natural resources to secure, sustain and
    restore renewable natural resources for the benefit of present
    and future generations, as embodied in both of these bills and
    the companion bills introduced in the Senate is fundamentally
    sound, infinitely wise and we urge conservationists from
    throughout America to join us in commending the bill's authors,
    sponsors and supporters.
        Thank you, gentlemen. By now, you have learned at least a
    little about Louisiana's vast productive and rapidly
    disappearing coastal wetlands. They are important gulf-wide as
    nursery for living marine resources and internationally as
    habitat for migratory birds. In addition, to us here at ground
    zero, they are essential to keep the sea at bay and they are
    the fiber from which so much of our unique and colorful culture
    is knit.
        The environmental cost of providing shoreside support for
    mineral development on the outer continental shelf have been
    immense and have been described to you by Mark Davis of the
    Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana and others. We hope that
    all of you and your other colleagues in Congress will accept
    and embrace the concept of sharing OCS revenue to restore
    coastal environments and ensure their future sustainability in
    Louisiana and elsewhere. They are among the most valuable,
    productive and challenged ecosystems in the world.
        For the record, I have submitted or appended copies of
    resolutions that the Louisiana Wildlife Federation has adopted
    regarding this issue, for you to look at, at your convenience.
        Of course, H.R. 701 and 798 propose to do more than provide
    funds for coastal restoration and conservation of marine
    resources. As an organization with a diverse membership and
    broad interests in all aspects of conservation, we have a lot
    to say, briefly, about both bills. As I have already mentioned
    regarding Coastal Energy Impact Assistance, we believe in
    sharing OCS revenue with coastal states that bear the impacts
    of offshore mineral development, and that in any fund
    distribution scenario, those producing states should have a
    greater claim on those dollars than other coastal states.
    However, like many of our colleagues in the national
    environmental community, we feel that the revenue sharing
    formula that is ultimately adopted and the realm of allowable
    uses of the fund should not be incentive for more offshore
    drilling.
        What motivates OCS mineral activity now is the economics of
    discovery and production. I think Representative John said that
    a little while ago. Pure and simple--things like the
    availability of a lease with a promising formation, the
    technology to get to it and produce it, the feasibility of
    operating within the regulatory climate which is likely to get
    more rigorous in the future, and the market price of a barrel
    or thousand cubic feet. These factors far outweigh any stimulus
    that might be associated with the OCS Impact Assistance Title
    of H.R. 701.
        But as a precaution and to allay the concerns of many, it
    would be reasonable to incorporate a few safeguards in addition
    to the provision of the bill honoring leasing moratoria. One
    safeguard would be to base the production-based part of the
    allocation formula on production previous to enactment of this
    legislation on a fair snapshot of past production. Another, as
    Representative Tauzin just mentioned, apply the moratoria
    provision to all titles of the bill--that is another good
    thing. And another would be to more clearly restrict the realm
    of purposes for which the dollars can be used so that they
    promote sustainability of coastal regions and avoid further
    degradation.
        We strongly concur with the requirement of section 105 to
    have a state plan developed, with public participation, for use
    of the funds. We recommend that this section also require that
    all pertinent state natural resource management and protection
    agencies participate in plan development and that all pertinent
    Federal natural resource management agencies provide input to
    the plan. Further, every project within the plan should have a
    clearly described objective and outcome and be monitored by the
    applicant, and that should apply to the wildlife funding and,
    as pertinent, to the land and water conservation funding.
        I will summarize the rest of my remarks, you have my
    testimony.
        We strongly support the full funding of the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund, and although Governor Foster did not mention
    it earlier when he was here, he is focusing on development of
    our state park system. We have one of the smallest in the
    nation and this funding is vitally important for that.
        We support the habitat reserve concept in H.R. 701, it
    needs further development perhaps.
        Title III, we are very enthusiastic about that aspect of
    the legislation and it covers most of the bases. But short of
    micro-management, additional language may be prudent to make
    sure the wildlife conservation funds provided for in this title
    are equitably apportioned among all state wildlife agency
    programs and responsibilities directly related to fish and
    wildlife conservation and education. For example, a census of
    swallow-tailed kites should be able to compete for these funds
    on equal footing with an urban wildlife education outreach
    program, which should receive no less consideration than a
    coastal fisheries enforcement patrol, development of a canoe
    trail or the conduct of a deer browse survey.
        One issue that has not been discussed much, but you did
    mention Bosnia a little while ago. Obviously the Federal budget
    is a big concern here. That is in your court, we do not know--
    it is a little too complicated for us to address, but obviously
    that has to be dealt with.
        We are concerned with H.R. 798. I know that bill was not
    addressed too much here today, but we do not believe that all
    new leasing should be eliminated from providing funds for this
    cause. And a very serious concern that we have with respect to
    H.R. 798 is its failure to recognize the disproportionate
    impact of OCS development on those coastal states like
    Louisiana that provide onshore support for this industry, one
    that energizes this nation. And we urge the bill's sponsors to
    work with Congressman Young and Louisiana members to address
    the needs of those impacted states.
        There are some other good portions of both bills that can
    be knit together quite easily. We are happy to offer
    recommendations in that regard if you would like to have them,
    as far as specific wording, but in closing, on behalf of the
    Louisiana Wildlife Federation, I want to thank Congressman
    Young and members of the Resources Committee for advocating
    these bold and timely conservation funding proposals and I want
    to especially thank Congressmen John and Tauzin and Senators
    Landrieu and Breaux for their leadership in this cause that is
    critically important to Louisiana, her coast, her people and
    the wild lands and people of America.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lanctot follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.193

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.194

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.195

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.196

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.197

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.198

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.199

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.200

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.201

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.202

        Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Randy.
        Finally, Mr. Clifford Smith, President of T. Baker Smith
    and Son, our river commissioner. I want you all to know that
    whenever I am really feeling too good, I call Clifford, he
    usually brings me back down to earth. Are you feeling
    pessimistic or optimistic today?
        Mr. Smith. I will try to be a little more optimistic today.
        Mr. Tauzin. We welcome your testimony, sir.

    STATEMENT OF WILLIAM CLIFFORD SMITH, PRESIDENT, T. BAKER SMITH
                       AND SON, HOUMA, LOUISIANA

        Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman and members of the Resources
    Committee, I am William Clifford Smith, I am a civil engineer
    and land surveyor in Houma, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. I
    have lived in this area all of my life. This is the same area,
    by the way, that Mr. Snyder and Mr. Downer earlier than me,
    were from.
        My community is 65 miles southwest of New Orleans, 30 miles
    north of the Gulf of Mexico and two inches above the water and
    the water is rising. I often say that I am the only person that
    comes up to the meetings in New Orleans, it just so happens
    today they had four or five people that came up to the meeting,
    from where I live to the meetings in New Orleans. So we live
    between the mouth of the Atchafalaya and the Mississippi River.
    We truly live in the delta. The Mississippi and its tributaries
    provide drainage and navigation improvements for 41 percent of
    the surface areas of the United States, of which all the water
    and navigation flows through Louisiana to the Gulf of Mexico.
        Over the last approximately 100 years, the United States
    Government has leveed and controlled the Mississippi River and
    tributaries for flood control and navigation improvements. It
    is estimated that 70 percent of the grain exported from the
    United States traverses the Mississippi River through Louisiana
    to international markets. For the benefit of the nation, these
    flood control and navigation improvements have had some
    protection to our area, but it has also been a major cause of
    coastal deterioration of our lands.
        In my community over the last 60 years, we have lost
    approximately 400,000 acres of surface area to the Gulf of
    Mexico. This has primarily been caused by the controlling of
    the rivers and the cutting off of the delta building process.
    At the same time the exploration for oil and gas in coastal and
    offshore Louisiana has been accelerating; and the navigation
    and access canals for pipelines and other transportation needs
    have intensified this deterioration.
        Not only has our area provided vast amounts of oil and gas
    for consumption by the United States economy, but we are also
    the major port of embarkation for foreign oil coming into our
    nation. It is now estimated that 70 percent of the energy
    consumed in the United States originates from the Gulf Coast.
        I believe that H.R. 701 is a proper way to allow funds to
    flow from the United States Treasury to areas such as ours for
    truly mitigation benefits for the improvements necessary to
    reverse the environmental impacts that are being affected in
    this region. Because of the sacrifices our region has made for
    energy resources, flood control and navigation, it certainly
    seems reasonable that some direct wealth that our area
    contributes to the national treasury should be used to
    mitigate, control, manage the recurring natural resources that
    we have remaining.
        Our fragile coastal area is still truly a national treasure
    and probably the most productive ecological area in the whole
    nation. We provide vast amounts of seafood to this nation, and
    if the alarming coastal erosion problem is not properly
    managed, this vast resource for our nation will be lost
    forever.
        Surely we in Louisiana cannot afford and should not be
    expected to provide all the funds for the resource management
    necessary to reverse some of these drastic environmental and
    ecological changes that are happening to us.
        Since we have now documented that we are losing in
    Louisiana approximately 35 square miles to coastal erosion a
    year, we humbly request that H.R. 701 be approved by this
    Committee and enacted by Congress as quickly as possible.
        I might mention that I believe while we have been meeting
    here this morning for about four hours, we have lost at least
    12 acres of land. And since you all have been so kind to be in
    our state for the last three days, we have lost about 200
    acres. I also might mention that----
        Mr. Tauzin. You are not blaming that on these members?
        Mr. Smith. No, no, no, just pointing out the importance of
    the problem.
        Another point is that Congressman DeFazio had asked about
    the severance taxes and if we had been spending any money for
    coastal restoration. In the last 10 years, through a
    constitutional amendment, we have spent about $170 million in
    Louisiana of Louisiana money for coastal restoration projects.
    We have also instituted a program for permitting in the state
    which requires mitigation benefits for any new projects that
    are built in the coastal areas. And we frankly in Louisiana did
    the funding and did the permitting process even before the
    Federal Government began to look at those different types of
    projects.
        So we do think we have taken even a lead to try to reverse
    some of the things that have happened to us.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

    Statement of William Clifford Smith, President, T. Baker Smith and Son,
                                Houma, Louisiana

        Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee on Resources, I am
    William Clifford Smith, a Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor from
    Houma, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. I have lived in this area
    all of my life.
        The community in which I live is 65 miles southwest of New
    Orleans and 30 miles north of the Gulf of Mexico. This area is
    between the mouth of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers. We
    truly live in the Delta area. The Mississippi and its
    tributaries provide drainage and navigation improvements for 41
    percent of the surface area of the United States, of which all
    of this water and navigation flows through Louisiana to the
    Gulf of Mexico.
        Over the last approximately 100 years, the United States
    Government has leveed and controlled the Mississippi River and
    tributaries for flood control and navigation improvements. It
    is estimated that approximately 70 percent of the grain
    exported from the United States traverses the Mississippi River
    through Louisiana to international markets. For the benefit of
    the nation, these flood control and navigation improvements
    have had some protection to our area, but it has also been a
    major cause of the coastal deterioration of our lands.
        In my community, over the last 60 years, we have lost
    approximately 400,000 acres of surface area to the Gulf of
    Mexico. This has primarily been caused by the controlling of
    the rivers and the cutting off of the delta building process.
    At the same time, the exploration for oil and gas in coastal
    and offshore Louisiana has been accelerating; and the
    navigation and access canals for pipelines and other
    transportation needs have intensified this deterioration.
        Not only has our area provided vast amounts of oil and gas
    for consumption by the United States economy, but we are also
    the major port of embarkation for foreign oil coming into our
    nation. It has been estimated that 70 percent of the energy
    consumed in the United States originates from the Gulf Coast.
        I believe that H.R. 701 is a proper way to allow funds to
    flow from the United States Treasury to areas such as ours for
    truly mitigation benefits for the improvements necessary to
    reverse the environmental impacts that are being affected in
    this region. Because of the sacrifices our region has made for
    energy resources, flood control, and navigation, it certainly
    seems reasonable that some of the direct wealth that our area
    contributes to the national treasury should be used to
    mitigate, control and manage the recurring natural resources
    that we have remaining.
        Our fragile coastal area is still truly a national treasure
    and probably is the most productive ecological area in the
    whole nation. We provide vast amounts of seafood to this
    nation, and if the alarming coastal erosion problem is not
    properly managed this vast resource for our nation will be lost
    forever.
        Surely we in Louisiana cannot afford, and should not be
    expected, to provide all the funds necessary for the resource
    management necessary to reverse some of these drastic
    environmental and ecological changes that are happening to us.
        Since we now have documented that we are losing, in
    Louisiana, approximately 35 square miles a year to coastal
    erosion, we humbly request that H.R. 701 be approved by this
    Committee and enacted by Congress as quickly as possible.

        Mr. Tauzin. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.
        Let me first recognize myself and then other members. Mr.
    Anderson and Mr. Davidson, I think you present some of the
    conflicts we have with our bill. Obviously we are trying to
    write a bill that answers the concerns of private property
    owners and when you fund land and water conservation, you are
    funding the acquisition of more private property for, in this
    case, preservation purposes. In any event, you see the
    conflict. And we are delicately trying to balance those by
    ensuring that the bill does not in any way take away private
    property rights. That is why the willing seller provisions are
    in. We have had to deal with westerners who do not want to see
    a great deal more land acquisition, that is why the in-holding
    provisions. We have another provision that says that most of
    the acquisitions have to occur east of the river in an effort
    to tilt the acquisition of more Federal land away from the
    western states. You know, I think you can understand why they
    have a sincere concern about over-abundant state, local and
    Federal control of their properties. In fact, in those states
    where that occurs, we have formulas to share money with the
    states to help them, because they lose property taxes when the
    government owns the land, very similar to what we are talking
    about here, mitigating the damages of the Federal activity.
        So I just want to point out that in your testimony, you
    made a very clear and concise argument on the two sides of the
    equation, which we have to balance. And my only plea to you is
    to understand that we have to balance that. We cannot write a
    bill which will lose support because it does not protect
    property rights. On the other hand, we cannot write a bill that
    funds Federal land and water acquisition for preservation
    purposes without some acquisition occurring. We have to balance
    those concerns and we are trying to do that. I just want you to
    understand and know that as we go through it.
        I also wanted to point out to all of you with the
    preservation effort, the Wildlife Federation effort in
    Louisiana, that you said it, Randy, this is our best shot in a
    long time. You know, these shots do not come along too often.
    This is the first time the Federal Government is recommending a
    revenue sharing and if we do not tap into it, we are very
    foolish. You mentioned it, let me state again, the Kosovo
    funding requirements are beginning to loom as very, very large.
    We are up to a $6 billion request from the President, we are
    likely to up that a great deal because of the concerns we have
    that is drawing down other security forces for our country in
    other parts of the world. We are looking at a $12 billion bill
    coming out of Committee. And when you talk about the scale of
    those appropriations, you understand why we are going to be
    hard-pressed to find money. We may win, as you did in this
    case, win in an authorization for funding for historic
    preservation, only to find no money was ever appropriated to
    the program. That would be a hollow victory for us and we want
    to encourage you, please, to understand how we are delicately
    balancing this so that we have enough support not only to
    authorize the programs, but to get funding, Randy, and make
    sure that each of these preservations work.
        I want to say one final thought on that and then go to the
    termites.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Tauzin. The point of our bill, Title III, is designed
    to keep species from ever getting on an endangered or
    threatened list. It is awfully critical and I see, Paul, you
    shaking your head--that is so critical. The last thing we ought
    to have to worry about is listing these species and going
    through the awful problems we have with landowners, Mr.
    Anderson, trying to protect a specie when to do so comes in
    conflict again very seriously with private property interests,
    et cetera. If we can intercede early and make sure the black
    bear is never threatened, never endangered, and other species
    like him never reach that list, we do more to protect private
    property rights in the end than any other thing I think we
    could do, and we are accomplishing our purpose of preventing
    the demise of species on the planet.
        The termites, which is a species we have to worry about
    getting rid of.
        Ms. Gay. It came through the port also.
        Mr. Tauzin. The Naval Station brought them here, the
    Federal Government brought us a new termite. And if you do not
    know about it, learn about it, please. And Peter and Tom, you
    are going to learn a lot more about it as Jefferson, Bill
    Jefferson, makes his case in Congress because New Orleans is
    most heavily infested, but many coastal states are. The problem
    with this termite is not just that it infests homes and
    buildings and historic sites, it infests live trees. And here
    is the point I want to make today, I think not only with this
    bill but in the efforts that Bill is going to make to attack
    this problem, there is a connection. If the live trees along
    our coast are as heavily infested with these termites as we are
    told they are, then $300 million annually is being done to
    properties and trees along coastal Louisiana. And we get that
    next storm and that next storm and the land is washing away and
    now the trees become fragile because they are eaten up from the
    inside by a new termite infestation, you can see how this
    begins to relate, how it begins to connect. Dealing with this
    termite is going to be a serious problem for us if we are going
    to protect the trees and the barriers they provide for us not
    only in terms of holding the soil together but the barriers to
    wind damage and wave damage when the storms come into Louisiana
    and rip away our coast line.
        I want everybody to focus on that, please, as we leave this
    hearing and join with us in that effort as well because Bill
    Jefferson and the Louisiana delegation is going to be trying to
    make the case on the Federal level to begin dealing with that
    awful problem as it relates to historic preservation as well.
        I have used up all my time. Let me ask other members if
    they have comments or dialogue.
        Peter?
        Mr. DeFazio. No.
        Mr. Tauzin. Chris?
        Mr. John. Very brief. I want to just thank everyone for
    participating in this hearing. Not a particular question for
    any of the folks at the table here, but this as truly been a
    remarkable hearing, it has been a remarkable three days, to try
    to really add to the momentum of a piece of legislation whose
    time has come.
        The Legacy in Lands initiative by the President, the George
    Miller bill H.R. 798, the CARA 701 and Landrieu's bill on the
    Senate side, all have a commonality and a common thread that
    weaves them together and this is a vital and important part of
    the process that we exercised today, to make sure that the
    commonality is about conservation. We are going to have a
    particular bill come out of this Congress and you are an
    important part in mending and weaving that bill. So thank you
    very much for coming.
        I also want to thank the staff of the Resources Committee
    on both sides of the aisle, the Democrats and the Republicans,
    who really have worked very hard at making this all possible,
    and also the City of New Orleans and also special thanks to the
    gentleman from Oregon and also the gentleman from New Mexico
    for taking time out of their schedule. As a Member of Congress,
    I understand that there could be 100 other places to be,
    including in your homes with your families, so it means much to
    me and to Congressman Tauzin that you would take this weekend,
    irrespective of jazz fest, and come be with us today.
        Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Chris.
        Let me wrap up by first of all recognizing the presence of
    a former colleague. As Secretary Westphal pointed out----
        Mr. John. Do we have to?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Tauzin. [continuing] one of the founders of the
    Congressional Wetlands Caucus, who has been a leader in this
    effort, Jimmy Hayes. We recognize you, Jimmy, for all your past
    efforts for Louisiana.
        And finally, as Chris did, to thank the two gentlemen who
    came such a long distance to be with us. I was outside, Peter,
    with a reporter just a little while ago and one of them
    jokingly said that we were putting him to sleep in here. Let me
    first not apologize for that, this is not a very exciting and
    titillating subject, it really is not, we understand that.
        Ms. Gay. To me it is.
        Mr. Tauzin. Is exciting to the witnesses that are here, but
    I am talking about in terms of the television audience, we
    understand that. This may be boring for a lot of people, but
    let me say it I guess as succinctly as I can, perhaps in the
    words of young Daniel Snyder, this is our home and we are about
    to lose it. And when we lose our home, not just Louisiana but
    America loses something precious along this coast. And I cannot
    think of anything much more serious than that when you think
    about it. Cajuns got displaced, Peter, Tom, by the British a
    long time ago and New Orleans is a home for all kinds of
    displaced populations, from Africa, from Europe and from Asia
    and South America--we did not just get termites, we got all
    kinds of folks from all over the globe to settle in Louisiana.
    It is a wonderful multi-cultured community. And as I said, some
    of us came here less than voluntarily. But this is our home now
    and we share it together and we love it together and we honor
    it together and those of us who serve it, serve it in Congress
    together with a great deal of enthusiasm and seriousness of
    purpose. This is a most serious hearing today. I hope you have
    appreciated that it came to New Orleans, that the Natural
    Resource Committee respected the fact that this community and
    the Louisiana coastline is the most impacted, but that
    coastlines all over this country could have similar hearings
    and similar discussions and threatened and endangered
    wilderness and resource areas and urban parks are hurting all
    over this country and historic areas are not receiving the
    protection they should these days.
        These are concerns you would hear all over America, but I
    hope you appreciate that Chairman Young first consented to
    bringing it to Louisiana and finally, I hope you give these two
    gentlemen who came from that beautiful state of Oregon and that
    fantastic community of New Mexico--I have spent a lot of time
    in both of those great states and I will tell you, I would find
    it hard to leave it if I represented them, to come even to new
    Orleans. They are just great places to be. I hope you give Tom
    Udall and Peter DeFazio a big hand of appreciation for coming
    here.
        [Applause.]
        Mr. Tauzin. Any closing comments, Peter, Tom?
        Mr. DeFazio. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that, you know,
    this has been a tremendous weekend in terms of accelerating my
    knowledge of the coastal problems you have here. Coming from a
    coastal state, you know, I am sympathetic, I believe that as a
    cosponsor of Congressman Miller's bill, that we can work out
    our differences and come to something that will be mutually
    acceptable and I am hopeful we will do that because otherwise
    the appropriators are going to keep stealing the money that
    could be applied to better purposes than just sending it off
    somewhere into the ether of the Federal budget. So I hope we
    can make that common cause and get it done.
        Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Peter. Tom.
        Mr. Udall. Thank you very much. And let me first thank the
    panel. I think this final panel was a very good one and I think
    laid out really the ground we need to cover in order to get
    this done. I also want to thank our hosts here. I mean Billy
    and Chris have just been really wonderful in terms of making
    sure that we got around and saw all of the local sites and
    things along with doing quite a bit of work. And they told us I
    think yesterday or day before when we were flying over these
    coastal wetlands that we probably had seen more wetlands than
    almost anybody in Louisiana. So we are very familiar with the
    wetlands after this trip and I think it is clear that the
    President's proposal for a land legacy fund, the bill
    introduced by the Louisianians and Chairman Young, Miller's
    bill, all of this is an effort to do something in terms of all
    the areas we have talked about here--endangered species,
    historic preservation, trying to make sure that we have money
    available for states to do the kinds of things they want with
    land acquisition and also if there are additional things that
    need to be done in terms of Federal land acquisition.
        So let me just say that this has been and we do not take
    the opportunity that much to either leave our home districts
    and learn about national issues like this, but this has been a
    wonderful opportunity and I really want to thank the panel and
    thank our hosts.
        Mr. Tauzin. Thank you, Tom; thank you, Peter. Thank you all
    for coming, the hearing stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
    Statement of James H. Jenkins, Jr.,Secretary, Department of Wildlife &
                       Fisheries, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

    Dear Mr. Chairman:
        The Department of Wildlife and Fisheries strongly supports
    H.R. 701 known as the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999
    (CARA). With respect to it's conservation impact, CARA is
    certain to take a position beside its models, the Pittman-
    Robertson and Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux Acts as the most
    important conservation legislation this century. It is
    appropriate for it to come as we enter the next century, for it
    will usher in a new conservation era; one which will provide
    long-term funding for all plant and animal species. The level
    of support for CARA throughout the nation is unprecedented, and
    reflects a genuine interest by the public in conserving our
    native flora and fauna.
        Interest in wild areas has been a part of our heritage for
    generations. Theodore Roosevelt was certainly an advocate when
    in 1904 he sat on our largest coastal barrier island,
    Chandeleur Island, and recognized its significance, calling it
    a ``national treasure.'' Indeed, his interest in preserving it
    led to its becoming the nation's 2nd National Wildlife Refuge
    (known today as Breton National Wildlife Refuge). In recent
    years, the refuge has served as habitat for thousands of
    nesting terns and gulls.
        Birds continue to attract broad attention in Louisiana. Our
    wetland communities draw millions of ducks and geese every
    autumn, and serve as critical overwintering areas for these
    groups of birds. The Mississippi River alluvial valley serves
    as a flyway channeling these birds to areas where hunters as
    well as non-hunters may enjoy them. The river also funnels
    millions of other birds down its corridor during their fall
    migration to lands south of our borders. And in the spring, the
    birds return. These neotropical migrants depend on our habitats
    to refurbish their energy resources that they have depleted
    from their long flights across the Gulf of Mexico. Of
    particular importance are the cheniers, remnant beaches now
    wooded with live oaks and other species of hardwoods along the
    coast. During poor weather conditions, they serve as refuge for
    numerous species of birds and butterflies to alight, rest, and
    feed, before continuing their journey northward.
        CARA will provide monies to improve the management of
    existing public wildlife management areas and refuges and allow
    us to work with private landowners to protect these critical
    migration routes and develop wildlife viewing areas throughout
    the state, thus providing increased opportunities for the
    public to actively pursue its wildlife interests.
        For years hunters have provided the lion's share of the
    funding for wildlife conservation, management and research
    programs. Revenue from the sale of hunting licenses coupled
    with Pittman-Robertson funds have been used to manage and
    conserve a wide array of wildlife and their habitats. However,
    those funding sources have not increased in recent years,
    despite the growing demand for wildlife associated recreation
    and increasing responsibility of state wildlife agencies. As a
    result, urgent needs go unmet under present funding levels.
        Research indicates that our songbirds are in trouble. More
    than 40 percent of the neotropical migrant species are
    declining. In the United States alone, it is estimated that
    some 40 percent of migratory bird habitat was lost during the
    last three decades. The time to act is now. To wait would
    increase the likelihood that many of these species will
    continue to experience declines, which may lead to listing them
    as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. CARA will
    immediately provide necessary support to tackle current
    conservation issues that have no geopolitical boundaries for
    which funding is currently grossly lacking.
        Habitat loss is a real threat to our wildlife resources.
    Coastal erosion, a tremendous problem in Louisiana, contributes
    to habitat loss for many species of wildlife. Habitat loss also
    occurs with conversion of our native forests, prairies, and
    marshes to urban, agricultural, and other uses. Certain Federal
    programs, such as the Wetland Reserve Program, have been
    paramount in reforesting less productive farmlands. The list of
    programs beneficial to wildlife is certainly numerous, but land
    acquisition, when performed in cooperation with willing
    sellers, remains a key tool in wildlife conservation. These
    sellers often want to act quickly, however. H.R. 701, as
    proposed, would place the unnecessary restriction of having
    Congress approve projects over $1 million. This would, in our
    opinion, slow the process, and may discourage a willing seller
    to enter into a deal. Limiting acquisitions to within and
    around existing Federal properties is also very restrictive.
    The states, through their knowledge of gaps in what fauna and
    flora are protected on government and privately maintained
    lands, are better positioned to determine what protection needs
    exist to complete their site portfolios. This authority needs
    to be left with the states, and not limited to or dictated by
    where Federal properties currently exist.
        The threat of exotic species on our native wildlife may
    become one of the most pressing issues of the 21st century. The
    nutria, a semi-aquatic rodent, was accidentally introduced into
    the states coastal wetlands in 1937. They not only feed on
    grasses that are essential for trapping sediment during the
    marsh building process, but they also consume the plant root
    system, destroying the plants that hold this fragile land
    together.
        Between 1962 and the mid 1980's, a good fur price to
    trappers maintained an adequate harvest and control of the
    population. During the late 1980's low fur prices resulted in
    less than adequate harvest and very serious vegetative damage
    in coastal wetlands.
        An aerial herbivory damage survey conducted in 1998
    indicated that over 80,000 acres of coastal wetlands had been
    damaged by over population of nutria. Only 9 percent of these
    sites showed sign of recovery. Vegetative damage caused by
    nutria was documented in at least 11 CWPPRA project sites.
        Since nutria herbivory damage is so closely tied to coastal
    restoration efforts, funds for incentive payments, to increase
    the annual harvest and reduce vegetative loss, should obviously
    come from Title 1.
        Recreational and commercial fishing is an important
    component of the economic, social and cultural fabric of
    Louisiana supporting over 49,000 jobs and nearly $2.9 billion
    in retail sales. The benefits derived from fishing are
    sustainable if we wisely invest in the proper stewardship of
    these fish resources.
        Title I, Section 104 lists the authorized uses for Impact
    Assistance funds. Although research on marine fish is
    mentioned, the language is not clear that other important data
    gathering activities are allowable. Specifically, gathering
    harvest data, economic data, and other information from
    fishermen and other user groups is vitally important in
    determining the impact of OCS activities on the user groups;
    gathering this type of information should be specifically
    provided for in this Title.
        Also, we suggest it is appropriate to provide funds to the
    Secretary of Commerce for rejuvenation of the
    Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986, which provides for
    grants by the Secretary of Commerce to States for management of
    interjurisdictional commercial fishery resources. Funding for
    this Act has been decreasing in recent years, which has
    adversely impacted the ability of the coastal states to manage
    their coastal fisheries resources. Likewise, consideration
    should be given to provide more funding to implement the
    management plans of the eight regional Fishery Management
    Councils, which were established by the Magnuson-Stevens
    Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Councils prepare
    fishery plans which are designed to manage fishery resources
    from where state waters end out to the 200-mile limit of the
    Exclusive Economic Zone.
        The Urban Wildlife Program addresses issues associated with
    cities, such as nuisance wildlife concerns and urban wildlife
    education/viewing/inventory issues. The public demands that
    such programs be available, with interest in improved
    endangered species and urban programs growing annually. Funding
    is grossly inadequate to meet even the current needs. CARA will
    provide funding to strengthen these programs.
        In Louisiana today there is a vital demand for ``non-
    consumptive or non-game'' educational programs and activities.
    Public links to the environment have diminished, caused in part
    by the population shift from rural to urban and the increase in
    single-parent households. Accumulated environmental problems
    over past decades have placed pressure and stress on
    Louisiana's wildlife resources. The management and conservation
    of the rich and bountiful non-game populations cry out for
    increased awareness through educational programs. As wildlife
    management practices have changed from single species
    management to entire ecosystem management, wildlife education
    must transcend teaching only hunting safety to educating the
    public about natural resource issues, trends and management
    decisions. The public needs to understand the importance of
    biodiversity, interdependence and other essential concepts and
    how these concepts are personally relevant to public well-
    being. Louisiana citizens should have the opportunity to
    understand, enjoy and derive benefits from all of our diverse
    wildlife resources. The challenge is providing the long term
    funds necessary to meet this vacuum. The wildlife resource
    funding initiative known as CARA can fill that vacuum by
    providing financial resources to enable the state wildlife
    agencies to become full service agencies benefiting all
    citizens.
        All these unmet needs require substantial and consistent
    funding sources. In light of these needs, we support the 10
    percent funding level as recommended in H.R. 701, and strongly
    urge that you adopt this level funding as a minimum. The urgent
    nature of this need dictates that funding be provided at this
    level.
        We are standing at the door of a new millennium and at a
    new frontier. As the idea of sending men and women into space
    captivated the American audience over the last four decades,
    the idea of conserving our native game and non-game species has
    tremendous support nationwide today. Our native plants and
    wildlife are national treasures, much like the barrier islands
    of which Theodore Roosevelt spoke in 1904. And much like
    America's space program, considerable funds will be required to
    reach our goals. CARA will provide the funds to begin this
    process.
                                    ------

    Further testimony submitted by the following people: H.R. 701 Testimony
                   Submitted from March 31 through May 2,1999

    Poulson, Barbara
    Connell, WA

    Naphy, Yolada
    Vinemont, AL

    Appel, Steve
    Washington State Farm Bureau

    Miller, Pamela
    Arctic Connections

    Warner, Richard
    Association for Biodiversity Information

    Baker, Michael A.
    Arizona Association of Learning

    Bailey, Mark H.
    Bellingham, WA

    Olson, Carl
    State Department Watch

    Beyer, LaVerne A.
    Stockton, IL

    James, Jerry
    Hobart, IL

    Mangham, C.H.
    Mineral Wells, TX

    Morton, Robert M.
    The Wildlife Society, The Kentucky Chapter

    Schmidt, George
    Anchorage, AK

    Trippet, Larie
    Incline Village, NV

     Further testimony submitted by the following people: H.R. 701 Hearing
                       Record From May 3 through June 11

    Wentz, Alan
    Ducks Unlimited, Inc.

    Gordon, Gerald E.
    Utah Wildlife Federation

    Carpenter, L. Steven
    Utah Recreation & Parks Association

    Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

    Pfeiffer, Donald G.
    Washington, IA
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.203

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.204

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.205

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.206

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6598.207