    [House Hearing, 107 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      H.R. 3401, H.R. 3954, and H.R. 3962
    =======================================================================

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                   before the

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND
                                 FOREST HEALTH

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 April 10, 2002

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 107-101

                                   __________

               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://resourcescommittee.house.gov

                               U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    78-631                            WASHINGTON : 2002
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
    Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

                        JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
           NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

    Don Young, Alaska,                   George Miller, California
      Vice Chairman                      Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
    W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana     Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
    Jim Saxton, New Jersey               Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
    Elton Gallegly, California           Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
    John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee           Samoa
    Joel Hefley, Colorado                Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
    Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland         Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
    Ken Calvert, California              Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
    Scott McInnis, Colorado              Calvin M. Dooley, California
    Richard W. Pombo, California         Robert A. Underwood, Guam
    Barbara Cubin, Wyoming               Adam Smith, Washington
    George Radanovich, California        Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
    Walter B. Jones, Jr., North              Islands
        Carolina                         Ron Kind, Wisconsin
    Mac Thornberry, Texas                Jay Inslee, Washington
    Chris Cannon, Utah                   Grace F. Napolitano, California
    John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania       Tom Udall, New Mexico
    Bob Schaffer, Colorado               Mark Udall, Colorado
    Jim Gibbons, Nevada                  Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
    Mark E. Souder, Indiana              James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
    Greg Walden, Oregon                  Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
    Michael K. Simpson, Idaho            Hilda L. Solis, California
    Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado         Brad Carson, Oklahoma
    J.D. Hayworth, Arizona               Betty McCollum, Minnesota
    C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
    Tom Osborne, Nebraska
    Jeff Flake, Arizona
    Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

                          Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff
               Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff
                    Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel
                        Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
                     James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
                   Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
                                     ------

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH

                       SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado, Chairman
                JAY INSLEE, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member

    John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee       Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
    John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania,      Tom Udall, New Mexico
      Vice Chairman                      Mark Udall, Colorado
    Mark E. Souder, Indiana              Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
    Michael K. Simpson, Idaho            Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
    Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado         Betty McCollum, Minnesota
    J.D. Hayworth, Arizona
    C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho

                                     ------
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on April 10, 2002...................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Acevedo-Vila, Hon. Anibal, a Delegate in Congress from Puerto
          Rico.......................................................    59
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3954..........................    60
        McInnis, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Colorado..........................................     2
        Peterson, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Pennsylvania......................................    34
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3962..........................    36
        Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of California....................................     2
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3401..........................     4

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Bradley, Terry, Ed.D., Deputy Superintendent for
          Administrative Services, Clovis Unified School District,
          Clovis, California.........................................     8
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3401..........................    10
        Estill, Elizabeth, Deputy Chief, Programs and Legislation,
          Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.............     5
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3401, H.R. 3962 and H.R. 3954.     7
        McCurry, Craig, Elmore County Commissioner...................    38
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3962..........................    40
        McDonald, Kristen, Associate Director, Wild and Scenic Rivers
          Program for American Rivers................................    62
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3954..........................    63

    Additional materials supplied:
        Alberswerth, David, Director, Bureau of Land Management
          Program, The Wilderness Society, Letter submitted for the
          record on H.R. 3962........................................    50
        Cope, Dr. R.E., Commissioner, District 1, Lemhi County,
          Idaho, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 3962........    56
        Watson, Rebecca, Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals
          Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Letter
          submitted for the record on H.R. 3962......................    66
        Western Land Group, Inc., Denver, Colorado, Statement
          submitted for the record on H.R. 3962......................    52

      LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3401, TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF
     FOREST SERVICE FACILITIES AND LANDS COMPRISING THE FIVE MILE REGIONAL
    LEARNING CENTER IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO THE CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL
    DISTRICT, TO AUTHORIZE A NEW SPECIAL USE PERMIT REGARDING THE CONTINUED
    USE OF UNCONVEYED LANDS COMPRISING THE CENTER, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES;
    H.R. 3962, TO LIMIT THE AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO ACQUIRE
     LAND FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL AGENCIES IN COUNTIES IN WHICH 50 PERCENT OR
    MORE OF THE TOTAL ACREAGE IS OWNED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND UNDER
      THE ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION OF SUCH AGENCIES; AND H.R. 3954, TO
      DESIGNATE CERTAIN WATERWAYS IN THE CARIBBEAN NATIONAL FOREST IN THE
      COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO AS COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL WILD AND
                 SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

                                  ----------

                           Wednesday, April 10, 2002

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                   Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health

                             Committee on Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
    room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Scott McInnis,
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

     STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT McINNIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

        Mr. McInnis. The Committee will come to order. I ask
    unanimous consent that Representative Radanovich have
    permission to sit on the dais and participate in the hearing.
    Congressman, you are welcome to join us.
        The purpose of today's hearing is to hear testimony on
    three bills: H.R. 3401, by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
    National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands, Mr. Radanovich,
    to provide for conveyance of Forest Service facilities and
    lands comprising the Five Mile Regional Learning Center in the
    State of California to the Clovis Unified School District, and
    to authorize a new special use permit for the continued use of
    unconveyed lands used by the Center; H.R. 3962, introduced by
    the Vice Chairman of this Subcommittee, Mr. Peterson, to limit
    the authority of the Federal Government to acquire land in
    counties in which 50 percent or more of the total acreage is
    owned by the Federal Government; and finally, H.R. 3954,
    offered by my colleague from Puerto Rico, to designate certain
    waterways in the Caribbean National Forest in the Commonwealth
    of Puerto Rico as components of the National Wild and Scenic
    Rivers System.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. There are no
    opening remarks. They can be incorporated in the record,
    obviously.
        Mr. McInnis. OK. Let's go ahead and we will proceed with
    the witnesses on the first panel, for H.R. 3401. I have already
    introduced the Congressman. We have Elizabeth Estill, Deputy
    Chief, Programs and Legislation, U.S. Forest Service; and Dr.
    Terry Bradley, the Deputy Superintendent for Administrative
    Services, Clovis Unified School District.
        I am going to remind the witnesses that, under our
    Committee rules, we have a 5-minute rule. You will see the
    light there. To our witnesses, thank you very much for
    attending the Committee hearing today. Obviously, your comments
    will go onto the record. Don't be discouraged by the lack of
    participation. We have got lots of conflicts this morning, and
    they will be coming in and out as your testimony continues.
        So you may proceed with your testimony. Do you have an
    opening remark?
        Mr. Radanovich. I do, if I can, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. McInnis. Go ahead, Mr. Radanovich.

       STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hearing this
    bill. This bill transfers 27.1 acres of National Forest Service
    property from the Stanislaus National Forest to the Clovis
    Unified School District. And by so doing, this legislation will
    permit the school district to continue to operate the Five Mile
    Regional Learning Center on this National Forest land.
        And more specifically, the bill would allow the school
    district to fund necessary capital improvements to the Learning
    Center facilities. Without this legislation, these improvements
    and non-Federal expenditures are not permitted, and the
    Learning Center could not continue, due to its current
    disrepair.
        The Five Mile Regional Learning Center is an outdoor
    environmental educational school that benefits youth from all
    over the State of California. The Regional Learning Center
    serves 138 schools from approximately 60 school districts in
    California, and approximately 14,000 students participated in
    this educational program last year.
        A variety of classes is offered, with an emphasis on
    natural resource conservation. In addition to the environmental
    education program, the school district offers course work on
    character development, team building, and individualized
    challenge activities such as high ropes. During the summer,
    this site is used by a variety of groups. In addition, a number
    of counties in conjunction with local and state agencies bring
    at-risk kids to the program's Life's Alternatives Involving
    Risks, or LAIR, Adventure Academy.
        The 120-acre Five Mile Regional Learning Center has been
    operated by the Clovis Unified School District since 1989. And
    prior to that, the Fresno County Office of Education started in
    1969 operating the project.
        While the Five Mile Regional Learning Center is located on
    National Forest land, the Federal Government plays no role in
    the operation or maintenance of the facilities or in the
    delivery of educational programs. The National Forest Service
    merely permits the use of these facilities and public lands to
    the Clovis Unified School District, and monitors the program to
    ensure the district adheres to permit requirements.
        The Forest Service has not funded or appropriated monies to
    maintain or operate these buildings. According to Forest
    Service documents, the Regional Learning Center facility has
    outlived its life by years and, if it were not for the efforts
    of the Clovis Unified School District, the buildings would be
    in a state of disrepair, no longer usable.
        The Clovis Unified School District has, on average, spent
    more than $1 million per year over the last 12 years on
    operation and maintenance. And without the transfer of
    ownership, the Clovis Unified School District is prohibited by
    law from spending its money on capital improvements to ensure
    that these facilities do not fall into disrepair.
        In addition to the ongoing commitment of spending more than
    $1 million per year in operating costs, the Clovis Unified
    School District is willing to invest $5 million over 5 years in
    capital improvements and renovations to the existing
    facilities.
        I understand that there are concerns regarding the fair
    market value of this property, but Clovis Unified is not a
    private-sector, for-profit institution. It is a school
    district, and the school district does not intend to use this
    acreage for marketplace purposes. Instead, Clovis Unified is
    committed to maintaining the public value in this land and
    these facilities out of its own pocket.
        Additionally, in the 106th Congress, H.R. 150 was signed
    into law, which provides the Secretary of Agriculture the
    authority to convey Forest Service land for educational
    purposes. The Forest Service has yet to make any conveyances
    under H.R. 150, and has yet to write regulations to implement
    the Act, which is why H.R. 3401 is before us today.
        In addition to the transfer, H.R. 3401 authorizes a new
    special use permit that would continue to authorize Clovis
    Unified's use of the adjacent 100 acres. There are no
    structures in need of capital improvements on these 100 acres.
        The Federal costs of this transfer are administrative only,
    and are negligible to the amount that the school district will
    be spending to increase the value of the property and run this
    valuable educational program for the benefit of the children of
    California.
        In conclusion, this legislation is a positive effort in
    effective local, state, and Federal Government cooperation.
        I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today. And
    thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing this bill to be heard.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable George P. Radanovich, a Representative in
                     Congress from the State of California

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for considering H.R. 3401 today, the
    California Five Mile Regional Learning Center Transfer Act.
        This bill transfers 27.1 acres of National Forest Service property
    from the Stanislaus Forest to the Clovis Unified School District. By so
    doing, this legislation will permit the school district to continue to
    operate the Five Mile Regional Learning Center on this National Forest
    land and, more specifically, the bill would allow the school district
    to fund necessary capital improvements to the Learning Center
    facilities. Without this legislation, these improvements and non-
    federal expenditures would not be permitted and the Learning Center
    could not continue due to dilapidation.
        The Five Mile Regional Learning Center is an Outdoor Environmental
    Education School that benefits youth from all over the state of
    California. The Regional Learning Center serves 138 schools from
    approximately 60 school districts in California. Approximately 14,000
    students participated in this educational program last year. A variety
    of classes are offered with an emphasis on natural resource
    conservation. In addition to the environmental education program, the
    school district offers course work on character development, team
    building, and individualized challenge activities such as high ropes.
    During the summer the site is used by a variety of groups. In addition,
    a number of counties in conjunction with local and state agencies bring
    ``At risk kids'' to the program's Life's Alternatives Involving Risks
    (LAIR) Adventure Academy.
        The 120-acre Five Mile Regional Learning Center has been operated
    by the Clovis Unified School District since 1989. Prior to that the
    Fresno County Office of Education starting in 1969 operated the
    project.
        While the Five Mile Regional Learning Center is located on National
    Forest Land, the Federal Government plays no role in the operation or
    maintenance of the facilities used by the program or in delivery of the
    educational program. The National Forest Service merely permits the use
    of these facilities and public land to the Clovis Unified School
    District, and monitors the program to ensure the District adheres to
    permit requirements. The Forest Service has not funded or appropriated
    monies to maintain or operate these buildings. According to Forest
    Service documents the, ``Regional Learning Center facility has outlived
    its life by years, and, if it were not for the efforts of the Clovis
    Unified School District, the buildings would be in a state of disrepair
    useable to no one.''
        The Clovis Unified School District has--on average--spent more that
    $1 million per year over the last 12 years on operation and
    maintenance. Without transfer of ownership, the Clovis Unified School
    District is prohibited by law from spending its money on capital
    improvements to ensure that these facilities do not fall into
    disrepair.
        In addition to the ongoing commitment of spending more than $1
    million per year in operation costs, the Clovis Unified School District
    is willing to invest $5 million over 5 years in capital improvements
    and renovations to the existing facilities.
        I understand there are concerns regarding the fair market value of
    this property. Clovis Unified is not a private sector, for-profit
    institution. It is a school district. The school district does not
    intend to use this acreage for marketplace purposes. Instead, Clovis
    Unified is committed maintaining the public value in this land and
    these facilities out of its own pocket.
        Additionally, in the 106th Congress, H.R. 150 was signed into law.
    It provides the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to convey Forest
    Service Land for educational purposes. The Forest Service has yet to
    make any conveyances under H.R. 150 and has yet to write regulations to
    implement the Act, which is why H.R. 3401 is before us today.
        In addition to the transfer, the H.R. 3401 authorizes a new Special
    Use permit that would continue to authorize Clovis Unified's use of the
    adjacent 100 acres. There are no structures in need of capital
    improvement on the 100 acres.
        The Federal costs of this transfer are administrative-only and
    negligible to the amount that the school district will be spending to
    increase the value of the property and run this valuable educational
    program for the children of California.
        In conclusion, this legislation is a positive effort in effective
    local, state and Federal Government cooperation. I look forward to
    hearing from the witnesses and addressing any issues that arise today.
        Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing.
                                     ______

        Mr. McInnis. All right, let's proceed. My understanding is
    you have got some testimony for the other bills, as well, and
    you wish to proffer all of that at this point?
        Ms. Estill. I would like to do all three at once, if I
    could.
        Mr. McInnis. And then you will stay around for questioning?
        Ms. Estill. Sure will.
        Mr. McInnis. Thank you. You may proceed.

       STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH ESTILL, DEPUTY CHIEF, PROGRAMS AND
      LEGISLATION, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

        Ms. Estill. Thank you very much for inviting us to
    participate, and for this opportunity to appear before you
    today. I am Elizabeth Estill, the Deputy Chief for Programs and
    Legislation of the USDA Forest Service, and I am here to
    provide the Department's views on three bills: H.R. 3962, the
    Good Neighbor Act; H.R. 3401, the California Five Mile Regional
    Learning Center Transfer Act; and H.R. 3954, the Caribbean
    National Forest Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
        The Department supports H.R. 3954, the Caribbean National
    Forest Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, with some very minor
    technical corrections. The Department would like to work with
    the Committee to make a number of improvements to H.R. 3401,
    the California Five Mile Regional Learning Center Transfer
    Act--although I would say right now that we are certainly in
    favor of the transfer--and H.R. 3962, the Good Neighbor Act,
    before these bills move forward.
        H.R. 3962, the Good Neighbor Act: It limits the ability of
    the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of
    Land Management, and the Forest Service, to acquire land within
    counties already containing 50 percent Federally controlled
    land. H.R. 3962 would require the agencies to dispose of land
    equal to 97 percent of the value of the land to be acquired in
    those counties.
        In addition, the Act requires the agency to notify the
    Governor, the chief executive of the county, and members of the
    House and Senate, prior to the acquisition. It also requires
    the agency to hold a hearing prior to the acquisition, within
    the county in which the land is located. If the Federally owned
    lands in the county exceed 66 percent, H.R. 3962 requires
    approval of the Federal acquisition by the governing
    legislative body of the county.
        The Department recognizes and supports addressing the needs
    of local citizens to participate in decisions regarding Federal
    lands within their counties. However, we would like to work
    with the Committee to modify, where necessary, some of the
    limitations of H.R. 3962. For example, we should ensure that
    H.R. 3962 is consistent with the existing and individual state
    enabling acts that authorize and provide conditions on
    approvals of Forest Service acquisitions as required by the
    Weeks Act.
        H.R. 3962 also requires the Federal agencies to dispose of
    land equal in value to lands acquired, without providing a
    related sales authority. The Forest Service does not have a
    general sales authority to accomplish the bill's purposes.
        And finally, we should work to ensure that H.R. 3962 would
    not unnecessarily limit the ability of the Forest Service to
    acquire lands to further the purposes of land management
    mandates imposed under other statutes, such as the Federal Land
    Policy and Management Act, the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield
    Act, and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning
    Act, and the National Forest Management Act.
        We agree that additional Federal acquisitions should, as a
    rule, be discussed with local elected officials to communicate
    both the public needs, and also have the Forest Service better
    understand the communities' perspective on the impact. And we
    are committed to work with the Committee to meet that
    objective. We look forward to working with the Committee to
    identify ways to better involve local citizens in land
    acquisition decisions, while still retaining the authority of
    the Federal Government to acquire those lands which are in the
    broader public's interest.
        H.R. 3401 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey
    without consideration 27 acres of National Forest System lands
    to the Clovis, California Unified School District. This
    conveyance would also include the improvements that comprise
    the Five Mile Regional Learning Center. In addition, the bill
    directs the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into negotiations
    on the terms of a special use permit with the school district,
    to allow their use of an additional 100 acres of National
    Forest System land.
        This bill includes a reversionary clause in which the
    property conveyed would revert to the United States if the
    school district discontinues its operation of the Learning
    Center.
        The Department does not support the conveyance of land and
    improvements without consideration. Rather, we would like to
    work with the Committee to pursue this transaction in a manner
    consistent with either the Sisk Act, Public Law 90-171, or the
    Education Land Grant Act, Public Law 106-577, which both allow
    conveyance of the National Forest System lands for educational
    purposes.
        Presently, personnel on the Stanislaus National Forest are
    working with the school district to explore the conveyance of
    this land under Public Law 106-577. In addition, we would like
    to work with the Committee to ensure that a reversionary
    interest in the land would limit the potential liability to the
    Federal Government.
        H.R. 3954, the Caribbean National Forest Wild and Scenic
    Rivers Act, amends Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers
    Act, to designate three rivers in the Caribbean National Forest
    in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as components of the
    National Wild and Scenic River System.
        The segments to be designated include 4.4 miles of the Rio
    Mamayes, 2.1 miles of the Rio de la Mina, and 2.3 miles of the
    Rio Icacos. H.R. 3954 would allow, subject to the Secretary's
    discretion, installation and maintenance of data collection and
    transmission facilities, construction and maintenance of
    structures to allow monitoring of flora and fauna, and
    construction and maintenance of trails for research facilities.
        The Department supports H.R. 3954, with a very small number
    of technical corrections, which have been discussed with your
    staff.
        This concludes my testimony, and I look forward to
    answering any questions that you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Estill follows:]

    Statement of Elizabeth Estill, Deputy Chief, Programs and Legislation,
      Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 3962, H.R.
                              3401, and H.R. 3954

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today. I am Elizabeth Estill, Deputy
    Chief for Programs and Legislation, USDA Forest Service. I am here
    today to provide the Department's views on three bills: H.R. 3962 Good
    Neighbor Act, H.R. 3401 California Five Mile Regional Learning Center
    Transfer Act, and H.R. 3954 Caribbean National Forest Wild and Scenic
    Rivers Act.
        The Department supports H.R. 3954 Caribbean National Forest Wild
    and Scenic Rivers Act with some technical corrections. The Department
    would like to work with the Committee to make a number of improvements
    to H.R. 3401 California Five Mile Regional Learning Center Transfer Act
    and H.R. 3962 Good Neighbor Act before these bills move forward.
    H.R. 3962 Good Neighbor Act
        H.R. 3962 Good Neighbor Act limits the ability of the National Park
    Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the
    Forest Service to acquire land within counties already containing 50
    percent Federally controlled land. H.R. 3962 would require the agencies
    to dispose of land equal to 97 percent of the value of the land to be
    acquired in those counties. In addition, H.R. 3962 requires the Agency
    to notify the Governor, chief executive of the county, and Members of
    the House and Senate prior to the acquisition. H.R. 3962 also requires
    the Agency to hold a hearing, prior to the acquisition, within the
    county in which the land is located. If the Federally controlled land
    within the county exceeds 66 percent of the land area of the county,
    H.R. 3962 requires approval of the Federal acquisition by the governing
    legislative body of the county.
        The Department recognizes and supports addressing the needs of
    local citizens to participate in decisions regarding Federal lands
    within their counties. However, we would like to work with the
    Committee to modify where necessary limitations imposed on Federal
    acquisitions by H.R. 3962.
        For example, we should ensure that H.R. 3962 is consistent with
    existing individual state enabling acts that authorize and provide
    conditions on approvals of Forest Service acquisitions as required by
    the Weeks Act (P.L. 61-435).
        H.R. 3962 also requires the Federal agencies to dispose of land
    equal in value to lands acquired without providing a related sales
    authority. The Forest Service does not have a general sales authority
    to accomplish the bill's purpose.
        Finally, we should work to ensure that H.R. 3962 would not
    unnecessarily limit the ability of the Forest Service to acquire lands
    to further the purposes of land management mandates imposed under other
    statutes, such as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the
    Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
    Resources Planning Act, and the National Forest Management Act.
        We agree that additional Federal acquisitions should, as a rule, be
    discussed with local elected officials to communicate the needs as well
    as understand the impacts on communities and are committed to work with
    the Committee to meet that objective. We look forward to working with
    the Committee to identify ways to better involve local citizens in land
    acquisition decisions while still retaining authority of the Federal
    Government to acquire those lands which are in the broader public's
    interest.
    H.R. 3401 California Five Mile Regional Learning Center Transfer Act
        H.R. 3401 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey without
    consideration 27 acres of National Forest System lands to the Clovis,
    California Unified School District. The conveyance would also include
    the improvements that comprise the Five Mile Regional Learning Center.
    In addition, the bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to enter
    into negotiations on the terms of a special use permit with the school
    district to allow their use of an additional 100 acres of National
    Forest System land. The bill includes a reversionary clause in which
    the property conveyed would revert to the United States if the school
    district discontinues its operation of the Learning Center.
        The Department does not support the conveyance of land and
    improvements without consideration. Rather, the Department would like
    to work with the Committee to pursue this transaction in a manner
    consistent with either the Sisk Act, P.L. 90-171 or the Education Land
    Grant Act, P.L. 106-577, which both allow conveyance of National Forest
    System lands for educational purposes. Presently, personnel on the
    Stanislaus National Forest are working with the school district to
    explore conveyance of this land under P.L. 106-577. In addition, we
    would like to work with the Committee to ensure that a reversionary
    interest in the land would limit potential liabilities to the
    Government.
    H.R. 3954 Caribbean National Forest Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
        H.R. 3954 Caribbean National Forest Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
    amends Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C.
    1274(a)) to designate three rivers in the Caribbean National Forest in
    the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as components of the National Wild and
    Scenic River System. The segments to be designated by H.R. 3954 include
    4.4 miles of the Rio Mameyes, 2.1 miles of the Rio de la Mina, and 2.3
    miles of the Rio Icacos. H.R. 3954 would allow, subject to the
    Secretary's discretion, installation and maintenance of data collection
    and transmission facilities, construction and maintenance of structures
    to allow monitoring of threatened and endangered species, and
    construction and maintenance of trails for research facilities.
        The Department supports H.R. 3954 with a small number of technical
    corrections. We recommend that subsection 2(c) be eliminated as the
    Wild and Scenic Rivers Act includes direction for establishing a river
    corridor boundary, submitting the resulting map and legal description
    to Congress, and providing for public inspection of the map and legal
    description (16 U.S.C. 1274 (b) and (c)). This matter has been
    discussed with your staff, as well as other minor technical
    corrections.
    Conclusion:
        This concludes my testimony. I look forward to answering any
    questions you may have.
                                     ______

        Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Ms. Estill.
        You may proceed, Dr. Bradley.

     STATEMENT OF TERRY BRADLEY, Ed.D., DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT FOR
        ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

        Mr. Bradley. Chairman McInnis and members of the House
    Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 3401, the California
    Five Mile Regional Learning Center Transfer Act. My name is
    Terry Bradley, Deputy Superintend for Administrative Services
    for the Clovis Unified School District. And it is my honor to
    represent our district at today's hearing in support of H.R.
    3401, as introduced by the Honorable George Radanovich in the
    House of Representatives on December 4, 2001. As part of my
    testimony, there are several exhibits that I ask be
    incorporated as part of the record.
        The Clovis Unified School District is located in Fresno
    County, in the middle of the great Central Valley in
    California. Clovis Unified serves approximately 33,500 students
    in grades K through 12. Clovis students live in the Cities of
    Clovis and Fresno, plus parts of the County of Fresno. And I
    have been a staff member of Clovis Unified since 1976.
        Clovis Unified has leased the Five Mile Regional Learning
    Center from the Forest Service under a special use permit since
    1989. During this time period, we have established an excellent
    working relationship with the Forest Service. We fully expect
    that this cooperative relationship between the district and the
    Forest Service will continue if title to the Regional Learning
    Center conveys to our school district.
        The Regional Learning Center is located on approximately
    27.1 acres in the Stanislaus National Forest, at approximately
    4,100 feet in elevation. The nearest city to the Regional
    Learning Center is the city of Sonora. The 27.1-acre site was
    initially developed during the early 1960's by the Forest
    Service, and consists of several barracks, a cafeteria/kitchen
    building, classrooms, gymnasium, and shop buildings. In 1999,
    Clovis Unified and the Forest Service amended the special use
    permit to add approximately 93-plus acres adjacent to the
    Regional Learning Center for use for outdoor educational
    purposes.
        The center is used as an outdoor educational environmental
    school for students in fourth through twelfth grades. During
    the 2000-2001 school year, the center served more than 14,000
    students, from 140 schools and 60 school districts from
    throughout the State of California. Since our district assumed
    management of the center, more than 160,000 students have
    benefited from the center's program.
        Classes range from forest to raptor studies, with an
    emphasis on national resource conservation. In addition to our
    environmental education program, classes are also offered on
    character development, team building, and individual challenges
    such as high-rope climbing. A more thorough description of our
    educational programs offered to students at the center is
    included in our written testimony as an exhibit.
        In addition, the Regional Learning Center is also used for
    conferences, workshops, and athletic camps for both youths and
    adults. A sample of the activities hosted by the center during
    the past year include a technology conference for teachers, the
    California Department of Forestry Academy, several summer
    basketball camps, and retreats for both youths and adults.
        The buildings and structures of the center have been in
    existence since the early 1960's. Because of financial
    shortfalls, the Forest Service has not been able to maintain or
    operate these buildings. Since taking over the operation of
    this center in 1989, Clovis Unified has spent more than $1
    million each year operating the center. During the last fiscal
    year, our operating expenses exceeded $1.2 million. We have
    invested more than $14 million in the operations of the
    Learning Center since 1989.
        In addition to the operating costs, Clovis Unified is
    prepared to invest funds necessary to modernize and improve the
    Regional Learning Center's facilities. However, because Clovis
    Unified does not own the land or buildings, we are prohibited
    from spending district of state money for capital facility
    improvements or renovations at the center. Capital investments
    must be made now to continue the Regional Learning Center. With
    title to the center's lands and buildings, Clovis Unified can
    use district and state funds to make the necessary facility
    improvements.
        H.R. 3401 will transfer ownership of the center to Clovis
    Unified. Approval of H.R. 3401 is necessary so that the capital
    renovations and improvements vital to the continued use of the
    center can and will be completed.
        According to a Forest Service representative, the Regional
    Learning Center facility has outlived its life by years, and if
    it were not for the efforts of the district, the buildings
    would be in a state of disrepair, usable to no one. In a letter
    to our district dated June 5, 2000, by the Stanislaus National
    Forest Supervisor, it stated, ``We have considered your request
    and believe that your acquisition of the Learning Center would
    be in the interest of the public and the Forest Service.''
        Clovis Unified is committed to invest $5 million over 5
    years in capital renovations and improvements, if H.R. 3401 is
    approved. This investment is in addition to our $1.2 million
    annual expenditure provided for operation and routine
    maintenance.
        H.R. 3401 would also authorize a new special use permit to
    continue the authorization.
        Mr. McInnis. Mr. Bradley, could you wrap it up, please?
        Mr. Bradley. Oh, I am sorry. Well, I will just finish up,
    then.
        In closing, we urge your support and approval for this
    legislation that should be considered non-controversial and a
    wonderful example of effective local, state, and Federal
    Government cooperation. The Federal costs of this transfer are
    administrative only, and negligible compared to the investment
    our district is willing to make and the improved and continuing
    educational services provided students throughout our state.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, for
    the opportunity to testify today. We look forward to working
    with the Committee and the Forest Service on this legislation.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bradley follows:]

         Statement of Terry Bradley, Ed.D., Deputy Superintendent for
       Administrative Services, Clovis Unified School District, City of
          Clovis, County of Fresno, State of California, on H.R. 3401

        Chairman McInnis and Members of the House Subcommittee on Forests
    and Forest Health, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support
    of H.R. 3401, the California Five Mile Regional Learning Center
    Transfer Act.
        My name is Terry Bradley; Deputy Superintendent for Administrative
    Services for the Clovis Unified School District and it is my honor to
    represent our school district at today's hearing in support of H.R.
    3401, the ``California Five Mile Regional Learning Center Transfer
    Act'' introduced by the Honorable George Radanovich in the House of
    Representatives on December 4, 2001. As part of my testimony, there are
    several exhibits that I ask be incorporated as part of the record.
        The Clovis Unified School District is located in Fresno County,
    which is the heart of the great Central Valley in California. Clovis
    Unified serves approximately 33,500 students in grades K-12. Clovis
    students live in the cities of Clovis and Fresno plus parts of the
    County of Fresno. I have been on the staff of Clovis Unified since
    1976.
        Clovis Unified has leased the Five Mile Regional Learning Center
    from the Forest Service under a Special Use Permit since 1989. During
    this time period, we have established an excellent working relationship
    with the Forest Service. We fully expect that this cooperative
    relationship between the Clovis Unified School District and the Forest
    Service will continue if title to the Five Mile Regional Learning
    Center conveys to our school district.
        The Regional Learning Center is located on approximately 27.1 acres
    in the Miwok Ranger District of the Stanislaus National Forest at
    approximately 4,100 feet in elevation. The nearest city to the Regional
    Learning Center is the City of Sonora. The 27.1-acre site was initially
    developed during the early 1960's by the Forest Service and consists of
    several barracks, a cafeteria/kitchen building, classrooms, and
    gymnasium and shop buildings. In 1999 Clovis Unified and the Forest
    Service amended the Special Use Permit to add approximately 93 acres
    adjacent to the Regional Learning Center for use for outdoor
    educational purposes.
        The Regional Learning Center is used as an Outdoor Environmental
    Educational School for students in fourth through twelfth grade. During
    the 2000-01 school year, the Regional Learning Center served more than
    14,000 students from 140 schools and 60 school districts from
    throughout the State of California. Since CUSD assumed management of
    the Center, more than 160,000 students have benefited from the Center's
    programs. Classes range from forest to raptor studies with an emphasis
    on natural resource conservation. In addition to our environmental
    education program, classes are also offered on character development,
    team building and individual challenge activities such as high rope
    climbing. A more thorough description of educational programs offered
    to students at the Regional Learning Center is included in our written
    testimony as an exhibit.
        The Regional Learning Center is also used for conferences,
    workshops and athletic camps for both our youth and adults. A sample of
    the activities hosted by the Center during the past year include a
    technology conference for educators, the California Department of
    Forestry Academy, several summer basketball camps and retreats for both
    youth and adults.
        The buildings and structures at the Regional Learning Center have
    been in existence since the early 1960's. Because of financial
    shortfalls, the Forest Service has not been able to maintain or operate
    these buildings. Since taking over the operation of the Regional
    Learning Center in 1989, Clovis Unified School District has spent more
    than $1 million each year operating the Center. During the last fiscal
    year, our operating expenses exceeded $1.2 million. Clovis has invested
    more than $14 million in the operations of the Learning Center.
        In addition to the operating costs, Clovis is prepared to invest
    the funds necessary to modernize and improve the Regional Learning
    Center's facilities. However, because Clovis Unified does not own the
    land or buildings, we are prohibited from spending District or State
    money for capital facility renovations or improvements at the Regional
    Learning Center. Capital investments must be made now to continue the
    Regional Learning Center. With title to the Center's land and buildings
    Clovis can use District and State funds to make the necessary facility
    improvements.
        H.R. 3401 will transfer ownership of the Regional Learning Center
    to the Clovis Unified School District. Approval of H.R. 3401 is
    necessary so that capital renovations and improvements vital to the
    continued use of the Regional Learning Center can and will be
    completed. Otherwise the condition of the Center's buildings and
    infrastructure will result in the discontinuation of the Regional
    Center's operation.
        According to a Forest Service representative, the Regional Learning
    Center facility has outlived its life by years and if it were not for
    the efforts of the Clovis Unified School District, the buildings would
    be in a state of disrepair useable to no one. In a letter to our
    District dated June 5, 2000, Ben Del Villar, the Stanislaus National
    Forest Supervisor, stated that, ``We have considered your request and
    believe that your acquisition of the Learning Center would be in the
    interest of the public and the Forest Service.''
        Clovis Unified is committed to invest $5 million over 5 years in
    capital renovations and improvements to the Regional Learning Center if
    H.R. 3401 is approved. This investment is in addition to the $1.2
    million annual expenditure provided by CUSD for operations and routine
    maintenance. Also, we are committed to continuing to expand and enhance
    our outdoor educational curriculum to provide students from throughout
    California with the best experience possible during their stay at our
    facility.
        H.R. 3401 would also authorize a new Special Use permit to continue
    the authorization for our school district to use the adjacent 93+ acres
    as presently used for environmental program activities. H.R. 3401
    provides that title to the real property conveyed under the Act would
    revert if the Clovis Unified School District discontinues its operation
    of the Five Mile Regional Learning Center.
        Included with our written testimony is a full description of the
    educational program offered at the Regional Learning Center along with
    maps that identify the location of the Regional Learning Center and
    adjacent property that is affected by H.R. 3401. Also, we have attached
    as exhibits several letters sent to members of the California
    Congressional delegation from schools throughout the State of
    California. These letters are from school districts that have utilized
    the Regional Learning Center and express support for the proposed
    legislation.
        In closing, we urge your support and approval for this legislation
    that should be considered non-controversial and a wonderful example of
    effective local, state and Federal Government cooperation. The Federal
    costs of this transfer are administrative only and negligible compared
    to the investment Clovis Unified is willing to make in both operational
    expenditures and capital facility improvements. The result will be the
    continuation and enhancement of this valuable outdoor educational
    program and the continuation of Outdoor Environmental programs utilized
    and appreciated by school and community groups throughout California.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for the
    opportunity to testify and for your consideration of H.R. 3401. We look
    forward to working with the Committee and the Forest Service on this
    legislation.
                                     ______

        [Attachments to Mr. Bradley's statement follow:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.019

        Mr. McInnis. All right. We will open it up for questions on
    the witnesses. Our primary focus here is Mr. Radanovich's bill,
    so that is where I would like to restrict the questions to,
    specifically to that bill. After we have those questions, then
    we will move on to the next bill. Are there any questions?
        Mr. Radanovich. If I may, Mr. Chairman, just a couple of
    questions?
        Mr. McInnis. Yes.
        Mr. Radanovich. Elizabeth, thank you for being here to
    testify. And I notice in your testimony that you mentioned
    support of the bill. But there are some circumstances regarding
    the bill, and one of the issues mentioned was the issue of
    liability.
        I am familiar with some of these issues, when you had
    mentioned some of your public law. And I am not sure how they
    match up against H.R. 150, which was the law that allowed
    Forest Service transfer to educational groups. I am aware that
    this is the first law to be implemented by that, and there are
    no regulations that have been set up by the Department. And
    sometimes the first bill implementing a bill previously passed
    is sometimes laborious. But you had mentioned a liability issue
    that I am not quite familiar with.
        Ms. Estill. Pretty unlikely, considering the use of this
    facility. However, we would like to protect ourselves so that
    the Secretary could not take the land back if it should be
    contaminated with whatever contamination might exist out there.
        Mr. Radanovich. The area of liability that you are
    concerned with, then, is basically environmental clean-up
    possibilities?
        Ms. Estill. Exactly.
        Mr. Radanovich. Those kinds of things?
        Ms. Estill. Exactly.
        Mr. Radanovich. OK.
        Ms. Estill. The real issue, if I might, that we have is
    that the Education Land Grant Act really will suffice. And it
    does require a nominal fee of $10 an acre.
        Mr. Radanovich. They are more than willing to pay that $10.
        Ms. Estill. And we think we can do it, just under that
    authority.
        Mr. Radanovich. OK. Good. I am not sure there are any other
    questions that I have. Well, Mr. Bradley, let me ask a couple
    of quick questions. Do you plan to harvest trees on this
    property?
        Mr. Bradley. No. No.
        Mr. Radanovich. No? OK. And do you have any plans to
    restrict public access to any of the roads there?
        Mr. Bradley. No. We would like as many people to enjoy the
    facility as possible.
        Mr. Radanovich. All right. OK. Those are all the questions
    that I have, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Bradley for being here.
        Mr. Bradley. Thank you.
        Mr. Radanovich. And thank you, Elizabeth.
        Mr. McInnis. Are there any further questions in regards to
    this bill? Go ahead.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Yes, good morning. To Mr. Bradley, you
    quote in your testimony a Forest Service reply to your request,
    and I quote, ``We have considered your request and believe that
    the acquisition of the Learning Center would be in the public
    interest.'' Are we still talking about a purchase? That was the
    original request, to buy the land? Or what is your position
    right now with regard to that?
        Mr. Bradley. That was a letter that we received from the
    Forest Service supervisor when we started discussions about the
    purchase of the property under the old Sisk Act, in the late
    1990's. And we were not aware of the issue related to fair
    market value. We thought because of the educational values that
    our district is bringing to the full state, along with the
    Forest Service, by the use of that property, there would not be
    a fair market value issue; especially with the commitment the
    district was willing to make and capital facility improvements.
        Subsequent to that, when we had some meetings with the
    Forest supervisor, that issue came up not only for the 27.1
    acres where the center is located, that certainly has a lot of
    trees on it, that that fair market value would include the
    value of the trees for logging purposes, for which we would
    have really no private interest in doing that.
        You know, we are a public educational agency, not in the
    business--although some of our taxpayers don't think so--but
    not in the business of making money.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Thank you.
        Mr. Holt. Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. McInnis. Go ahead, Mr. Holt.
        Mr. Holt. Thank you. With regard to the Five Mile Regional
    Learning Center, Ms. Estill, what is the fair market value of
    this parcel that taxpayers would be conveying?
        Ms. Estill. The last time that it was actually valued was
    in '94, I believe, and that was about $1 million. We think it
    is probably worth about $2 million now.
        Mr. Holt. Thank you.
        Mr. McInnis. Any further questions?
        [No response.]
        Mr. McInnis. If there are no further questions, I would
    like to thank the witnesses. Ms. Estill, if you will stay here,
    obviously, for the other bills?
        Mr. Bradley, thank you for your attendance in front of the
    Committee.
        Mr. Bradley. Thank you.
        Mr. McInnis. Your exhibits will be incorporated into the
    record.
        Mr. Bradley. Thank you.
        Mr. McInnis. Mr. Acevedo-Vila, we were going to take you
    next in order, but Mr. Peterson's witness has arrived, so we
    will stick with our schedule, if there is no objection.
        Our next panel would be Mr. Craig McCurry, the Elmore
    County Commissioner. And I think, Mr. Peterson, that is your
    only witness; is that correct?
        Mr. Peterson. Yes.
        Mr. McInnis. OK. Mr. Peterson, we are on your bill, H.R.
    3962. Do you have an opening statement?
        Mr. Peterson. Yes.
        Mr. McInnis. You may proceed.

        STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

        Mr. Peterson. I would like to thank the Chairman for
    scheduling this hearing and allowing this bill to be heard. The
    Good Neighbor Act of 2002, H.R. 3962, is exactly that: a bill
    to make sure the Federal Government is a good neighbor in
    communities where they own the majority of the land in a
    county. A good neighbor is a part of the community, and
    supports the community through taxes from the land base. A good
    neighbor does not take away more acreage from the tax base,
    unless there is agreement within the county that it is in the
    best interests of the agency and the county.
        Let me simply explain how the bill works. If 50 percent or
    more of a county's land base is owned in total by the Bureau of
    Land Management, the National Park Service, the Fish and
    Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service, before an agency can
    acquire more land the agency must first sell land of equal
    value. Also, the agency can do land exchanges of equal value.
        In counties in which these agencies own 50 to 66 percent of
    the land, the agency can still acquire land, by giving notice
    to county, state, and Federal elected officials; holding a
    hearing; and getting the Governor to approve. When total agency
    ownership is above 66 percent, the elected county officials
    must approve purchases as well. So you would have the Governor
    approve and the county approve. And in all cases, the 40-acre
    inholdings can be purchased by giving notice.
        In large measure, counties with high percentages of Federal
    lands are in less populated, rural areas with small ownerships
    adjacent to, or interdispersed among, the Federal owner. These
    areas are characteristically strapped for cash and struggling
    to fund the basic infrastructure crucial to the quality of
    life.
        The bill is about fairness: making it fair for counties
    that have large Federal land holdings to maintain a tax roll to
    provide basic services just like other counties throughout the
    United States.
        I, personally, do not oppose all land acquisitions by the
    Federal Government; and neither does H.R. 3962. I fully
    understand that there are many cases in which land acquisition
    by the Federal Government is appropriate. I just want counties
    to have the option to maintain their tax base.
        I am advocating for the Federal Government to take greater
    responsibility for land acquisition decisions, to work with
    their neighbors on these decisions, and make more efficient use
    of these funds. I am promoting greater accountability to
    Congress and to local and state governments when the Federal
    Government buys land.
        My position and the intent of this bill is to leave land on
    the local property tax rolls and promote cooperative alliances.
    The Federal Government needs to be a better neighbor when it
    comes to Federal land acquisitions. The Good Neighbor Act
    specifically has been designed to only affect counties who have
    a major encroachment, while leaving a small regulatory
    footprint. The bill only affects 171 counties at the 50-percent
    factor, out of 3,066. This is less than 6 percent of all
    counties. There would be no harness placed on the Federal land
    purchased in the remaining 2,895 counties.
        Currently, a hole exists in regulation and statute which
    allows the Federal Government to buy land without notice or
    comment provided to local people. A broad cooperation and
    coordination obligation is specified under the law. This
    obligation is toothless. When the acquisition happens outside a
    management plan, no regulation exists that specifies the
    Federal Government must give state and local governments notice
    and comment. The Forest Service does not routinely conduct
    environmental assessments on land acquisitions that would allow
    for local input.
        I acknowledge that some local land managers work well with
    their communities coordinating land acquisitions.
    Unfortunately, others do not meaningfully consult with local
    governments; leaving them powerless with such important
    decisions affecting their tax rolls. Unless the law is amended,
    a patchwork will persist, with a few bright squares of
    coordination existing with far too many areas where counties
    are locked out of the process.
        Now, the President articulated his policy on the Federal
    land acquisition in his budget this year, and he speaks of: To
    make the most efficient use of these funds; to promote
    cooperative alliances; and to leave land on the state tax
    rolls. And the request emphasizes innovative alternatives to
    fee title purchases, such as conservation easements and land
    exchanges. We think our bill works right along with those
    priorities of the President.
        The Good Neighbor Act makes the most efficient use of funds
    by keeping the tax rolls stable--in other words, if you buy,
    you sell--allowing the Federal Government to use funds to take
    care of their land, while keeping PILT acres stable in those
    counties.
        H.R. 3962 promotes cooperative alliances by plugging the
    existing hole in the law and requiring land management agencies
    to seek for local input. I think that most counties and states
    will be more than willing to work with the Federal agencies in
    meeting agency goals through land acquisitions in their county.
    Most importantly, the bill is in complete harmony with the
    President's policy to leave land on the tax rolls. The land
    management agencies can still acquire land by exchange or
    purchase, after selling the needed land acreage to maintain the
    tax base.
        The bill also provides for an exception where the Federal
    Government limits its power by allowing for state and local
    governments' approval of land acquisition. This places the
    approval with local lawmakers who know the most about the needs
    of their communities. They live there; they have been elected,
    and must meet payrolls, provide services, and fund local
    initiatives on a potentially decreasing tax base. But more
    importantly, the bill provides for a process where dialog is
    needed, and where decisions are weighted with input.
        Finally, the bill promotes innovative alternatives to fee
    title purchases by promoting land exchanges. The Administration
    has taken responsible steps, and I look forward to working with
    them.
        When the Federal Government owns over half of a county, it
    can deal a crushing blow to local communities who rely on a
    solid tax base. Compounding the Federal presence is the fact
    that the Government does not pay its fair share of taxes; the
    agencies have not been able to provide revenue from timber,
    minerals, and grazing; and PILT payments continue to be under-
    funded.
        It is an embarrassment that we pay our arrearages to the
    United Nations, but we do not pay our arrearages to our own
    people. From 1996 to the year 2000, the U.S. Government is
    approximately $650 million in arrearages to its own citizens
    who live adjacent to public lands. In other words, we have not
    paid the authorized amount for PILT.
        Historically, we, the Federal Government, paid less than a
    quarter per acre. Last year we increased the amount to 33 cents
    an acre, if you include all Federal ownership. Yet if that acre
    were left on the local tax roll, it would value between $1.25
    to $3 an acre. BLM did a study on their land, and came up with
    a nationwide average, if land were left on the tax rolls, of
    $1.48 for the same land that they pay 33 cents for.
        A good neighbor does not move into your house and take
    over, especially when they are not invited. County
    commissioners have been forced to increase local millage rates
    to compensate for the lack of Federal funds. In some states,
    increases in the millage rate is not allowed, and they are
    forced to cut programs.
        An example is found in the statement of a county
    administrator for Marshall County, Mississippi, who recently
    appeared before a Forest Counties Payments Committee public
    listening session. He said, ``We have approximately 45,000
    acres of public land, and 30,000 of those are national forest,
    and the balance is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers down the
    Tallahatchie River toward the reservoir area. No personal
    property taxes are collected on these lands, and it is left as
    a burden to the taxpayers to make up the difference in the form
    of a millage rate.''
        While Federal land plays an important role in preserving
    our national heritage and our rich environment, the land
    acquisition process should not occur at the expense of local
    communities. I ask this Committee, as a person concerned for
    rural America: Let us work together and try to have the Federal
    Government be a good neighbor.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]

    Statement of The Honorable John Peterson, a Representative in Congress
                         from the State of Pennsylvania

        Mr. Chairmen.
        The Good Neighbor Act of 2002, H.R. 3962, is exactly that--a bill
    to make sure the Federal Government is a good neighbor in communities
    where they own the majority of land in a county. A good neighbor is a
    part of the community and supports the community through taxes from the
    land base. A good neighbor does not take away more acreage from the tax
    base, unless there is agreement within the county that is the best for
    the Agency and for the county.
        Let me simply explain how this bill works. If 50% or more of a
    county's land base is owned, in total, by BLM, NPS, F&WS, and FS,
    before an agency can acquire more land, the agency must first sell land
    of equal value. Also, the agency can do land exchanges of equal value.
    In counties in which these agencies own 50-66% of the land, the agency
    can still acquire land by giving notice to county, state, and Federal
    elected officials, hold a hearing, and get governor approval. When
    total agency ownership is above 66%, the elected county officials must
    approve purchases as well. In all cases, 40-acre inholdings can be
    purchased by giving notice.
        In large measure, counties with high percent of Federal land are in
    less populated, rural areas with small ownerships adjacent to or
    interdispersed among the larger Federal owner. These areas are
    characteristically strapped for cash and struggling to fund the basic
    infrastructure crucial to quality of life. This bill is about
    fairness--making it fair for counties that have large Federal land
    holdings to maintain a tax roll to provide basic services just like
    other counties throughout the US. I, personally, do not oppose all land
    acquisition by the Federal Government and neither does H.R. 3962. I
    fully understand that there are many cases in which land acquisition by
    the Federal Government is appropriate. I just want the counties to have
    the option to maintain (not even asking they increase, just maintain)
    their tax roll base.
        I am advocating for the Federal Government to take greater
    responsibility for the land acquisition decisions, to work with their
    neighbors on these decisions, and make more efficient use of those
    funds! I am promoting greater accountability to congress and to local
    and state governments when the Federal Government buys land! My
    position and the intent of this bill is to leave land on the local
    property tax rolls and promote cooperative alliances! The Federal
    Government needs to be a better neighbor when it comes to Federal land
    acquisitions. The good neighbor act specifically has been designed to
    only affect counties who have a major Federal encroachment while
    leaving a small regulatory footprint. The bill only affects 171
    counties out of a total of 3066, this is less then 6% of all counties.
    There would be no harness placed on the Federal land purchases in the
    remaining 2895 counties.
        Currently, a hole exists in regulation and statute that allows the
    Federal Government to buy land without notice or comment provided to
    local people. A broad cooperation and coordination obligation is
    specified under current law. This obligation is toothless. When the
    acquisition happens outside a management plan, no regulation exists
    that specifies the Federal Government must give state and local
    governments notice and comment. The Forest Service does not routinely
    conduct environmental assessments on land acquisitions that would allow
    for local input. I acknowledge that some local land managers work well
    with their communities coordinating land acquisitions. Unfortunately,
    others do not meaningfully consult with local government, leaving them
    powerless with such important decisions affecting their tax rolls.
    Unless, the law is amended, a patchwork will persist with a few bright
    squares of coordination co-existing with far to many dull patches where
    counties are locked out of the process.
        The President articulated his policy on Federal land acquisition in
    The Fiscal Year 2003, The Interior Budget in Brief. The bill follows
    tenets of the President's vision for Federal land acquisition programs
    as outlined in The Budget Brief. The vision is summarized as follows:
        I. To make the most efficient use of these funds
        II. Promote cooperative alliances and
        III. Leave land on state tax rolls
        IV. The request emphasizes innovative alternatives to fee title
    purchases such as conservation easements and land exchanges
        Let me take each of these policy standards and apply provisions of
    the good neighbor act.
         LThe good neighbor act makes the most efficient use of
    funds by keeping the tax rolls stable allowing the Federal Government
    to use funds to take care of their land while keeping pilt acres stable
    in those counties.
         LH.R. 3962 promotes cooperative alliances by plugging the
    existing hole in the law and requiring land management agencies to
    allow for local input. I think most counties and states will be more
    than willing to work with Federal agencies in meeting agency goals
    through land acquisitions in their county.
         LMost importantly the bill is in complete harmony with the
    President's policy to leave land on the local tax rolls. The land
    management agencies can still acquire land by exchange or purchase
    after selling the needed land acreage to maintain the tax base. The
    bill also provides for an exception where the Federal Government limits
    its' power by allowing for state and local governments approval of land
    acquisition. This places the approval with local lawmakers who know the
    most about the needs of their communities. They live there, have been
    elected, and must meet payrolls, provide services, and fund local
    initiatives on a potentially decreasing tax base. But more importantly,
    the bill provides for a process where dialogue is needed, and where
    decisions are weighted with more input.
         LFinally, the bill promotes innovative alternatives to fee
    title purchases by promoting land exchanges. The administration is
    taking responsible steps and I look forward to working with them on
    this approach.
        When the Federal Government owns over half the county it can deal a
    crushing blow to local communities who rely on a solid tax base.
    Compounding the Federal presence is the fact that the government does
    not pay it's fair share of taxes, the agencies have not been able to
    provide revenue from timber, minerals, and grazing, and pilt payments
    continue to be under funded. It is an embarrassment that we pay our
    arrearages to the United Nations but we do not pay our arrearages to
    our own people! From 1996 to 2000 the United States Government is
    approximately 650 million dollars in arrearages to our own citizens who
    live adjacent to public lands. Historically, ``we'' the Federal
    Government paid less then a quarter per acre. Last year we increased
    the amount to 33 cents an acre yet if that acre were left on the local
    tax roll it would valued between $1.25 and 3.00 dollars an acre. BLM
    did a study and came up with a nation wide average if land were left on
    the tax roll of $1.48 for the same land that we pay 33 cents. A good
    neighbor does not move into your house and take over, especially when
    they are not invited.
        County commissioners have been forced to increase local millage
    rates to compensate for the lack of Federal funds. In some states
    increases in the millage rate is not allowed and they are forced to cut
    vital programs. An example is found in the statement of a county
    administrator for Marshall County, Mississippi who recently appeared
    before a Forest Counties Payments Committee public listening session.
    He said, ``we have approximately 45,000 acres of public land, and
    30,000 of those are national forest land and the balance is U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers land down in the Tallahatchie River towards the
    reservoir area. No personal property taxes are collected on these
    lands, and it is left as a burden to the taxpayers to make up the
    difference in the form of a millage rate.'' While Federal lands play an
    important role in preserving our national heritage and our rich
    environment, the land acquisition process should not occur at the
    expense of local communities.
        I asked you, as a person concerned for rural America, let us work
    together to be a good neighbor!
                                     ______

        Mr. McInnis. Mr. McCurry, you may proceed. You have 5
    minutes.

    STATEMENT OF CRAIG McCURRY, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, ELMORE COUNTY,
                                 IDAHO

        Mr. McCurry. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the
    Committee, thank you for the opportunity to voice my support
    for H.R. 3962. My name is Craig McCurry, and I am the Chairman
    of the Elmore County Board of Commissioners in Elmore County,
    Idaho. I am here on behalf of the citizens of my county, and
    the Idaho Association of Counties.
        Elmore County is home to 30,000 people and Mountain Home
    Air Force Base. Elmore County and IAC applaud the efforts of
    Congress to address the fundamental issue of land acquisition
    by the Federal Government, and ask your overwhelming support of
    H.R. 3962. H.R. 3962 presents an excellent opportunity to
    minimize the impact of land acquisition on the 44 counties in
    Idaho and countless counties around the Nation affected by
    Federal land in their counties.
        We appreciate the actions of Idaho's congressional
    delegation to begin a much needed discussion of land
    acquisition by the Federal Government. The position of the
    Idaho Association of Counties, of which Elmore County is a
    member, has always been that Federal and state real property
    holdings should be maintained at a minimum level. Acquisition
    of new land by Federal or state agencies should be subject to
    the agreement of the county within which the property is
    located. If additional acquisitions are necessary and agreed
    to, local political subdivisions should be compensated for
    lands or facilities so acquired.
        The Federal Government currently owns 62 percent of Idaho,
    placing us third in the Nation for Federal land ownership.
    Elmore County is 67 percent Federally owned. Federal lands,
    although positive in some aspects, do negatively impact the
    gateway communities surrounding the Federal land. The
    acquisition of Federal land causes a property tax shift to our
    citizens, who are already facing difficult economic times.
        In addition to providing services to the residents within
    the confines of a tight budget, counties must also bear the
    additional costs of providing services to the non-residents
    recreating on Federal land, whether it be road upkeep or search
    and rescue, all without full funding of PILT.
        In the last fiscal year, Idaho received only 59 percent of
    what Congress is authorized to appropriate for PILT. Elmore
    County received a little over $1 million in PILT for fiscal
    year 2001, more than $760,000 less than authorized. This
    payment of $1 million--a tax payment for 67 percent of our
    county--amounts to only 10 percent of our current budget. That
    tax shift that this represents to the citizens is obvious.
        Let me add that even if Congress did fund PILT at the full
    authorization level, it would still be less than what could be
    generated if the lands were on the private tax rolls.
    Additionally, if private citizens owned these lands, they would
    have no choice but to pay their taxes.
        Congress should meet their tax obligations prior to
    engaging in discretionary spending. It is the fundamental
    belief of Elmore County and the Idaho Association of Counties
    that the Federal Government should not acquire more land until
    it fulfills its responsibility to the land it already owns by
    fully funding PILT and using proper management techniques to
    ensure the health of the Federal land.
        A great number of Elmore County residents make their living
    off the land, and wish these lands preserved for generations to
    come. The Federal Government has a responsibility to protect
    the land it currently owns, prior to taking more off the tax
    rolls.
        Let me take a moment to thank those of you that have
    supported PILT payments in the past. And we hope you would
    continue to do so in the future.
        One example of the impact of Federal land on a county
    budget is the amount of time and resources that are spent to
    cover search and rescue and law enforcement needs on public
    lands. In a slow year, the Elmore County sheriff's department
    spends $15,000 on search and rescue services, and is usually
    rebuffed by Federal agencies when asking for assistance,
    whether it be the use of a helicopter or financial
    reimbursement.
        The Forest Service pays the sheriff's department $16,000 a
    year to patrol the Forest Service lands within my county. That
    comes nowhere close to full reimbursement for services
    provided. The county sheriff also helps maintain and patrol the
    waterways in our county.
        Our citizens appreciate the opportunity to recreate close
    to home, but are tired of carrying the financial burden for all
    of the non-residents traveling to Elmore County to enjoy all we
    have to offer.
        H.R. 3962 is not perfect; nor does it solve all of our
    problems. But it does offer opportunities to improve upon the
    current system. H.R. 3962 limits the acquisition of land by the
    Federal Government in counties in which the Federal Government
    owns 50 percent or more of the acreage within that county, by
    requiring an almost equal land trade.
        In closing, I would like to cover one of the last aspects
    that we feel is important. Local government officials are
    closest to the people and to the communities they serve, and
    should be an integral part of any discussion of Federal land
    acquisitions. Local government officials are currently treated
    as stakeholders, and not as elected officials with the
    statutory responsibility to provide for the health, safety, and
    welfare of the citizens within our boundaries.
        I thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and thank
    you for your exemplary service.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. McCurry follows:]

             Statement of Craig McCurry, Elmore County Commissioner

        Honorable Chairman and Committee Members:
        Thank you for the opportunity to voice my support for H.R. 3962. My
    name is Craig McCurry and I am a County Commissioner representing
    Elmore County, Idaho. I am here on behalf of the Elmore County Board of
    County Commissioners and the Idaho Association of Counties (IAC).
    Elmore County is home to almost 30,000 people and Mountain Home Air
    Force Base.
        Elmore County and IAC applaud the efforts of Congress to address
    the fundamental issue of land acquisition by the Federal Government and
    ask for your overwhelming support of H.R. 3962. H.R. 3962, the ``Good
    Neighbor Act of 2002'', presents an excellent opportunity to minimize
    the impacts of land acquisition on the forty-four counties in Idaho and
    the countless counties around the nation affected by the Federal land
    in their county. We appreciate the actions of Idaho's Congressional
    Delegation, especially Congressman Otter, to begin a much-needed
    discussion of land acquisition by the Federal Government.
        The position of the Idaho Association of Counties, of which Elmore
    County is a member, has always been that:
        ``Federal and state real property holdings should be maintained at
    a minimum level. Acquisition of new land by a Federal or state agency
    should be subject to...the agreement of the county within which the
    property is located. If additional...acquisitions are necessary, and
    agreed to, local political subdivisions should be compensated for lands
    and/or facilities so acquired'' (Idaho Association of Counties Public
    Lands Book 2001).
        The Federal Government currently owns sixty-two percent (62%) of
    Idaho, placing us third in the nation for Federal land ownership.
    Elmore County is sixty-seven percent (67%) Federally owned. Federal
    lands, although positive in some aspects, do negatively impact the
    gateway communities surrounding the Federal land. The acquisition of
    Federal lands causes a property tax shift to our citizens, who are
    already facing difficult economic times.
        Tourism is not the panacea some think it might be. In addition to
    providing services to their residents within the confines of a tight
    budget--Idaho counties are subject to budget limitations--counties must
    also bear the additional costs of providing services to the non-
    residents recreating on Federal land, whether it be road upkeep or
    search and rescue, all without full funding of Payment in Lieu of Taxes
    (PILT). In the last fiscal year, Idaho received only 59% of what
    Congress is authorized to appropriate for PILT. Elmore County received
    a little over $1 million in PILT for fiscal year 2001, more than
    $760,000 less than authorized. This payment of $1 million, a tax
    payment for 67% of the county is only 10% of our current budget. The
    tax shift that represents to the citizens is obvious. Let me say that
    even if Congress did fund PILT at the full authorization level, it
    would still be less than what could be generated if the lands were on
    the tax rolls. Additionally, if private citizens owned these lands,
    they would have no choice but to pay their taxes. Congress should meet
    their tax obligation prior to engaging in ``discretionary spending.''
        To add insult to injury, after recommending cutting the PILT budget
    by $45 million, the President's proposal calls for approximately $531
    million for land acquisition. It is the fundamental belief of Elmore
    County and the Idaho Association of Counties that the Federal
    Government should not acquire more lands until it fulfills its
    responsibility to the land it already owns, by fully-funding PILT and
    using proper management techniques to ensure the health of that Federal
    land. A great number of Elmore County residents make their living off
    the land and wish these lands preserved for generations to come. The
    Federal Government has a responsibility to protect the lands currently
    under its jurisdiction prior to taking more off the tax rolls.
        Let me take a moment to thank you to those of you that have
    supported PILT increases in the past and we hope that you would
    continue to do so in the future. One example of the impact of Federal
    lands on a county budget is apparent in how much time and resources is
    needed to cover the search and rescue and law enforcement needs of
    those public lands. In a slow year, Elmore County's Sheriff Department
    spends at least $15,000 each year on search and rescue services and is
    usually rebuffed by the Federal agencies when asking for assistance,
    whether it be the use of a helicopter or some financial reimbursement.
    The Forest Service pays the Sheriff's Department $16,000 a year to
    patrol the forest service lands within my county. That comes nowhere
    close to full reimbursement for services provided. The County Sheriff
    also helps maintain and patrol the waterways within our county. Not
    only do the Federal agencies not offer labor or resources to perform
    those services, the Federal agencies charge campground fees and the
    county never sees any of those revenues. Our citizens appreciate the
    opportunity to recreate close to home but are tired of carrying the
    financial burden for the non-residents traveling to Elmore County to
    enjoy all we have to offer.
        H.R. 3962 is not perfect, nor does it solve all of our problems,
    but it does offer opportunities to improve upon the current system.
    H.R. 3962 limits the acquisition of land by the Federal Government in
    counties in which the Federal Government owns 50% or more of the
    acreage within that county by requiring an almost equal land trade. Of
    the forty-four counties in Idaho, 22 are more than 50% Federal lands.
    This legislation also prevents the Federal Government from acquiring
    land, without the permission of local decision-makers, within counties
    that are currently 66% or more Federally owned. Twelve counties in
    Idaho are more than 66% Federal ownership.
        One of the crucial aspects of this legislation is the cooperation
    and consultation with local governments. Local government officials are
    closest to the people and to the community they serve and should be an
    integral part of the discussion of any action by the Federal Government
    affecting their county. Local government officials are currently
    treated as stakeholders and not as elected officials with the statutory
    responsibility to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the
    citizens within their boundaries. It is essential that we are part of
    the discussion process when decisions are made affecting our
    constituents.
        Thank you for the opportunity to voice our support for H.R. 3962.
    It is our desire that the Federal Government work toward becoming a
    good neighbor by taking this opportunity to right a wrong. The passage
    of H.R. 3962 would represent an auspicious occasion for the counties in
    America with Federal lands within their borders. Thank you for your
    exemplary service to this great nation.
                                     ______

        Mr. McInnis. As a courtesy, I am going to yield my question
    time to either of the gentleman from Idaho. Mr. Simpson? I said
    either of the gentlemen.
        Mr. Simpson. I will go, then. I appreciate it. I appreciate
    the bill that you have introduced, Mr. Peterson, and I support
    it.
        Elizabeth, I would like to ask you a couple of questions. I
    know the Administration is concerned about the acquisition of
    private land, and becoming more and more Federal land. But in
    many of the western states, as testimony has indicated--67
    percent of Elmore County. At Challis County it is 96 percent
    Federal land. That means 4 percent of the property is paying
    the taxes there.
        And many of us, with the Carroll legislation and things
    that have many good provisions in them that we would like to
    see enacted, our biggest problem is the funding of the Federal
    Land and Water Conservation Fund that takes $450 million
    annually, and the acquisition of land without really any
    provision that it does not impact these counties in an adverse
    way.
        Mr. Peterson here has introduced a bill, I think, that
    tries to address that. You mentioned that we should look at
    this. In your testimony you said we should look at this to make
    sure that it would not unnecessarily limit the ability of the
    Forest Service to acquire lands to further purposes of land
    management mandates imposed under statutes such as the Federal
    Land Policy and Management Act, the Multiple-Use Sustained
    Yield Act, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
    Planning Act, and the National Forest Management Act.
        Those are all acts dealing with Federal land, not with
    private land. And what we are talking about here is the
    acquisition of private land. How does the Forest Service
    acquire private land to further the purposes of a statute meant
    to deal with Federal lands?
        Ms. Estill. A number of ways. But typically, we are talking
    about lands that are within the designated boundary of a
    national forest. So that it is within the boundary. It has been
    studied. And in some way--either through an earmark by
    Congress, through LWCF--it has been viewed to be in the
    public's interest to acquire that.
        It might be for example an inholding in a wilderness area
    that we have all agreed we need to try to acquire to further
    the purposes of the public lands. So that would be an example
    of acquiring private land in the public interest.
        Mr. Simpson. If you already own half of the land in the
    county, or two-thirds of the land in the county, and you
    decided to acquire an inholding, there are no other lands
    within that county which we can give up for private use?
        Ms. Estill. Well, there certainly could be. And our typical
    process, actually, we don't have an authority to dispose of
    lands, just a general authority to dispose of lands. We can do
    it through an exchange, which requires evaluation and
    environmental review and so forth. But our disposal authority
    is really quite limited.
        Mr. Simpson. Is that the only way you can dispose of it, is
    through exchange?
        Ms. Estill. We can dispose of it. No, there are about five
    different ways that we can dispose if it. The Schools Act, that
    we talked about previously, is one. The Sisk Act. Each of those
    has a limitation on the numbers of acres and the purposes for
    which we could dispose of it.
        So, yes, there are some authorities. We don't have a
    general authority. It is usually a very time consuming process.
    And what is problematic about going through a very lengthy
    process--finding the appropriate vehicle, if there is one, and
    then going through a lengthy process--is the opportunity to
    acquire that. For example, inholding is open for a very short
    window, and then it is closed. So the opportunity sometimes
    dissipates.
        Mr. Simpson. Could you tell me what the Administration has
    requested in PILT funding this year?
        Ms. Estill. I am sorry, I don't have that information. We
    can certainly get it for you.
        Mr. Simpson. OK. I appreciate that. Would the Forest
    Service, just out of curiosity, consider waiving its sovereign
    immunity for new land purchases and paying property taxes at
    the level compared to those paid by private properties?
        Ms. Estill. I would not be ready to answer that question
    for the Administration today. I can get back with you on that.
        Mr. Simpson. OK. I appreciate that. And I am just talking
    about the addition of the new acquisitions of land.
        Ms. Estill. Yes. Yes.
        Mr. Simpson. And you know that there are a lot of private
    organizations out there that work on that assumption, such as
    the Nature Conservancy, that acquires lands but doesn't take it
    off of the tax rolls.
        Ms. Estill. Right.
        Mr. Simpson. My time is just about up, but I want to thank
    you, Commissioner McCurry, for coming. It is good to see you
    again.
        This is a county in my district, and he is doing a great
    job making sure that we try and protect the property owners and
    the budgets of those counties that are severely impacted by
    Federal lands. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. McInnis. Mr. Inslee?
        Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I just would like to ask Ms. Estill, how would this impact
    any land exchange programs that the Service had? What would be
    the impact on that program?
        Ms. Estill. It would be a pretty dominant impact on those
    land exchange programs; in that we would certainly have to go
    back through consideration. I mean, currently it is policy,
    even if it is not always done, that the forest supervisors and
    the rangers and the staff at each local level consult with
    county officials. And certainly, under the Sisk Act we are
    required to have state approval for any land transactions
    within a state, according to state law.
        This could be pretty burdensome on the Federal process,
    particularly if we go through hearings, for example. I have
    heard not only from the Forest Service that it could be quite a
    difficult situation, but from some private land owners, that
    they really don't want their affairs subjected to a hearing and
    their ability to sell the land scrutinized and decided by the
    county government.
        Mr. Inslee. Thank you. Mr. McCurry, I appreciate your
    making the trip here. And I am empathetic with your county's
    financial situation of limited tax base. And you talked about
    the services you have to provide associated with some of these
    Federal lands, and I can understand that.
        Do you think the best approach to this is a financial one,
    to help your county deal with it; for instance, by increasing
    PILT payments to help you financially weather this storm? Or is
    it better just to have an absolute limitation of Federal
    ownership in a particular county, as this bill would propose?
        And I guess what I am really asking is, do you have a
    philosophical objection to the Federal Government owning over a
    certain percentage in any county? Or is it more just that this
    imposes a financial burden on you, and if we fix this financial
    burden, there shouldn't be any sort of ideological objection to
    having a certain percentage in Federal ownership?
        Mr. McCurry. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I would probably
    answer that two ways. The financial impact, in my current
    elected capacity, is my primary concern; although as a private
    citizen, philosophically, I believe that the Federal Government
    should be careful about owning too much land.
        As Congressman Simpson mentioned, we have a couple of
    counties in our state that are over 95 percent Federally owned,
    and that creates some additional problems. So as a citizen, I
    philosophically am opposed to higher land ownership by the
    Federal Government. But my primary concern here is the
    financial impact on rural counties in Idaho.
        Mr. Inslee. So let me ask you, if you had a choice between
    increasing PILT payments to counties such as yours, or giving a
    tax cut to the Enron Corporation of $254 million, what do you
    think would be a more important policy in the United States?
        Mr. McCurry. I think the Federal Government should pay its
    fair share of taxes, Congressman.
        Mr. Inslee. Well, let me just come back to my question. If
    you had a choice to urge Congress to increase PILT payments or,
    instead of doing that, to give Enron a $254 million tax cut,
    what do you think would be more important, in your view?
        Mr. McCurry. I believe that fully funding PILT is more
    important to the local counties.
        Mr. Inslee. I agree with you. We, you and I, are in the
    minority on this issue. I will just give you that bad news in
    that regard.
        But it is a serious issue. Because I think you sit, like a
    lot of counties do, with extreme financial problems associated
    with this. And I agree with you, that we ought to increase
    these payments. I tend to think that is a better approach than
    an absolute limitation, some numerical limitation, associated
    with Federal ownership, at least in my view. And I thank you,
    and thank Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chairman, could I just ask, I am curious:
    Is life truly a zero-sum game?
        Mr. McInnis. Now, now, now, now, now. We are going to move
    on.
        Mr. Inslee. No, but the Federal budget is.
        Mr. McInnis. Let's see, Mr. Otter?
        Mr. Otter. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You
    know, I think more important than the numbers is good faith.
    And I think in Mr. Peterson's opening testimony--and this is my
    first year here--the fact that those who would now decry where
    money is being spent have not lived up to their obligation
    throughout the history.
        Otherwise, we would not be over $660 million behind in PILT
    payments. We would not be over $48 million behind in Idaho in
    IDEA education payments. We wouldn't be near the financial
    problems that we have, had we kept promise, let alone worrying
    about the figures. And I think if you make a promise, you ought
    to worry more about keeping that promise than playing some
    zero-sum game all the time.
        One of the problems that we have, Ms. Estill, is not just
    of ownership; although I will admit, in my 19-county district
    in Idaho I have double-digit unemployment in six of those
    counties, and all six of those counties are the ones where
    there is a predominant ownership by the Federal Government, and
    therefore control by the Federal Government, and therefore
    confusion on land management.
        One of the other major problems that we have is that we
    find that much Federal ownership is disuse of land. In other
    words, we have probably the predominant source of invasive
    species. We have noxious weeds. And one of the things that
    obviously concerns us is that most of the seed genesis for
    noxious weeds that end up on state land or private land in
    Idaho comes from the Federal land.
        And it always concerns me that if I, as a private property
    owner, have a patch of noxious weeds on my property, the local
    government can come in and, if I refuse to eradicate that
    problem, the local government can come in and eradicate it for
    me, and then put a lien against my land that says, ``If you
    ever want to transfer ownership of this land, you are going to
    have to satisfy this financial obligation to the rest of the
    community.''
        And so it is most appropriate, I think, that this is called
    the ``Good Neighbor Act''; if we could go much further in
    making the Federal ownership be a good neighbor in terms of
    what is happening on the land, as well as the ownership of the
    land, and their inability or their lack of desire to be good
    neighbors by paying their fair share of the taxes. And so it is
    the very management problems that you were talking about that
    this would cause. That is what is causing us some problems.
        And I want to know what is present in the Administration's
    philosophy to be a good neighbor, with or without this bill?
    What about eradicating the noxious weeds? What about managing
    the lands in such a way so that we are a good neighbor? Is
    there any general purpose in the Administration, or do we just
    want to buy more land because we have got an inholder and we
    think we need to own it?
        Ms. Estill. No, I think, clearly, we do want to be good
    stewards of the land, and we do want to be good neighbors. We
    are as concerned about things like noxious weeds spreading
    outside, or southern pine beetle in the southern states
    spreading outside from a national forest. And I know you have
    heard from us many times that we feel somewhat hamstrung or
    gridlocked, in analysis paralysis sometimes, to be able to get
    out and do active management in a rapid kind of way. That is a
    problem.
        Then, just simply a scarcity of resources to put on the
    ground, which any agency will probably argue is a
    consideration. But we would like very much to be better
    neighbors than we are. And I think every one of our district
    rangers who live in those local communities certainly is
    sensitive to the needs of local people, and wants to do the
    best that they can.
        Mr. Otter. Well, my time is about up, but I just want to
    tell you how disappointed I was in the Administration during
    the discussions on CARA and their mute response to the problems
    that we have; where we admitted, and in this Committee, we have
    got $1,200,000,000 in backlog maintenance on noxious and
    invasive weeds on Federal ground through all of the agencies.
        We have got over $10 billion in maintenance that is due in
    order to bring Federal facilities and Federal lands up to the
    standards that the Federal Government imposes on everybody else
    in Clean Water, Clean Air, the ADA, all of the other Federal
    mandates, that the Federal Government then absolves itself from
    any--It is such a good idea for everybody else, except a
    Federal agency.
        And I just want to tell you how frustrating it is to have
    the Administration now come in here and tell us that, even
    though while we were going through all the debate on CARA and
    $1 billion--$450,000,000 for the Federal Government,
    $450,000,000 for the states--to go out and buy up more land;
    and then resist, or at least stand silent, while we ask, ``Why
    don't you just bring your facilities and bring your lands that
    you now own up to the standards that you are requiring of
    states and that you are requiring of the private land owner?''
        And I guess that is the end of my statement, because my
    light is red. And Craig, welcome to Washington, D.C., I think.
        Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Congressman.
        Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. McInnis. Mr. Udall? Any other questions on this side?
    Mr. Udall?
        Mr. Udall of Colorado. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Just to review a little bit of the background with you, and
    then ask a couple of questions, the total acreage under the
    management of the BLM, the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife,
    and National Park Service, has actually decreased from about
    700 million acres in 1964, to 60,200,000 acres. So we are
    talking about 80 million acres less of Federal land from '64 to
    '94, in 30 years. And that is in the GAO report.
        Of the four agencies that acquired land in that 30-year
    period, about half of that was done by either gift or donation,
    or by exchange. So on the acquisition, it is a little bit over
    10 million acres. So almost half of that. So we are only
    talking about five million that was actually done, where we
    have gone out and there was an acquisition.
        I am wondering how many circumstances are in your states,
    circumstances or cases that you can point to, where a land
    acquisition went forward without support of the local
    congressional delegation and against the wishes of local county
    officials? Were there a lot of those circumstances? I mean, is
    that what we are trying to solve with this bill?
        You know, the local congressional delegations running over
    the county? Or what is the big problem here that we are trying
    to address?
        Ms. Estill. Well, as I think most of you are aware, most of
    the acquisitions come through LWCF, and they usually are
    congressionally earmarked. So there has been ample public
    discussion before the appropriations arrive at all levels,
    typically.
        Mr. Udall of Colorado. And in the new CARA bill, doesn't
    it, have many requirements, in terms of local notification and
    involving local people? And there are many protections that we
    put in there to make sure that there weren't problems at the
    local level. You are aware of those, I guess?
        Ms. Estill. There certainly are measures. In fact, in
    virtually all of the bills, there are measures that require
    public notification. Again, how much notification and how
    quickly it goes out, and the individual land owner who might
    wish to dispose of his property to the Federal Government,
    becomes a sensitive issue. But typically, all of the
    acquisitions have been subjected to public scrutiny before they
    go through.
        Mr. Udall of Colorado. And what you said earlier is that
    land exchanges would be severely hampered by this.
        Ms. Estill. Well, yes. It would certainly put more process
    and requirement on us. And again, as I mentioned, there is some
    unease that I am hearing from in the field about how the
    private land owners and those who acquire land on behalf of the
    Federal Government would feel about having to go before a
    public hearing. So it cuts both ways, it seems.
        Mr. Udall of Colorado. Craig, do you have any egregious
    examples of where the congressional delegation has run over
    local folks in acquisitions in your state?
        Mr. McCurry. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I don't have any
    examples where our congressional delegation has run over people
    in our state. We're pretty pleased with our congressional
    delegation from Idaho.
        Mr. Udall of Colorado. So what are we trying to fix here?
    What is the problem?
        Mr. McCurry. Well, there are instances in my county and in
    neighboring counties in the past few years where some of the
    government officials in charge of these Federally owned lands,
    or acquiring these Federally owned lands, seem to push the
    limits of public notification as far as they can push them. In
    other words, the publication may or may not be in a very
    conspicuous spot; or the time lines are pushed to the extreme.
    And we have a lot of problems with, at the last moment,
    citizens being asked for comment without time to prepare, when
    we have a government-funded agency that has people that are
    schooled in these things, having ample time to prepare.
        We also object to the fact that local government officials,
    as I mentioned in my testimony, are treated as stakeholders,
    and not as a government agency. We testify along with everybody
    else as a stakeholder, and not as a government agency that
    should be treated as a partner in this; when we are the elected
    officials closest to the people in those areas. And that is one
    of the things that we object to.
        Mr. Udall of Colorado. Do you have a specific case you are
    talking about?
        Mr. McCurry. I can get that information, Congressman. I
    don't have it right now off the top of my head.
        Mr. Udall of Colorado. You don't?
        Mr. McCurry. But I recall the instances.
        Mr. Udall of Colorado. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Peterson. [Presiding.] The Chairman temporarily left
    and gave me the gavel. I think it was my turn anyway, so I will
    proceed.
        I would like to comment that there is a huge difference
    between public notification--and you talked about sometimes
    that being kind of at the very end of the process--and
    approval. I mean, those are two different things. We think,
    when your predominant ownership is the Federal Government
    through these four agencies, local governments when it is two-
    thirds ought to have approval; not notification, approval.
        Because you are a huge stakeholder. You are the big dog.
    You are the big property owner. You control the area. And to
    expand even further, local folks ought to have approval. I will
    be on the side of the local folks any time.
        In speaking about the decrease that a previous speaker
    spoke about in Federal land, here is the explanation. Between
    '64 and '94, the Federal estate decreased. This decrease,
    however, was only in lands managed by the Bureau of Land
    Management, with a substantial amount of lands being
    transferred to Alaska and Native Alaskans. It still went into
    public ownership. They pay no taxes.
        The amount of lands managed by the Forest Service, Fish and
    Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, all increased
    between '64 and '94. And in fact, the amount of land managed by
    the National Park Service increased 179 percent, and the amount
    of land managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service increased by
    285 percent over the 30-year period. This increase in land
    managed by the Federal agencies has led to conflicts in certain
    areas between the Federal land managers and local governments.
        Our bill doesn't stop the Federal Government from buying
    anything. It just says, ``If it is 50 percent, you have this
    process; if it is excess of 67 percent, you have this
    process.'' And it is about local Governor approval, or local
    county commissioner approval.
        Now, personally, I have been involved at all levels of
    government: I have served in borough government; I have served
    in the state legislature; I have served in the state senate;
    and I have served in the Federal Government. And I want to tell
    you, the power belongs at the local level. You don't want a
    Federal Government that has dominant control or power over you.
    I have worked in all of them.
        And then the Ranking Member talked about comparing PILT
    payments to some tax cuts for somebody. But let me tell you
    what PILT payments compete with. I am on the Appropriations
    Interior Subcommittee. They get an amount allocation. And you
    know what prevents PILT payments from going up every year? Land
    acquisition funds.
        Every year, we allocate from a half a billion to a billion
    dollars in land acquisition funds. Most of the Interior budget
    is set. It is agencies; it is things that are pretty constant.
    There is a little bit of money at the top--they call that the
    cream--that can get moved around. That is land acquisition. It
    wins every time.
        We will buy land before we will pay our taxes, because we
    have been able to get away with it, as a government. We have
    never paid our taxes. Thirty-three cents an acre, which was
    last year's payment--it has only been 24 cents an acre before
    that--is a travesty to the local folks.
        In Pennsylvania, the State owns a lot of land; more land
    than most states. One of the last bills I got passed was, we
    now pay $1.20, flat. Part of it goes to the school district;
    part of it goes to the county; and part of it goes to local
    governments. It is allocated. We pay $1.20 for every acre.
        Now, the game commission was very unhappy about that, but
    they were buying a lot of land. It is fair that they pay their
    fair share of taxes. And if the Federal Government paid its
    fair share of taxes, we wouldn't be holding this hearing today.
        Because what we are doing is, these agencies are growing,
    and the amount of land outside the tax base is growing. States
    are buying; the Federal Government is buying. The only reason
    our total aggregate went down is, we transferred it to states
    and to tribes.
        So I think that this whole issue today is about to make
    sensitivity. I think it should be less than 50 percent where
    some rules come in, but I tried to be fair. It only affects 177
    counties currently, out of 3,066. We are saying, ``Be sensitive
    where you own a lot of land.'' If a Federal agency can't be
    sensitive in 177 counties, then I think they need to have a
    brain transplant.
        Mr. McInnis. Any other questions? Mr. Holt?
        Mr. Holt. I thank the Chair.
        First, before I begin, I would ask the Chair if we might
    have permission to insert in the record at this point a letter
    and a statement; a letter dated April 8th, to the Chairman and
    the Ranking Member, from Mr. David Alberswerth, Director of the
    Bureau of Land Management Program at the Wilderness Society in
    Washington, D.C.; and also, a statement dated April 10th from
    the Western Land Group in Denver, Colorado.
        Mr. McInnis. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information submitted for the record by Mr. Holt
    follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.021

                     Statement of Western Land Group, Inc.

                           in opposition to H.R. 3962

                          The Good Neighbor Act of 2002

                                submitted to the

    U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health

                                 April 10, 2002

        Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
        Thank you for inviting us to comment on H.R. 3962. Western Land
    Group, Inc. is a small public lands consulting firm based in Denver,
    Colorado, which specializes in assisting public and private clients who
    wish to sell or exchange lands to the United States. Since our
    establishment in 1981, we have successfully assisted a variety of
    clients in completing more than 100 land exchanges and Land and Water
    Conservation Fund sales to the Forest Service, BLM and Park Service,
    including assisting on numerous legislated land exchanges.
        While we appreciate the intention of H.R. 3962 that land exchanges
    and sales be closely coordinated with units of local and state
    government, we believe that close coordination and consultation already
    occurs, and that many of the provisions of H.R. 3962 unnecessarily
    duplicate or complicate existing law and regulation.
        As the Subcommittee is well aware, the ownership of property comes
    with certain so-called ``property rights''. One of those property
    rights is the right to sell or exchange lands to the U.S. Government on
    a willing-seller, willing-buyer basis. Many of our clients own lands
    within the National Forest, BLM or National Park Systems, and because
    of deeply felt feelings for the land, wish to convey it to one of the
    Federal agencies, so that it can forever be preserved for open space
    and public enjoyment. Therefore, sale in the private sector is not an
    option they wish to pursue.
        H.R. 3962 would complicate private landowners efforts to convey
    private land to the United States by adding new steps to the already
    time consuming and complex sale or exchange process. For example, all
    Congressional (legislated) land exchanges and sales involve hearings,
    markups and the opportunity for floor debate in either the authorizing
    or appropriating Committee processes, on in floor consideration in both
    the House and Senate. In short, they receive careful Congressional
    scrutiny. The process is a deliberate one, and provides ample
    opportunity for input from the Senators or Congressmen representing the
    areas concerned. Additional notification and review is unnecessary.
        Further, Forest Service and BLM exchange regulations (36 CFR 254.8
    for the Forest Service, and 43 CFR 2201.2 for the BLM) already require
    notification to States, Counties, Congressional delegations and the
    general public at the beginning of the land exchange process, so that
    there is no need to legislate on the matter. In addition, land
    exchanges that are processed by the Federal agencies in-house, must
    undergo a full NEPA analysis, which must be accompanied by public
    notification, meetings and/or public hearings. Thus, as we have
    indicated, the land exchange or sale process is already very complex,
    and additional steps and protections are not needed.
        We also strongly object to giving Governors or Counties effective
    veto power over Federal sales or land exchanges. Governor or County
    approval is not required for private sector land sales or exchanges,
    and should not be required for Federal transactions. The consultation
    and coordination with State and local government required by existing
    law and policy is extensive, and is sufficient.
        A few additional points:
         The 97% exchange value criteria of subparagraph 2(a)(1)(B)
    of H.R. 3962 conflicts with the existing FLPMA requirement (43 U.S.C.
    1716(b)) that lands to be exchanged must be within 25% of each other in
    value. Finding exchange lands that are as close in value as 3% of each
    other would be extremely difficult in most cases, and we believe the
    existing FLPMA requirement of 25% is well advised and realistic. The
    97% requirement would significantly reduce the level of flexibility
    necessary to complete a land exchange and would reduce the ability of
    the agencies to use this important tool to accomplish land tenure
    objectives.
         Requiring that exchange lands be mostly in the same county
    is not realistic in some cases. Many land exchanges involve lands in
    more than one county because the lands desired for acquisition by the
    Forest Service and/or BLM may not be in the exact same county as the
    lands being disposed, or because county jurisdictional lines do not
    always follow lines that make sense from a watershed, topographic or
    ecological standpoint. So, the best exchange may involve giving up
    lands that are non-essential for public use in one county in order to
    acquire publicly beneficial lands in another. Again, this and other
    provisions of H.R. 3962 would unwisely limit the use of land exchanges
    to serve the public interest.
         We believe the House and Senate Appropriations Committees
    do an excellent job of soliciting input on land sales from the various
    state Congressional delegations. In fact, in our experience, it is
    virtually unheard of for the Appropriations Committees to proceed with
    an LWCF project without approval from the Senators or Congressmen
    involved. Therefore, we see no need to for additional approval
    procedures.
        In summary, Mr. Chairman, for the reasons outlined above, we
    believe that H.R. 3962 is unnecessary and unwise legislation, and urge
    that it not be enacted. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
                                     ______

        Mr. McInnis. Also, if the member would provide members
    copies, and would you give me a copy of that?
        Mr. Holt. We will be happy to do that.
        Mr. McInnis. Thank you. You may proceed.
        Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would say, first of all, that I had never heard a real
    answer to Mr. Udall's question of: Well, what is the problem
    here? Can anybody show us some specific examples where this
    bill would have prevented some egregious behavior? And so I
    would ask the sponsor of this legislation to compile for us a
    list of cases where the Congressional action to acquire land
    has run roughshod over local concerns.
        Now, I do understand the burden that some local
    jurisdictions feel. And I think many of us would say the PILT
    payments probably are insufficient. I am not sure that this is
    the time to go into a discourse on the problems that we face in
    Congress in so many areas, and the disconnect between the
    budget resolution process and the authorization process and the
    appropriations process. I wish we could get the three of those
    in much better coordination in a lot of areas, including the
    Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, special education,
    as well as PILT.
        But it seems to me that this bill is really misdirected to
    solving that problem. Perhaps this is motivated by some
    philosophical concern that the Federal Government simply
    shouldn't own so much land and we shouldn't have national parks
    and national forests. And if so, we should debate it on those
    grounds; but not on the basis of PILT payments.
        But I do have a specific question for the Forest Service.
    Your testimony, Ms. Estill, says that H.R. 3962 could limit the
    ability of the Forest Service to acquire lands to meet the
    purposes of several statutes. Could you explain more
    specifically how this would limit the ability of the Forest
    Service to acquire lands?
        Let me, though, before I ask you to do that, point out that
    I don't want us to get sidetracked on a myth here. And the myth
    is that the Federal Government is acquiring more and more and
    more land here. I mean, data from the BLM shows that there not
    only has been no significant increase in the total amount of
    land owned by the Federal Government; but in fact, this total
    has decreased in recent years.
        You know, Federal land holdings between '79 and '89
    decreased by more than 75 million acres. So I don't want us to
    get too far on this, away on a myth here that the Federal
    Government is just getting more and more and more. But in those
    places where the Federal Government does seek to acquire lands,
    how would this bill limit the ability of the Forest Service to
    do so?
        Ms. Estill. Well, typically, our acquisitions, our list of
    acquisitions, the things that we desire to acquire, come
    through our land management and planning process, which you
    know is a very open process with a great deal of public input.
    And then, typically, what we like to do is strike while the
    iron is hot, either through a land trust or the Nature
    Conservancy or someone else acquiring on our behalf, until we
    get an appropriation; or just through a trade. And many of our
    acquisitions also are done through land trades.
        And what this would do, in fact, would require, in those
    counties that have 66 percent or greater, that we would go
    through a public hearing process at the county level and
    actually acquire county approval before we could move forward.
    So it would be a process that would add more process; and in
    fact, in some cases we would lose the opportunity to acquire
    the land, and it just appears once.
        Mr. Holt. Well, since my time has expired here, perhaps the
    Forest Service, for the record, would like to extend the
    testimony a little bit more about how this would limit the
    ability to meet the purposes of the Federal Land Policy and
    Management Act, and the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act, and
    the Forest Management Act, and so forth.
        Ms. Estill. Certainly.
        Mr. Peterson. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Holt. My time has expired. I would be happy to yield if
    I had it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. McInnis. We need to move on, because we have another
    bill, and I need to complete this before noon, and we are not
    making very good progress. But I do want to point out, Mr.
    Holt, you made a comment about a decrease in Federal land.
    There was an earlier paragraph. I just want to make sure of the
    clarification. The only significant decrease of Federal land
    holdings was the Bureau of Land Management, and that was
    primarily transfers to the Native Americans.
        And I just want to make sure we are all clear on this.
    Because if you take a look at the acquisitions by Federal
    agencies, they have gone up substantially. With that one
    exception or trade or giving land to the Native Americans, I
    guess the testimony would kind of give the implication that the
    Government is giving away all this land. We are not. We are
    acquiring land by the thousands of acres. So I just want that
    clarified.
        Mr. Udall of Colorado. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. McInnis. Sure, I'd be happy to. I think we should
    clarify this.
        Mr. Udall of Colorado. The land that goes to the Native
    corporations is going out into the private sector. So I mean, I
    don't know to argue that land that is going to Alaskan natives
    is somehow now public land.
        And the second point is, Mr. Chairman, that it seems to me
    that then the argument you are making is: The increases
    happened in parks, so we have more parks, which are very much
    supported by the American people. So if the purpose of this
    bill is saying, ``We don't want any more parks,'' then let's
    announce it, that that is the purpose of the bill.
        Mr. McInnis. Mr. Udall, I don't think that is the purpose
    of the bill.
        Mr. Udall of Colorado. Well, I don't know where the bill is
    directed.
        Mr. McInnis. I control the time, Mr. Udall.
        Mr. Udall of Colorado. Well, OK.
        Mr. McInnis. I control the time. I just want this very
    clarified, because I don't want it misleading.
        Mr. Udall of Colorado. Maybe you need to come to the State
    of Colorado, and I'll show you about Federal land acquisition.
    Maybe you need to go to some of the other mountain states,
    perhaps even New Mexico, and find out about land acquisition.
    You are talking about one specific example, and that deals with
    the Alaskan Native Tribes.
        Mr. McInnis. I want to make sure that we have it very
    clear, especially to our listening audience here, that there
    has not been a significant decrease--in fact, no decrease at
    all--with most of those Federal agencies, with that one
    specific example with Alaska and the natives.
        Now, in regards to the bill, I was addressing the specific
    point. The merits of the bill can stand on their own.
        We will go ahead and proceed. Any further witnesses?
    Everybody on this side? Well, we need to move on. I am giving
    everybody an opportunity.
        Mr. Otter. Mr. Chairman, I neglected in my initial round to
    ask that a letter that I have received from other county
    commissioners and other counties in Idaho be submitted for the
    record, on the loss of private ground.
        Mr. McInnis. If there is no objection, so ordered.
        [The letter submitted for the record by Mr. Otter follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.023

        Mr. Peterson. Can I make just one quick statement?
        Mr. McInnis. You can close it up.
        Mr. Peterson. OK. There is an implication here that we are
    against land acquisitions. We are saying in 171 counties.
        If the gentleman from Colorado would listen--from New
    Mexico would listen? Yes. OK.
        But we are talking about 171 counties, out of 3,066. What
    we are saying is, if you are going to acquire land, and you
    don't want to get approval locally, you have got almost 3,000
    counties you have to do it. Do some of it in New Jersey, where
    you may need more public land.
        We have states in the West that are totally hamstrung with
    public ownership. The have no economies left, because of public
    policies by agencies, who are people who are not elected. And
    we are saying, when you own half of it, then you go through a
    process to buy more. There is no process asked in all of those
    other counties.
        Mr. Holt. If the gentleman would yield?
        Mr. Peterson. I would be glad to.
        Mr. Holt. You know, in fact, there is a process. Whether
    the Federal Government owns 50 percent or less, or more, there
    is a process to go through. And I am not sure why this
    arbitrary cutoff at 50 percent.
        And indeed, I would like to take you up on this. New Jersey
    would jump at the chance to have more LWCF money for land
    acquisition.
        Mr. Peterson. Raise your own money. You know, take it all.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Peterson. But I mean, I want to tell you something. If
    you think Federal agencies are sensitive to locals, think
    again. Do you think the Fish and Wildlife Service is sensitive
    to local governments? Come on! They are not sensitive. They buy
    land--
        Mr. Holt. That is one of your--
        Mr. Peterson. No, let me finish. They buy land without us
    even approving it. The Fish and Wildlife Service is the only
    agency in the world that gets no legislative approval to buy
    land. That is an outrage. That ought to be stopped. No agency
    should be able to buy land without legislative approval. And
    the Fish and Wildlife Service does it every year.
        They are getting us into hock all over this country, where
    we are going to have to maintain land, and we never put the
    money in. Every one of these agencies has a huge maintenance
    backlog, because we take those few dollars at the top of the
    Interior budget to buy more land, instead of maintaining what
    we have. And you have almost 2,080-some counties that there's
    no additional requirements.
        All we are saying, we just want you to have a process to
    increase the sensitivity to the impact at the local level.
    That's all this is about. It only affects less than 6 percent
    of the counties; 94 percent, nothing changes. It is not
    catastrophic, in any way, positive or negative. It is just
    asking the Federal Government to be sensitive.
        Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. I think the members
    have been allowed to vent here, and it is good. But we need to
    move on, as a courtesy to Mr. Acevedo-Vila.
        Mr. Holt. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. McInnis. Not on this bill. We need to move on, so that
    our fellow member, as a courtesy, has time to present his bill.
        Mr. McInnis. I appreciate your patience. I guess we have
    one witness, is that right, on the next panel for your bill?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Yes.
        Mr. McInnis. And that is Kristen McDonald, Associate
    Director, Wild and Scenic Rivers, with the American Rivers. Mr.
    Acevedo-Vila, you may proceed.

       STATEMENT OF HON. ANIBAL ACEVEDO-VILA, REPRESENTATIVE IN
             CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for
    this opportunity.
        Many of you are familiar with the Caribbean National
    Forest, commonly known in Puerto Rico as ``El Yunque.'' If you
    are not familiar, I encourage you to visit El Yunque on your
    next visit to Puerto Rico. I am sure you will agree that El
    Yunque, the only tropical rain forest within the U.S. National
    Forest System, is a natural wonder and a unique resource that
    we must preserve and protect forever. El Yunque is the only
    managed rain forest on Earth. And with this distinction comes
    heightened responsibility, in my opinion, to fully protect this
    important resource.
        The enactment of this bill, along with the wilderness
    legislation, H.R. 3955, approved by the Full Committee last
    month, will help ensure that the natural integrity of El Yunque
    is preserved not only for Puerto Ricans, but also for the one
    million annual visitors to the CNF for generations to come.
        H.R. 3954 will preserve and protect three rivers that flow
    within the boundaries of El Yunque. It is the intent of the
    Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 to preserve rivers and
    sections thereof to protect the water quality of such rivers,
    and to fulfill other vital national conservation purposes. It
    is within this intent that I have introduced this bill. And I
    am fully committed to the preservation of these beautiful
    rivers.
        While there are additional rivers within El Yunque that
    have received wild and scenic designation recommendations, the
    areas of these rivers are covered under H.R. 3955, which was
    approved by the Full Committee last month, through wilderness
    designation, or are within the existing ``Bano de Oro'' natural
    area. Therefore, I have followed recommendations to focus on
    rivers running outside of the proposed El Toro Wilderness Area,
    and outside of existing natural areas.
        The three rivers that will be designated under this Act
    were all recommended for inclusion under the National Wild and
    Scenic Rivers System by the revised land and resources
    management plan for the CNF, approved April 17, 1997. This
    management plan was the basis for the introduction of this
    bill, and I ask for your support in its consideration.
        The three rivers include the Rio Mamayes, the Rio Icacos,
    and the Rio de la Mina. All three have outstanding
    characteristics, and make up an integral part of the experience
    when visiting the forest.
        The Rio Mamayes offers outstanding scenic, biological, and
    recreational values to visitors. It flows over large boulders
    and numerous waterfalls, forming enjoyable pools. Trails run
    along gorges that descend through the forest. The water quality
    along the upper segment is optimum, with no interference from
    human encroachment.
        The Rio Mamayes provides important habitat for the Puerto
    Rican Parrot and Puerto Rican Boa, both endangered species.
    Furthermore, the endangered Broad-Winged and Sharp-Skinned
    Hawks and the threatened Peregrine Falcon are also known to use
    this area. The Mamayes system enjoys the highest natural
    aquatic diversity and species richness of any forest watershed.
    The Mamayes remains the only uninterrupted, free-flowing river
    in Puerto Rico.
        The Rio de la Mina is judged as eligible based on its
    outstanding scenic, recreational, biological, and historic
    values. Like the Mamayes, the Rio de la Mina descends over
    boulders and waterfalls, forming rapids and pools. Trails
    parallel the river and provide for numerous recreation areas.
        The most spectacular waterfalls in the forest exist along
    the Rio de la Mina. These falls, known as ``La Mina Falls,''
    play an important role in promoting Puerto Rico as a prime
    vacation destination. The water quality is good within the
    proposed designation area. The Rio de la Mina also provides
    habitat for endangered animal and plant species.
        The Rio Icacos is judged as eligible based on its
    outstanding scenic, historic value, and ecological values. The
    Rio Icacos has some of the most varied terrain of El Yunque's
    rivers. Near the headwaters, the gradient is less steep than
    further downstream, where it also descends over boulders and
    waterfalls.
        In the upper section the stream bed exhibits a unique sandy
    bed due to its origin in the upper, flatter section. The palm
    forest is very striking along the bank; more so than in any
    other areas of the forest. Water quality is high within the
    proposed designation area. Endangered animal and plant species
    are present within the proposed area.
        I look forward to working with my colleagues on these wild
    and scenic river designations in El Yunque. Please let me know
    when and if you will visit the Caribbean National Forest.
    Puerto Ricans take great pride in El Yunque, and I assure you
    that it is worth the trip to visit. And I think you all have
    copies of some of the pictures of the scenic beauty of the
    three rivers. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Acevedo-Vila follows:]

    Statement of The Honorable Anibal Acevedo-Vila, a Delegate in Congress
                         from Puerto Rico, on H.R. 3954

        I want to thank Chairman McInnis, Ranking Member Inslee and all of
    my colleagues on the Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify in
    support of the Caribbean National Forest Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of
    2002.
        Many of you are familiar with the Caribbean National Forest,
    commonly known in Puerto Rico as ``El Yunque.'' Should you not yet be
    familiar, I encourage you to visit El Yunque upon your next visit to
    the Puerto Rico. I am sure you will agree that El Yunque, the only
    tropical rain forest within the U.S. National Forest System, is a
    natural wonder and unique resource that we must preserve and protect
    forever. El Yunque is the only managed rain forest on earth, and with
    this distinction comes heightened responsibility in my opinion, to
    fully protect this important resource. The enactment of this bill,
    along with the wilderness legislation (H.R. 3955) approved by the
    Committee last month, will help ensure that the natural integrity of El
    Yunque is preserved for the 1 million annual visitors to the CNF for
    generations to come.
        H.R. 3954 would preserve and protect three rivers that flow within
    the boundaries of El Yunque. It is the intent of the Wild and Scenic
    Rivers Act of 1968 to preserve rivers and sections thereof to protect
    the water quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital national
    conservation purposes. It is within this intent that I have introduced
    this bill, and I am fully committed to the preservation of these
    beautiful rivers. While there are additional rivers within El Yunque
    that have received wild and scenic designation recommendations, the
    areas of these rivers are covered under H.R. 3955 through wilderness
    designation, or are within the existing Bano de Oro Natural Area.
    Therefore, I have followed recommendations to focus on rivers running
    outside of the proposed El Toro Wilderness Area and outside of existing
    natural areas.
        The three rivers that would be designated under this act were all
    recommended for inclusion under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
    System by the revised land and resource management plan for the CNF,
    approved April 17, 1997. This management plan was the basis for the
    introduction of this bill, and I ask for your support during its
    consideration.
        The three rivers include the Rio Mameyes, the Rio Icacos, and the
    Rio de La Mina. All three have outstanding characteristics and make up
    an integral part of the experience when visiting the forest.
        The Rio Mameyes offers outstanding scenic, biological and
    recreational values to visitors. It flows over large boulders and
    numerous waterfalls, forming enjoyable pools. Trails run along gorges
    that descend through the forest. The water quality along the upper
    segment is optimum, with no interference from human encroachment.
        The Rio Mameyes provides important habitat for the Puerto Rican
    Parrot and Puerto Rican Boa, both endangered species. Furthermore, the
    endangered Broad-winged and Sharp-shinned Hawks, and the threatened
    Peregrine Falcon, are also known to use this area. The Mameyes system
    enjoys the highest natural aquatic diversity and species richness of
    any forest watershed. The Mameyes remains the only uninterrupted, free
    flowing river in Puerto Rico.
        The Rio de la Mina is judged as eligible based on its outstanding
    scenic, recreation, biological and historic values. Like the Mameyes,
    the Rio de La Mina descends over boulders and waterfalls, forming
    rapids and pools. Trails parallel the river and provide for numerous
    recreation areas. The most spectacular waterfalls in the forest exist
    along the Rio de la Mina. These falls, known as La Mina Falls, play an
    important role in promoting Puerto Rico as a prime vacation
    destination. The water quality is good within the proposed designation
    area. The Rio de la Mina also provides habitat for endangered animal
    and plant species.
        The Rio Icacos is judged as eligible based on its outstanding
    scenic, historic, cultural and ecological values. The Rio Icacos has
    some of the most varied terrain of any of El Yunque's rivers. Near the
    headwaters, the gradient is less steep than further downstream where it
    also descends over boulders and waterfalls. In the upper section, the
    streambed exhibits a unique sandy bed due to its origin in the upper,
    flatter section. The palm forest is very striking along the bank, more
    so than in any other area of the forest. Water quality is high within
    the proposed designation area. Endangered animal and plant species are
    present within the proposed area.
        I look forward to working with my colleagues on these wild and
    scenic river designations in El Yunque. Please let me know when and if
    you will visit the Caribbean National Forest. Puerto Ricans take great
    pride in El Yunque, and I assure you it is worth the trip to visit.
                                     ______

        Mr. McInnis. Congressman, in the picture, is that you in
    the swimming suit?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Excuse me?
        Mr. McInnis. Is that you in the swimming suit in the
    picture you gave us?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Let me check. [Laughs.] No. Although I
    have swum there.
        Mr. McInnis. OK. We will proceed to the witness. Ms.
    McDonald, we appreciate your coming today. You have 5 minutes.
    Thank you for your testimony.

      STATEMENT OF KRISTEN McDONALD, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, WILD AND
              SCENIC RIVERS PROGRAM, AMERICAN RIVERS, INC.

        Ms. McDonald. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the Caribbean
    National Forest Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. With your
    permission, I will summarize my comments now, and ask that my
    entire testimony be submitted to the record.
        My name is Kristen McDonald. I am the Associate Director of
    the Wild and Scenic Rivers Program for American Rivers, a
    national, non-profit river conservation organization. Since our
    founding in 1973, American Rivers has worked with state and
    local groups and local, state, and Federal agencies to protect
    rivers using the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
        I would like to thank Commissioner Acevedo-Vila for
    introducing this landmark bill to protect three outstanding
    rivers in the Caribbean National Forest as wild and scenic
    rivers. These rivers would not only be the first wild and
    scenic rivers designated in Puerto Rico; they would be the
    first tropical rivers in the system as a whole.
        As you know, one of the goals of Congress in passing the
    Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968 was to create a system of
    rivers that were representative of the Nation's diversity of
    rivers. By designating these rivers, the 107th Congress would
    make a significant mark in the history of the wild and scenic
    rivers system.
        The Rio Mamayes is the only free-flowing river that remains
    in Puerto Rico, and is known for its beautiful waterfall. It
    supports the highest aquatic biodiversity of any river in the
    forest, with all five species of native fish, all nine species
    of the unusual freshwater shrimp, and the only freshwater crab.
        The Rio Icacos is remarkable for its unusual geology and
    endangered and sensitive tropical plant species. The upper part
    of the river has sandy-bottomed pools and is sinuous and lower
    in gradient than the other rivers in the forest. It is known to
    provide habitat for the sensitive Burrow Coqui, a rare tree
    frog that only occurs in the high cloud forest of Puerto Rico.
        The Rio de la Mina was likely named after a mid-1800's
    Spanish gold mining complex, the remains of which are within
    the river's scenic corridor. The Rio de la Mina is a reminder
    that these rivers are part of one of the oldest protected areas
    in the Western Hemisphere. They were set aside in 1876 for
    special protection, and there are still 1,000-year-old trees
    along the banks of these rivers.
        Unfortunately, other things in the forest have changed over
    time. The Puerto Rican Parrot, which used to flourish
    throughout the island, is now in danger of becoming extinct.
    And the some 40 birds left in the wild all live within the
    Caribbean National Forest. Designating these rivers would help
    protect the last areas where the Puerto Rican Parrot has a
    chance of recovery.
        These rivers would make excellent additions to the national
    wild and scenic rivers system. They are free-flowing; possess
    outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, geologic, wildlife, and
    research values; and there is substantial local support in
    Puerto Rico for their designation.
        We do have two concerns with the bill as currently drafted,
    but the Commissioner has drafted an amendment to the bill that
    will alleviate our concerns. The amendment will correct Section
    2(c) dealing with the establishment of boundaries, to be
    consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
        Second, the amendment will correct Section 2(d), ``Special
    Management Considerations,'' to ensure that any scientific
    research facilities do not harm the free flow or the values for
    which the rivers have been designated.
        In conclusion, I would like to point out that the Caribbean
    National Forest is the source of drinking water for 20 percent
    of Puerto Rico's population. By designating the headwater areas
    of these rivers, Congress will ensure that existing water uses
    can be maintained and that future water use is balanced with
    the need to protect valuable tropical habitat, scientific
    research sites, and recreational resources.
        Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. McDonald follows:]

    Statement of Kristen McDonald, Wild and Scenic Rivers Program Associate
                 Director, American Rivers, Inc., on H.R. 3954

        Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify on H.R. 3954, the Caribbean National Forest Wild
    and Scenic Rivers Act. My name is Kristen McDonald, and I am the
    Associate Director of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Program for American
    Rivers. American Rivers is a national river conservation organization
    with over 30,000 members. Since its founding in 1973, American Rivers
    has worked with our grassroots partners to protect rivers under the
    Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and has actively assisted Federal agencies,
    states and local groups with river conservation efforts.
        I would like to thank Resident Commissioner An!bal Acevedo-Vila for
    introducing H.R. 3954, which would designate three outstanding rivers
    in the Caribbean National Forest in Puerto Rico as components of the
    National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. These rivers would not only be
    the first wild and scenic rivers designated in Puerto Rico, they would
    be the first tropical rivers in the System as a whole. One of the goals
    of Congress in passing the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968 was to
    create a system of rivers that were representative of the nation's
    diversity of rivers, and by designating the Rio Mameyes, Rio Icacas,
    and Rio de la Mina, this Congress would make a significant mark in the
    history of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
        The Rio Mameyes is the only free-flowing river that remains in
    Puerto Rico. The portion found eligible and suitable for designation is
    entirely within the National Forest boundary, from its headwaters in
    the Bano de Oro Research National Area to the Forest Boundary. This
    remote area is known for its beautiful waterfalls, and hiking trails
    and swimming holes make it a popular recreational destination. The Rio
    Mameyes has unique stands of buttress-rooted trees that are uncommon
    not only in Puerto Rico but throughout the Caribbean. In addition, the
    river provides important habitat for the endangered Puerto Rican
    Parrot, Puerto Rican Boa, and Broad-winged and Sharp-shinned Hawks.
        The Rio Icacas is remarkable for its variety of terrain, unusual
    geology, and numerous endangered and sensitive tropical plant species.
    The upper part of the river has sandy-bottomed pools and is sinuous and
    lower in gradient than the other rivers in the Forest. It is known to
    provide habitat for the sensitive Burrow coqu!, a rare tree frog that
    only occurs in the cloudforest area of the National Forest.
        The picnic areas in the headwaters of the Rio de la Mina are the
    most popular tourist destinations within the Caribbean National Forest;
    in addition La Mina Falls is a spectacular scenic attraction and a
    popular hiking destination. The river was likely named after a mid-
    1800s Spanish gold mining complex, the remains of which are within the
    scenic corridor; the old mine shaft and some of the homestead sites can
    still be enjoyed by hikers along the La Mina Trail. The Puerto Rican
    parrot, Puerto Rican Boa, and two endangered plant species are known to
    occur along the Rio de la Mina.
        All three of these rivers are important to the survival of the
    endangered Puerto Rican Parrot. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates
    there are only about 100 known Puerto Rican Parrots left today, and the
    40 of these that live in the wild all live in the Caribbean National
    Forest. It is the last protected area where these birds have a chance
    at recovery. Protecting these three river corridors would help ensure
    desired tree habitat for the parrot is left intact.
        The three rivers are eligible and suitable for designation, and the
    Forest Service has demonstrated there is substantial local support for
    their designation. American Rivers supports passing H.R. 3954 but we do
    have three concerns with the bill as currently drafted and we are
    working with the Regional Commissioner's staff to address these issues.
        First, section 2(c) dealing with establishment of boundaries should
    be corrected to be consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,
    which states that boundaries must be established within one year of
    designation, not ``as soon as practicable,'' as currently required in
    the bill. This is an important correction, as boundary establishment
    will determine the area that the Forest Service must protect and
    enhance as a wild and scenic river, which must average , mile from the
    ordinary high water mark on each side of the river.
        Our second concern involves section 2(d), ``Special Management
    Considerations.'' While American Rivers agrees that the research
    activities within the Caribbean National Forest are vital to the
    American people, installation and maintenance of such facilities, if
    they occur within designated wild and scenic rivers, must be consistent
    with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. In particular, we would suggest
    amending the bill to require the Forest Service to ensure that any such
    facilities do not harm the free flow or values for which the rivers
    have been designated.
        Finally, the bill should include an authorization of appropriations
    as necessary for the Forest Service to protect and enhance the Rio
    Mameyes, Rio de la Mina, and Rio Icacas Wild and Scenic Rivers.
        In conclusion I would like to point out that the Caribbean National
    Forest is the source of drinking water for 20% of Puerto Rico's
    population. There are already a dozen dams in the National Forest that
    divert water for public use. By designating the headwater areas of the
    Rio Mameyes and Rio Icacas as wild and scenic rivers, Congress will
    ensure that these existing water uses can be maintained and that future
    pressure to build more dams in the area is balanced with the need to
    protect valuable tropical habitat, valuable scientific research sites,
    and recreational resources.
        I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony to the
    Subcommittee today.
                                     ______

        Mr. McInnis. Thank you. I will begin the questions. First
    of all, since I am not familiar, Congressman, with the
    boundaries, just the headwaters are protected under the wild
    and scenic designation? So that your diversion points for the
    drinking water will not be impacted in a negative fashion by
    this bill? Is that correct?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. That is right. And I can assure the
    Committee that in the process of drafting the bill, we
    discussed it with everybody down there in Puerto Rico, just to
    be sure that water supply and all of the needs for the
    population were protected. Yes.
        Mr. McInnis. And that would also apply in the case of low
    water flow?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Yes.
        Mr. McInnis. For example, right now in the West we are
    experiencing a huge drought.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Yes.
        Mr. McInnis. Fine. And Ms. Estill, how does the wild and
    scenic river designation modify a river's uses? Can you help me
    on that a little, or do you have that background? I know you
    have got some background in Puerto Rico, so you could even
    apply it to this, as well; but just generally.
        Ms. Estill. Well, it protects the outstanding values of the
    river. It would prohibit any additional structures going in the
    river; would not in any way limit recreation use, unless it
    started contaminating the streams.
        Mr. McInnis. Would it allow repair of existing structures?
        Ms. Estill. Yes, it would. We see this as a real ``win-
    win'' all the way around: protecting the water quality, the
    scenic and the biotic resources of all three of these
    corridors.
        Mr. McInnis. All right, thank you.
        Mr. Inslee?
        Mr. Inslee. I have no questions, I think, for the sponsor
    for this great work. Thank you.
        Mr. McInnis. Any other questions of the panel? Mr. Kildee?
        Mr. Kildee. Just a statement. I had the opportunity of
    visiting and enjoying these rivers. And I commend my colleague,
    Mr. Acevedo-Vila, for the introduction of this bill. I look
    forward to its passage.
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. It is time to go back.
        Mr. Kildee. It is time.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. McInnis. Mr. Acevedo-Vila?
        Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Yes, I just wanted to thank both of them
    for the testimony and their support. And thanks to the
    Committee.
        Mr. McInnis. Thank you. And I thank the panel. Thank you
    for your time. I appreciate your being here. Mr. Acevedo-Vila,
    thank you for the bill.
        The Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [A letter submitted for the record by Rebecca Watson,
    Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, U.S.
    Department of the Interior, on H.R. 3962 follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.025

                                       -