[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 100 (Tuesday, July 15, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7429-S7431]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I like to talk today about the
stateside portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund which doubles
both the pleasure of those who use outdoor recreation facilities as
well as the money. The stateside matching grant program of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund basically provides two for the price of one,
and I will explain that a little further. The Land and Water
Conservation Fund grant program, or the LWCF as it is known, has had a
substantial long-term effect on our overall attitudes and policies
toward outdoor recreation. The land and water stateside program has
truly a unique legacy in the history of American conservation and
recreation.
When I say stateside program, I am talking about a State/Federal
matching grant. What better way for the Federal Government to
participate than matching local funds for public parks and recreation
facilities. Local funds provide an opportunity for involvement and
pride and responsibility by the communities at hand.
The first legacy of this kind is the notion basic to the Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act that States must assume the leadership role
as provider of recreation opportunities. It should not be left to an
indifferent Federal Government headquartered in Washington, DC. It
should start in the communities where the people recreate.
From a historic perspective, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has
contributed significantly to outdoor recreation. Through fiscal year
1995, a total of 37,300 projects had been approved to support the
acquisition of
[[Page S7430]]
open space for park land and the development of outdoor recreation
facilities. The Federal share of $3.2 billion has been matched by State
and local contributions, for a total investment of over $6.5 billion in
local park and recreation. So when you take Federal matching with the
State matching, you get two for the price of one.
I think it also important to note from where the Federal share comes.
It comes from OCS revenues; that is, off-shore oil and gas revenues. As
a consequence, for those who are very sensitive about OCS drilling, I
should point out that the revenue stream to provide the matching grants
for the Federal share for land and water conservation comes
specifically from OCS. If we do not have offshore oil and gas
exploration, we are not going to have the money to fund the Land and
Water Conservation Fund. Last year, OCS revenues totaled over $3
billion.
I believe, with advanced technology, we can safely pursue OCS
activities off our shores and also provide a revenue stream for
recreation through the Land and Water Conservation Act. The facts
should not be lost on this body, the realization of just where these
funds come from.
Further, States have received over the years about 8,200 grants and
counties some 4,800, while cities, towns, and other local agencies
matched more than 24,000 grants. The facilities that the $6.5 billion
investment has bought are those that are down your street, across your
town, in the inner city, and virtually every nook and cranny of our
country. The parks and facilities serve virtually every segment of the
public. Millions of Americans have walked and jogged and picnicked,
hiked, biked, fished, hunted, golfed, or played ball in at least one of
these areas. These are the destination parks and facilities for
families, campers, and hikers, areas where kids learn to play baseball,
learn to swim, and really get an appreciation of nature. And those are
the facilities in their neighborhoods and near their homes.
Further, the statewide program is unquestionably one of the most
successful programs established by Congress. The Americans for our
Heritage and Recreation Coalition, consisting of a number of groups
which banded together to seek reliable funding sources, concluded that
the Land and Water Conservation Fund is ``arguably the most important
environmental program of this century'' and that a reliable source of
funding should be restored.
I had the pleasure of recently addressing the Conference of Mayors in
San Francisco. There were over 400 mayors there led by Mayor Daley of
Chicago and Victor Ashe of Knoxville. They unanimously passed a
resolution strongly urging the Congress and President to restore
funding to the statewide LWCF program. The Western Governors
Association passed a similar resolution. I ask unanimous consent that
copies of both of these resolutions be printed in the Record for the
benefit of my colleagues.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
65th Annual Conference of Mayors, San Francisco, June 20-24
Adopted
land and water conservation fund
1. Whereas, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was
established by Congress over thirty years ago to provide
quality recreation for the American public; and
2. Whereas, in the past LWCF has provided federal matching
assistance to states and their localities for acquiring land
and developing quality public outdoor recreation facilities
for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans; and
3. Whereas, the results of the program are evident in
nearly every community in the nation through projects ranging
from inner city playgrounds to suburban baseball fields to
state natural areas; and
4. Whereas, over the past couple of years there has been no
funding for state and local parks projects under LWCF despite
availability of royalties from Outer Continental Shelf Oil
and Gas payments pledged to the Fund; and
5. Whereas, it is the local park which is the most used and
visited of any parks in our national parks system,
6. Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the United States
Conference of Mayors urges the President and Congress to
recognize the outstanding legacy of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and the continuing unmet need for local
public outdoor parks and recreation facilities by increasing
the appropriations in the next fiscal year budget for the
state and local grants portion of LWCF; and
7. Be it further Resolved, That the United States
Conference of Mayors urges the President and Congress to
strongly consider the parks and recreation needs of state and
local governments at the same time it considers national park
priorities as outlined in the 1997 budget agreement; and
8. Be it further Resolved, the United States Conference of
Mayors reaffirms its support for the 1994 report by the
National Park Service's Land and Water Conservation Fund
Review Committee which recommended a 30 percent allocation of
LWCF to local governments; and
9. Be it further Resolved, That a copy of this resolution
be forwarded to the bipartisan leadership of Congress.
Project Cost: Unknown.
____
Western Governors' Association, Medora, ND, June 24, 1997
Policy Resolution 97-012
Sponsors: Governors Bush and Geringer.
Subject: Allocation of Land and Water Conservation Fund
Appropriations.
a. background
1. In 1964, the President and Congress enacted one of the
most successful and far-reaching pieces of conservation and
recreation legislation in America's history, the Land and
Water Conservation Fund.
2. The Act emphasizes a leadership role for the states in
achieving a national outdoor recreation system which requires
commitments to planning, establishment and expansion, and
funding of projects on a coordinated basis at the local,
state, and national level.
3. The Fund has provided more than $5.6 billion to acquire
new federal park and recreation lands and has provided
matching grants to state and local governments which have
resulted in the establishment of over 27,000 basic recreation
facilities in every state and territory of the nation (or
37,300 new or improved basic recreation facilities).
4. The Fund receives deposits from three sources:
a. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues derived from
leasing oil and gas sites in coastal waters (approximately
90% of total deposits).
b. Sale of Federal surplus real properties.
c. A portion of Federal motorboat fuel taxes.
5. In 1995, a National Recreation & Park Society survey
indicated that state and local recreation agencies needed
$27.7 billion in capital investment for rehabilitation, land
acquisition, and construction for the next five years. The
survey additionally estimated that state and local agencies
would have only half of these necessary funds.
6. These estimates indicate a long-term deficit of public
recreation investment nationally.
7. In 1976, the Act was amended by:
a. raising the Appropriation ceiling from $600 million to
$900 million; and
b. changing the allocation formula, which had given 40
percent to federal agencies, to read that ``not less than 40
percent of any appropriation would go to Federal agencies.''
8. While states received approximately sixty percent of the
allocated grant money before 1976, during the last ten years
they received, on average, only 7.5% of the allocated grant
money from the LWCF.
During Fiscal Year 1996 and 1997, states received zero
funding from the LWCF, despite a large increase in OCS
revenues.
b. governors' policy statement
1. A true partnership to ``Build a Nationwide System of
Parks'' can only be achieved by increasing LWCF
appropriations and by balancing the funding between federal,
state and local agencies.
2. To rebuild this partnership and revive the true intent
of the LWCF Act, Congress should increase LWCF appropriations
and amend the LWCF to increase the percentage of LWCF funds
allocated to the states to 50 percent.
c. governors' management directive
1. Western Governors' Association shall survey this
resolution to the President of the United States, the
Secretary of the Interior, western congressional delegations,
and appropriate House and Senate committee chairmen and
ranking minority members.
2. Western Governors' Association staff and Natural
Resource Group shall continue to monitor and study this issue
and recommend specific action items for the Governors.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in campaigning for the Presidency of
the United States, candidate Bill Clinton at the time stated:
I will acquire new park lands and recreation areas with
funds now available in the Federal Land and Water
Conservation Fund to increase opportunities for hunting,
fishing and other outdoor recreation activities.
Candidate Clinton said:
I would increase funding for several programs. . . and
reinvigorate the Land and Water Conservation Fund to make
more funds available for the acquisition of public outdoor
open spaces.
And he also said:
I would also make funds available from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund to help address critical infrastructure
needs in State and local facilities.
[[Page S7431]]
Unfortunately, I guess our President has overlooked it or was kidding
because if you look at the administration's proposal for the stateside
funding for the Land and Water Conservation Act which would address the
critical needs in State and local facilities, there is a large zero.
Secretary Babbitt, in May 1996, in an interview with the San Jose
Mercury News, is credited with stating that he is working on a proposal
to take the Land and Water Conservation Fund off budget, so a full $1
billion a year can be spent on the parks. Reportedly, the Secretary
said that the effort would not occur until the next year, meaning that
it would be contingent on President Clinton's reelection. Well, it is
now next year. President Clinton has been reelected. The
administration, however, has been silent vis-a-vis the proposal for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund.
We have instead a proposal to use $315 million of the $700 million
contained in the budget agreement for the purchase of the Headwaters
Forest in California and a mine in Montana. We do not know an awful lot
about the Headwaters Forest acquisition. We do know that the Headwaters
Forest is 40 air miles from the nearest national forest. We know that
access to the Headwaters Forest is extremely limited. We know that the
agreement with the current landowner of the Headwaters Forest is
contingent on a favorable ruling by the Internal Revenue Service.
Getting a favorable ruling from the Internal Revenue Service is a
herculean effort, and I am not sure that the IRS knows how to basically
spell the word ``favorable,'' but that is a subject for a statement for
another day. The bottom line is that these projects have never ever
been authorized by the appropriate committees of jurisdiction. No
hearings, none whatsoever. No hearings have been held and no
legislation has been introduced. This is from an administration that
prides itself in the public process. Public process suggests
legislation, suggests hearings, and action by the appropriate House and
Senate committees. Neither of these have been proposed in the case of
the acquisition of the area known as the Headwaters Forest in
California or the area proposed for the mine purchase in Montana.
This is very much like the recent land grab in the State of Utah.
There was a process ongoing where the committees were discussing the
merits of withdrawing 1.6 million acres of public land in Utah and
putting that land in wilderness. While these discussions were
occurring, the administration saw fit to invoke the Antiquities Act
and, overnight, basically put this 1.6 million acres in Utah into
wilderness over the objections of the Utah congressional delegation and
Utah's Governor. The President's action occurred without any hearings,
without any public process. And, ironically, the announcement came not
in Utah but in front of the Grand Canyon in Arizona.
Well, the media saw fit to not make an issue of it so not too many
people in the United States reflected on the inconsistency between the
President's promises and his actions.
But, again, this is what is proposed in the budget agreement: the
purchase of the Headwaters Forest in California and a mine in Montana--
no hearings, no public participation in the process, simply an outright
purchase. This is not the purpose of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund.
We do not know just what is their objection, relative to the
procedure, but as the Senator who is chairman of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, the fact that the administration is circumventing
the public process is certainly, in my opinion, inappropriate.
What we do know is that the benefits derived from funding the
stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund program are great. That is
why we should take the $315 million and invest it in the State matching
grant program because it will return over $630 million in benefits.
Roger Kennedy, former Director of the National Park Service, perhaps
put it best when he said,
Without a doubt, the Land and Water Conservation Fund ranks
highest among the most successful and significant
conservation/recreation movements ever experienced in these
United States. This State-driven program has resulted in much
needed and highly beneficial public outdoor recreation
opportunities for the benefits of all the people. More
accessible park and recreation facilities have become a
reality.
and continue to become even a greater use and benefit to the Nation.
Mr. President, it is very difficult to compare the relative value of
expanding a wildlife refuge, say, in the Florida Keys, with the
addition of acreage to a unique urban park such as the Presidio in San
Francisco. It is difficult to compare the value of supplementing
Federal holdings in Glacier National Park with a purchase of land, say,
next to Gettysburg National Battlefield. But those are the types of
decisions that are faced day-in and day-out by the Congress in
determining priorities for funding under the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
I, therefore, urge my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee and
those in the Senate to provide funding for the stateside Land and Water
Conservation Fund Grant Program. In the absence of these grants, I fear
local park and recreation services will fail to meet the ever-growing
demands of the American public and the Federal Government will be asked
to fill the void. It is a role the Federal Government cannot and should
not play. The answer to this dilemma is simply the stateside matching
grant of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Mr. President, I have already noted the action taken by the mayors of
the Conference of Mayors in San Francisco relative to support of this
program because it is so significant relative to community involvement
and community responsibility. I urge my colleagues to reflect on that,
as well as, again, on the statement from the Western Governors Council
in support of this program.
There is one other item I want to bring to the attention of my
colleagues relative to action before this body. I ask unanimous
consent, since no other Senator is seeking recognition, that I may
speak for another 5 minutes on chemical weapons disposal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________