[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14632-14633]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                     CONSERVATION REINVESTMENT ACT

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, on the eve of marking up the Conservation 
Reinvestment Act--an act that can only be described as great politics 
but very bad policy--to enact a law that gives the Federal Government a 
blank check to buy land for the purpose of conservation, preservation, 
or any other so called environmental cause is ill-advised and ill-
conceived, it appears, on the surface, the idea of putting land under 
Federal control for conservation purposes is a good idea and good 
policy for the nation. However, under the surface, hidden in the dark 
side of government ownership of lands, it is very bad policy.
  Nobody has hunted or fished and appreciated it more than this 
Senator. Nobody enjoys the outdoors as much as I do--the cold crisp 
mornings in a hunting camp or a fishing camp is unequaled and one would 
not need a fishing rod or a rifle.
  I would say that nobody in this body has fought harder for habitat 
and policies that promote the enjoyment of the outdoors, hunting, and 
fishing. As former cochairman of the sportman's caucus and still active 
in the foundation, we guard this privilege.
  There is no way, Mr. President, this piece of legislation can be made 
to reflect or fulfill our role in the protection and improvement of our 
public lands. Just adding acres to the Federal estate does not get it 
done. Just no way. The supporters of this legislation has been blinded 
by the prospects of dollars, free dollars coming to their respective 
States. The money comes from royalties from off-shore drilling. I have 
no problem with that and, in fact, support such a scheme. It is the 
purchasing of land for the Federal estate that I cannot support.
  I ask your patience to bear with me but I feel some facts should be 
made part of this record and my colleagues need reminding of some 
startling facts.
  The Federal Government now controls one-third of the land in the 
United States. That is wrong and was never intended to be as envisioned 
by the Founders of our Nation nor the Framers of our Constitution.
  However, the Federal Government has from its first day, a healthy 
appetite for land ownership and has never stopped acquiring more and 
more land. Some for good and solid reasons. In the last 40 years, 
however, land acquisition has been under the guise of conservation and 
preservation.
  Do we have enough surplus of money to squander on the idea that the 
Federal Government needs more land.
  Since 1960, major Federal land agencies have added 33.6 million acres 
of land. That is the area the size of Florida.
  These agencies control more than 612 million acres or just over one-
fourth of the land area of the United States.
  True, the majority of Americans support land conservation and some 
acquisition, but few know or understand what it entails.
  Most of those demanding public ownership of lands have come from 
groups who have little regard for private land ownership or property 
rights as provided by our Constitution. Land ownership is the 
cornerstone to individual freedom which most Americans hold very dear. 
Have you not seen the movie, ``The Patriot''?

       . . . A major increase in Federal funding for land 
     acquisition has long been needed. There is a tremendous 
     backlog in land purchases. . . .

  So says Carl Pope, Ex. Director of the Sierra Club.
  Ron Tipton, a vice president of the National Park Conservation 
Association echoes the same line.
  I would suggest that both organizations have the money and the 
political will to buy land for conservation, preservation, or to heal 
some real or perceived environmental ill. The problem arises that they 
also would be responsible for the operation and management of the 
lands.
  That being the case, why in the world does the Federal Government 
need more land? That is why I started to do some research some 3 or 4 
years ago and using some information gathered by very credible 
organizations, I was startled what I found.
  The Congressional Budget Office has gone so far as to suggest a 
freeze on Federal acquisitions. A 1999 report asserts:

       Land management agencies should improve their stewardship 
     of the lands they already own before taking on additional 
     acreage and management responsibilities.
       Environmental objectives might be best met by improving 
     that they already own.

  There is one glaring fact that throughout our history, private 
individuals and groups have offered the best and most sound resource 
conservation. Several organizations such as the Sierra Club has the 
funds and expertise to do and I suggest they proceed.
  Here is CBO's concern. BLM, USF&W, and NPS have added 840,000 acres 
per year since 1960. That is the area the size of Rhode Island.
  In the 1990's, 3.4 million acres and 25 new units for NPS; 2.7 
million acres and 24 new units for USF&W plus 18 million acres in 
military installations, 8.5 million acres in BOR, and 11.7 million 
acres in the Corps of Engineers. Even the conservation reserve ``CRP'' 
controls 33 million acres.


                 spiraling costs and ballooning budgets

  Here are the reasons the Congressional Budget Office suggested a 
freeze in land acquisition:
  Annual costs for land management have far outpaced the rate at which 
the Federal estate was expanding.
  For the past 40 years, government's appetite for land ownership grew 
the total acres just over 6 percent, yet operating budgets have risen 
262 percent above inflation.
  From 1962 to 1998, land acquisition cost $10.5 billion. At that same 
timeframe, managing Federal lands cost $176 billion, $6.6 billion in 
1999 alone.
  It is a little easier to grasp when one looks at the cost of 
management in 1962 at $3 per acre. In 1997 the cost has grown to $10 
per acre adjusted for inflation.
  The NPS operating expenses have risen 2.6 percent per year above 
inflation since 1980. During the same time, the system grew only 1 
percent per year in acreage and units. The system has always gotten 
more money to operate. Park visits, nationally, only grew 2.3 percent 
per year.
  BLM generated .50 cents for every $1.00 invested and the NPS .08 
cents for every $1.00. While operating budgets for day-to-day upkeep 
and services have grown faster than acreage, provisions for 
infrastructure and major maintenance have not followed a similar 
pattern.
  In some instances, these capital budgets that provide for long-term 
facility maintenance have shrunk. Between 1980 and 1995, NPS declined 
to an annual rate of 1.5 percent when adjusted for inflation. As a 
result, the NPS has a $5.6 billion deficit for construction and 
maintenance and a $2 billion deficit for resource management.
  The USFS has a $5 billion maintenance backlog. Throwing more money 
into the Federal trough is not getting us what we want. Eroding forest 
roads, deteriorating water quality, disappearing wildlife habitat, and 
loss of priceless artifacts are just the most obvious indicators that 
current policies are not providing quality management.
  Buying more land only contributes to a situation that is not 
achieving the environmental objectives that we want.
  Billions of dollars are spent each year to manage our Federal lands, 
and

[[Page 14633]]

the public is not getting the benefits of multiple-use fiscal 
responsibility, or good resource stewardship.
  A number of ecologists have also questioned the ability to fulfill 
its mission of resource protection. Biologist Charles Kay of Utah State 
University has documented the destruction of the Crown Jewel of 
national parks, Yellowstone. Overpopulation of elk and buffalo has 
taken its toll. The result is starvation of thousands of elk, and 
overgrazed range, the destruction of plant communities, the elimination 
of critical habitat, and a serious decline in biodiversity. Karl Hess 
reported the same in Rocky Mountain National Park.
  Some 39 million acres of Federal forest land are, as we speak, at 
risk of catastrophic wildfire and disease according to a GAO report of 
last year.


        better tools--better results--satisfied conservationists

  It is clear that merely dipping into the Federal Treasury does not 
ensure land conservation for the future. Under the current system of 
command and control, politics plays a major role in Federal land 
management. Some pragmatic changes in our Federal land agencies, 
however, could help us get the incentives right.


                           recreational land

  Lands historically used for recreation, should pay or attempt to pay 
their own way and not rely entirely upon congressional appropriations.
  There is no doubt that park managers can better care for the land 
that Federal overseers in Congress who fail to allocate funds for 
necessary maintenance. The Fee Demonstration Program is a step in the 
right direction.
  As land managers generate revenues and decide how the money will be 
spent, they are allowed to be more responsive to visitors, more 
expedient with maintenance, and more protective of natural resources.


                            commodity lands

  Not all Federal lands are equally deserving of preservation. In a 
world of limited resources, it makes sense to sell lands with lesser 
conservation values to ensure adequate protection for those worthy of 
conservation.


                           habitat set-asides

  There are some lands under Federal management that are not likely to 
ever pay their own way, but have ecological or cultural value. The land 
might be critical wildlife habitat, watershed for large, diversified 
users, or the site of some historical event. These should be placed 
under a trust or endowment board. A portion of revenues derived from 
user fees at more popular sites or the sale of other lands could be 
used as endowment funds to manage these valuable areas. I am very 
supportive of this idea.


                            new acquisitions

  Current Federal land management permits land acquisitions without 
regard to operating and maintenance costs. Before adding more land to 
the Federal estate and obligating the American taxpayer, a detailed 
accounting of annual operating and maintenance costs should be prepared 
and, like private conservators, laws should require that funding for 
proper management be part of the appropriation. No O&M money, no deal. 
I will insist on it.


                             land exchanges

  There is no doubt in my mind that land exchanges are necessary. Small 
units of range should be either traded or sold to block up large units 
for management purposes. The funds derived from the sales should be 
placed in the trust or endowment for management of other public 
holdings.


                           private solutions

  As an alternative to Federal land conservation, private conservation 
by individuals and groups is a viable option with a long history in the 
United States. The growing demand to protect land resources has created 
a new impetus for private conservation through ownership and other 
legal mechanisms. Whether the land is managed for profit or to fulfill 
a mission, these private conservators have the right incentives. They 
face the opportunity costs for alternative uses of the resources. The 
result is often better land management than that provided by our 
Federal land managers.


                               fee simple

  Private landownership is the oldest and simplest form of land 
conservation. It will continue to exist as long as property rights are 
well-defined and owners can profit from their investment in 
conservation or achieve their conservation goals.


                  land trusts, conservation easements

  Tax benefits.
  Perpetual easements.
  Restructuring easements.


                               conclusion

  Changes that would improve land conservation and mitigate 
environmental damage without adding more land to the Federal estate 
include:
  Lands for recreational use should pay their own way or generate some 
revenue to cover costs;
  Land use rights on commodity producing lands should be sold for the 
highest value use. The winning bid could be commercial timber harvest, 
selective harvest to enhance wildlife habitat, wilderness, recreation, 
or some combination of uses;
  Income from the sale of land and land use rights should be put into 
endowment funds to buy or manage lands with higher conservation values, 
such as those with critical wildlife habitat, scenic value, or 
historical significance; and
  Barriers should be lowered to encourage private conservation and good 
stewardship.
  At present our Federal land agencies are poor land stewards. Many 
times through no fault of their own, their budgets reach into the 
billions, yet damage to roads, sewers, buildings, forest, and 
rangelands remain and continue to worsen.
  Only the lands that are under long-term lease arrangements with 
individuals or groups continue to improve.
  Given the right incentives, we can protect areas like Yellowstone and 
Yosemite, preserve the Bob Marshall Wilderness of Montana, and the east 
front. But forests such as Clinch Valley, VA, are better left in 
private hands.
  Again, I must iterate that the Conservation Reinvestment Act as 
written and presented this day, is ill-conceived and ill-advised. We 
can and must invest those dollars where the environmental objectives 
are clearly achievable.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________