Segment 1 Of 2     Next Hearing Segment(2)

 Page 1       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  






    Mr. REGULA. I call the meeting of the Interior Subcommittee to order. For all of you who are testifying, all statements will be made a part of the record. We have five minutes for each one and I am going to have to adhere very rigidly to the five minutes or we will never get through the day. Five minutes until 4 o'clock today, so, we have a full day for listening to testimony and all the statements will be evaluated by the staff.

    So, we will start out here with Green Farming Systems. Mr. Roddy.

    He has not checked in.

    Mr. REGULA. Mr. Sparrowe. Thank you for coming.

    Mr. SPARROWE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. Chairman, we, at the Wildlife Management Institute generally support the President's budget proposals.

    Mr. REGULA. Is this a nonprofit organization?

    Mr. SPARROWE. Yes. We are a nonprofit organization located in Washington with a few field staff.

    Mr. REGULA. With a membership across the country?

    Mr. SPARROWE. Yes. We are not primarily a membership organization. We are a very small organization that works to advance good wildlife management and pays particular attention to the public land agencies. We have worked with them extensively.

    I appeared last year representing the CARE group on behalf of the National Wildlife Refuge System and I want to thank you for your support and your staff 's support for the refuge program and their needs in maintenance and operation.

    I would just make the point that the operational needs of refuges need attention every bit as much as the maintenance needs. An example, I was on Desert National Wildlife Refuge just a few weeks ago. That is the largest refuge south of Alaska, 1.5 million acres, about 50 miles north of Las Vegas, the fastest growing city in North America, and they have no on-site facilities or people to manage that refuge.

 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    They are managed from a satellite office in the city and they have three other field stations, all of which have endangered fish, the Desert Pup fish and other sorts of things. This is the example of the kind of things in some of these refuges.

    In order to cope with future public use that refuge really definitely needs operational funding. So, we would urge you to please do all you can, again, for the National Wildlife Refuge System.

    Endangered species funding is critically important and I want to just speak in general support of the large increase being requested by the Fish and Wildlife Service and note that a surprising array of disparate organizations have been talking to each other about the logic of supporting this kind of an increase.

    This includes everyone from commodity interests to environmental groups, people who usually are at war over these issues, but they believe that the administrative reforms put into place by the Department of the Interior——

    Mr. REGULA. How do you feel about the camp fire bill?

    Mr. SPARROWE. As an organization, the Wildlife Management Institute believes that there is a lot to work with in the Kempthorne bill and that the opposition to it has been unduly harsh. We think there is a building block.

    The Biological Resources Division in USGS, I want to comment on just a minute. We are part of an organization called the BRD Watchers, Bird Watchers, who has been meeting with Interior to study them and understand how they have coped with all the changes. Obviously, they have been a point of considerable controversy and have lost some sizable portions of their budget.
 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Our reading at this point is that they very much need the increases. We are concerned, however, that the Administration has changed the focus of a bunch of research and left out the cooperative research units for the coming year.

    There are 15 position vacancies in the unit and some of them have been open for many years. We would advocate that out of any budget increase there ought to be attention to filling those positions so those units can do their job.

    Finally, the two other agencies, we work a good deal with includes the Forest Service. We are very supportive, particularly of their challenge, cost share and related activities, seeking common ground and these cooperative programs. Obviously again the Forest Service has been a real lightning rod and is receiving a lot of criticism.

    Mr. REGULA. We have a lot of those.

    Mr. SPARROWE. And we support the President's budget for the Forest Service as well.

    The Bureau of Land Management seems, to us, to need a lot more attention than it gets. Massive development is going on in the Northern Rockies and I do not see it reflected in their budget proposals this year.

    Mr. REGULA. You mean our attention for operations or attention for——
 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. SPARROWE. For operations, I think. Their staff have been cut back. They are facing a horrendous pace of development in Wyoming, for example, for oil and gas and they simply do not have the people to do the job. So, we support the modest increases that are listed for the Bureau, as well.

    Mr. REGULA. Thank you.

    Mr. SPARROWE. Thank you very much.

    [The statement of Rollin Sparrowe follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."





    Mr. KOLBE. Our next witness will be David Tobin from the Cooperative Alliance For Refuge Enhancement.

 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    David, good morning and welcome.

    Mr. TOBIN. Good morning, thank you.

    My name is David Tobin, and I am Executive Director of the National Wildlife Refuge Association but I am here today to represent the Cooperative Alliance For Refuge Enhancement which is an unincorporated alliance of 17 national conservation and sportsmen's groups that comes together out of a mutual concern for the health and future of the refuge system.

    Last year this subcommittee provided the National Wildlife Refuge System with an unprecedented increase of $41 million for operations and maintenance. That appropriation was preceded by a request from the Cooperative Alliance for precisely that amount as the first year in a seven-year plan to restore the refuge system to a minimal level of funding that our analysis determined was necessary for the refuge system to fulfill its mandate, its responsibilities to Congress and to the American people.

    So, we are here again this year to request an increase in refuge operations and maintenance as the second year of this seven-year restoration effort.

    The appropriation that this committee provided last year not only put into place a seven-year process, and I will talk a little bit about what is going to be done by the Fish and Wildlife Service with that 1998 appropriation. But it also had a profound effect on the morale and the energy and the outlook of the men and women who work for the National Wildlife Refuge System and I want to share with you a few comments. We receive a great many letters from the Fish and Wildlife Service personnel responding to that appropriation.
 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    And some of these illustrate, I think, the change that is taking place and we hope to perpetuate. From San Francisco Bay the refuge manager wrote to us and said, ''You have no idea how much this means to us in the field. Please, come visit us to see the wetlands that will be restored, public access developed and environmental education programs established.''

    From the Yukon Delta in Alaska, a refuge manager commented, ''I suspect that in the process of raising this money that the results may seem elusive. I want you to know that your efforts are going to have real, on-the-ground, tangible results on the refuge.'' And then he goes on to describe the many projects that they are going to put into place.

    For Fiscal Year 1999, Mr. Chairman, we are requesting an increase in refuge operations and maintenance to a total of $277 million, which exceeds the President's request by $30 million and exceeds the 1998 appropriation by $57 million.

    As was detailed in a report that we provided to this committee last year and we are going to update for you later this year, we are working toward an annual operations and maintenance budget by the year 2003 of $495 million.

    Our job now is to watch closely as the Fish and Wildlife Service makes use of that 1998 appropriation and makes sure it is done so in a manner consistent with the needs that were identified and presented to this committee. That is going to include securing abandoned mine sites, rehabilitating grasslands, replacing equipment, providing access ramps for the disabled, and implementing volunteer programs and environmental education programs.

 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Picking up on the comment that Rollin Sparrowe made earlier, on the difference between operations and maintenance, I have to point out that in the President's request for Fiscal Year 1999, the budget actually exceeds by $2 million the amount that we are requesting for maintenance, but falls short in the area of operations by $30 million.

    That is significant since the organic legislation, the Refuge System Improvement Act that was passed last year, actually increases the need in the operations area. It calls for increased planning activities, public use programs and other work that accentuates the need in the area of operations.

    So, we hope that this committee will be responsive to the operational need as well as the need in the area of maintenance.

    That is all I have to say this morning. We are looking forward to working with this committee and providing you with more information as we did last year. And also expect a lot of continued cooperation that we have received from the Service in the way of data and accountability for funds that have been spent.

    [The statement of David Tobin follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much, Mr. Tobin.

    I think a lot of us will be very interested but it is going to take more than just a few months, obviously, to see the results of the added funding that we have provided last year, to see the beginnings of this seven year effort to see the restoration of wildlife habitat and the involvement of the public in this, but I appreciate very much getting this update and your request, which will obviously be considered very carefully by the committee.
 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. TOBIN. Thank you.

    Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much, Mr. Tobin.






    Mr. KOLBE. Our next witness will be Bob Jenks from the National Wild Turkey Federation.

    Mr. JENKS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. KOLBE. Good morning.

    Mr. JENKS. I am substituting for Dr. Kennamer, of the Federation, who regrets that he is not able to be here today and I am a former board member of the NWTF.
 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The NWTF is an international nonprofit conservation organization. We have 150,000 members. They are spread amongst 1,000 chapters throughout the U.S. and we work closely with the State and Federal conservation agencies to manage wildlife resources.

    We have a strong partnership with the Forest Service through the Making Tracks Program. Currently there are over three-quarters of a million dollars that are available for wildlife management partnerships through the Federation, but the Forest Service cannot fund the work force necessary to identify and implement these projects.

    Similarly, the loss of trained and experienced wildlife biologists on any forest has reduced the level of expertise to the point that there are simply not enough qualified people to do the field work. Their time is primarily spent doing office work such as legal appeals, threatened and endangered species work and land management planning.

    Despite the 1998 increase, the Forest Service budgets are still 17 percent below the 1993 agency request and the President's 1999 budget is only 48 percent of the estimated funds needed for minimum professional standards for wildlife habitat management.

    The reduction of the wildlife budget is so great the Forest Service can no longer be expected to do more with less. They are doing less with less and our national forests and their valuable timber and wildlife resources are beginning to show the strain, Mr. Chairman.

    For example, all forest level wildlife and fishery staff officer positions have been eliminated from the Southwestern Region; technicians, rather than biologists, now do most of the wildlife work in the Southeast; and much money in Challenge Cost Share funds are not reaching the ground.
 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    In 1998, the Congress and the Administration responded to this concern and they did increase the funding for wildlife habitat improvement projects. The NWTF applauds this action, however, we feel that wildlife resource and recreational users are being adversely impacted disproportionate to their value.

    The National Wild Turkey Federation urges Congress to increase the funding of wildlife habitat improvement budget to $38.5 million, a level near the 1994 funding without inflation. This money will be leveraged by cost-share funds from the private sector allowing for more and better habitats for wild turkeys and many other wildlife species, including some neotropical migrant birds of concern.

    Finally, Mr. Chairman, the National Wild Turkey Federation urges the committee to fund the President's request for noxious weed control programs to fight a real problem in many forests and rangelands.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak this morning.

    Are there any questions, sir?

    [The statement of James Earl Kennamer follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much, Mr. Jenks. I think this is a very good and thorough presentation. I was just making some notes as we went through here, and I appreciate very much your bringing this information to our attention.
 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Thank you.

    Mr. JENKS. Sure, thank you.






    Mr. KOLBE. Our next witness will be Andrea Colnes, Director, Northern Forest Alliance. Andrea, good morning, thank you very much for being with us here.

    Ms. COLNES. Good morning.

    Mr. KOLBE. Obviously, as for all the speakers this morning, all the presenters, your entire statement is being put in the record, of course.

    Ms. COLNES. Thank you, thank you for being here this morning. It is a long day.
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I guess I have not spoken with you before. I have been here a couple of years speaking about the Northern forest so I will give you a brief sense of who we are and what it is.

    I am Andrea Colnes, the Director of the Northern Forest Alliance which is a coalition of some 35-plus recreation, forestry and conservation groups from across the Northeastern part of the U.S. And together, we represent probably more than a million people who live and/or visit that area.

    The Northern forest is the 26 million acres of forest land that stretches from Maine through Northern New Hampshire and Vermont, across the Adirondacks to New York out towards the Western part of the State. It is really the last wild forest in the Northeastern part of the Eastern part of the country and it is a place that is facing great change, it is a place that is at risk. It is almost completely privately held and the economics, the national economics and international economics of the timber industry have put the land base at risk. Essentially it is hitting the market to the highest bidder.

    This brought Congressional attention down to the region over the last eight years or so and there has been a major study and recommending body called the Northern Forest Lands Council, convened by Congress and the governors of the four States, to look at the region and come up with strategies for addressing its future and enabling the people of the region to take some action instead of simply sitting by.

    At this point there has been fairly strong recognition of the importance of this region. A little bit different from years past, I have some help in explaining why this region is a place of national importance.
 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    In the President's budget address this year, you can see on the top of your pile there, he identified three eco-systems across the country as a focus for 1999 and one of them is the Northern forest, recognizing that it is of immense economic, cultural and environmental importance to the country as a whole.

    That was backed up last week by the New England Governors Conference as a part of the National Governor's Conference. It passed two resolutions which they had never done before, recognizing the critical threats facing their region and asking specifically for this committee and Congress and the Administration to fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the State side of that program and also to fund the Forest Legacy Program.

    These two programs are critical to the future of the area. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is, as I am sure you well know, beneficial on both its Federal and State sides. The State side of that program is particularly important because this part of the country does not have a big Federal land base and if we are to find the kinds of creative highly leveraged investments that we need to make right now, where money is so scarce, the State side of that program is quite critical.

    The Forest Legacy is a program specifically designed to protect private forest lands from conversion to non-forest uses. And the USDA has estimated that about half a million acres annually of our important private forest lands, which are becoming increasingly important to the timber base, are going out of production and being converted to non-forest uses.

    So, both of these programs have a real role in addressing issues in the Northeast and across the country as a whole.
 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Briefly, what we would very much like to see is full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as Congress did last year, at the $900 million level. With this funding, provide some funds within that $900 million for the State side of the program, because without it, it will not serve the interests of the Northeastern part of the country at all. Well, not at all, but it will not serve them adequately.

    Likewise, the Forest Legacy Program is a wonderful idea. It is a partnership between the public and private sector, the Federal and the State governments and it has been woefully under-funded since it was conceived in the 1990 farm bill. It would again be a highly leveraged, highly cost effective investment in this time of scarce Federal resources and scarce State resources.

    I guess I would just close by pointing out that also in your pile is a detailed listing of our priority projects, the most urgent needs for this year. I think one of those projects in particular speaks to the kind of need that we are facing just to give you a taste for it. Champion International has announced that they are selling out all of their holdings in the States of New York, New Hampshire and Vermont and their mill in New York. That is——

    Mr. KOLBE. Who is this?

    Ms. COLNES. Champion International. It is 325,000 acres of extremely high-valued land. In Vermont it is the Mohican Basin. It is the heart and soul of the Northeastern part of the State and the whole Northern part of our ecological base and cultural base. In the Adirondacks, it is the Northern flow of rivers that run in the Northwestern quadrant of the park and in New Hampshire it is a special tract known as the Blue Mountain tract. It is highly valued by recreationalists and for timber supply.
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    That is just one of the kinds of examples that stands there as the kind of land that needs these creative, State-side funding mechanisms.

    So, thank you.

    [The statement of Andrea Colnes follows:]

    Offset folios 42 to 45 insert here

    Mr. KOLBE. Thank you. Most of the pressures on the land up there, are they resource pressures or are they development pressures, population development pressures?

    Ms. COLNES. It is both. The changing economics of the timber industry have made it basically put pressure on for short-term quarterly returns. And there are two ways of servicing. As the lands are sold and debt load is increased, there are two ways of generating that short-term cash.

    One is in over-cutting the lands and there is intense attention in the States on the need to address large-scale over-cutting. The second and more fundamental issue, I think, is development pressure. Seventy million people live within one day's drive of this place and second-home-development pressure on lakes and rivers in high-value areas is quite strong.

    Mr. KOLBE. The Forest Legacy Program, that is not the State grants program, that is different?
 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Ms. COLNES. Yes. Forest Legacy is a Federal program created in 1990 in the farm bill and it provides Federal matching funds to the States at a 75/25 percent match to help private land owners purchase or sell conservation easements on their land.

    Mr. KOLBE. It is conservation easements.

    Ms. COLNES. Yes. It also provides for a full fee. It can be used either way.

    Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much. I appreciate the testimony.

    Ms. COLNES. Thank you.

    Mr. KOLBE. Has Mr. Roddy ever appeared?

    No? Well, okay, we will scratch him off of our list for the day.




 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  




    Mr. KOLBE. Our next person is Eliot Paine, Chairman of the Center for Plant Conservation.

    Mr. Paine, welcome, and thank you very much.

    Mr. PAINE. Good morning.

    I am testifying this morning in my capacity as Volunteer Chairman of the Board of the Center for Plant Conservation, known as CPC, which is the only national organization in the U.S. dedicated exclusively to the conservation and recovery of native U.S. plants.

    The Center for Plant Conservation is a consortium of 28 leading botanic gardens and arboreta located around the country including, by the way, the Desert Botanical Garden in Phoenix and the Flagstaff Arboretum.

    Our headquarters are located at the Missouri Botanical Gardens in St. Louis. Of the 2,000 or so very rare U.S. plants, 553 are listed as endangered by the Federal Government representing 62 percent of all U.S. endangered species.
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    While plants thus constitute the most imperiled of the major groups of organisms in the United States, they remain the least understood, the least protected and the least funded. In other words, plants represent about two-thirds of U.S. endangered species but, as a group, they receive less than 3 percent of Federal expenditures on species conservation, in recovery in 1993, which was the latest year for which statistics are available.

    A single animal, a threatened salmon, alone, received more than three times the total amount expended on all listed plants in this country in 1993. Many critically endangered plants, down to single digits in the wild, receive no Federal funding at all.

    The CPC believes that our nation's plant heritage deserves better. Apart from their well-known aesthetic value, importance in the web of life and our obligation to pass them on to future generations, plants constitute the natural capital upon which our economy and our very lives depend.

    Our research has shown that 80 percent of the rare plants of the U.S. are closely related to plants with economic value somewhere in the world. In this age of bioengineering, the possible loss of so many native plants means we ultimately lose countless options to improve our lives in a highly unpredictable future world.

    Since its founding in 1984, the CPC has created a unique program of conservation, research, restoration and education within our framework of botanic gardens. With total attendance of over 5 million people a year, these gardens collect, store and grow the national collection of endangered plants, a living collection which today contains 507 of our nation's rarest species. About half of these plants are listed as endangered or threatened by the Federal Government.
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We maintain these species as security against extinction, as source material for recovery and as resources for research and education. Collectively, no other organization knows more about the horticulture of America's rare plants than the CPC. No other organization maintains a scientifically curated collection of endangered species of this size in such a cost-effective manner.

    To permit the Center to resume the technical and leadership roles that have been identified for it by the Fish and Wildlife Service, the draft policy regarding controlled propagation of species listed under the Endangered Species Act, we request an appropriation of $1.2 million in the Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriations for the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies.

    We ask that these funds come from one or more accounts managed by the land managing agency of the Interior Department or other appropriate accounts. The amount requests is the same amount as the Center anticipates receiving from private sources in 1999.

    We are, thus, asking the Federal Government to match in 1999 what private citizens and organizations are contributing to our national program to conserve and restore rare U.S. plants.

    Doubling our annual budget in 1999 in this manner will permit the CPC to develop the relationships and the operational protocols with Federal agencies that are needed to implement the expanded role in recovery that is identified for the Center in its long-standing and now growing assistance to government.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    In addition, we request that the annual appropriations to Interior Department recovery accounts, like the recovery account of the Fish and Wildlife Service, be increased by very significant amounts beginning in 1999. We would like to see Congress exert its influence in ensuring substantially greater equity between plants and animals in the disbursements made by the Department of Interior agencies in their endangered species program.

    Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify.

    [The statement of C.W. Eliot Paine follows:]

    Offset folios 53 to 59 insert here

    Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much, Mr. Paine.

    You will be happy to know that on the property, the ranch where I grew up in Southern Arizona, we have one of those 553 endangered plants and years ago, my siblings and I gave a conservation easement to the Nature Conservancy to help to protect that grass there.

    Mr. PAINE. Well done.

    Mr. KOLBE. The statistics that you give are very interesting about the amount of attention that we give to endangered species that are animals as opposed to plants. I think it is something that Bambi catches our attention a lot more than grass does.

 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    But we certainly appreciate your helping to bring this to our attention.

    Mr. PAINE. Thank you.

    Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much.






    Mr. KOLBE. Our next speaker is Scott Sutherland, Director of Government Affairs of the organization Ducks Unlimited, Inc.

    Good morning, Mr. Sutherland.

    Mr. SUTHERLAND. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

    We have had the opportunity to join you for this austere occasion a couple of years in a row and we thought we would try to do something a little different since you are going to spend a fair amount of your day here and others from the subcommittee, as well. We thought we would do something a little bit graphic this morning to help deliver our message.
 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We appreciate your inviting Ducks Unlimited to testify this morning. We know that there is a huge demand for this opportunity. We have a number of programs that we are interested in under this bill. We are going to focus on one of those programs this morning, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. And those familiar with Ducks Unlimited know that that is sort of—we do not work on very many programs up here, but this is one that we think is very, very important. It is achieving wonderful results and so we want to focus on that.

    This Act has only been around since 1990. As you can see, every year it racks up—part of the primary reason for this Act is to formulate partnerships between government and private entities, a variety of private entities. It seems like since last year when we were here, there have been about 70 additional partners added to this list so that now there are nearly 700 partners. And, frankly, tomorrow the North American Wetlands Conservation Council will meet again, as they do three times a year, and this list will grow.

    Our partners include everybody from corporations, small business, State governments, nonprofit groups like ours, farm groups and private land owners. There are a significant number of private land owners willingly participating in this program by putting up their land to restore wetlands on low corners of farm fields where wetlands might have existed when they were children or their grandparents were children, bringing back a little bit at least on some of those private lands, some of those wetland values and wildlife values.

    There are 240 projects on the ground in this program in its first eight years in the United States. It does projects all up and down the flyways that migratory birds, not only water fowl but shore birds, neotropicals et cetera, use. So, it is doing work in Mexico and Canada. And there are 524 projects total on the continent now.
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Significant for the money that you folks have been kind enough to put up for this program, it is now $317 million in non-Federal, non-NAWCA funds that have been matched, to match the money that you folks have put up. That is a ratio continentally of about two-to-one. Here in the United States it is larger than that. It is even higher.

    And 47 States have NAWCA projects on the ground now. We thought of a way to try and make this a little more real, instead of just throwing all these statistics, is to focus on one State. Now, at random we chose a State that happened to be the State of Ohio. Do not ask me why. [Laughter.]

    Mr. KOLBE. You should have picked Arizona this morning. You did not know who was going to be chairing this morning, did you? [Laughter.]

    Mr. KOLBE. I can think of a couple in Arizona we could have worked on.

    Mr. SUTHERLAND. Well, actually this has funded a project in Arizona and I will show you something on that. You know, in Ohio, just as an example, nine projects have been funded. And $3.3 million of Federal money under this program has been put up for those budgets; $6.9 million in the match there. So, a little over two-to-one in Ohio.

    And $3 million—you know, people always talk about how the things that we care about, your subcommittee and our organization care about compete with economic interests. Well, we pulled a statistic out of a Department of Interior document that demonstrates that 3 million people in Ohio have participated in wildlife related activities, and that is not even counting bird watching, by the way, but those 3 million people generated $2 billion in economic impacts in Ohio.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    A list of the projects in Ohio, the NAWCA money, the partner match, the acreage, the totals of these monies. So, that is where we get those statistics. Now, let us just look at one project in Ohio off this list. We are going to look at Metzger's Marsh.

    Chairman Regula has actually been to Metzger's Marsh. He helped dedicate this project earlier this year. The program here, the project here was to restore—this used to be a barrier beach across here for years and years and years. And behind that barrier beach—this is Lake Erie—there was a nice wetland area, a marsh area that provided food and shelter for a host of wildlife. And in the 1950s there were tremendous storms in Lake Erie, a series of winter storms that took this barrier beach out and what happened was it essentially made this marsh into just another finger of Lake Erie.

    There is still some marsh left back here along the back edge but in terms of productivity this area plunged. So, the NAWCA project that was funded sought to restore the barrier and that is what this dike is. This was one of the largest projects ever done under NAWCA in terms of infrastructure. This is quite an undertaking. We are going to see a closer picture of this in a moment.

    What they did was to restore the barrier and there is now a water control structure. This was the initial stage. There is a water control structure about right here that allows inflow and egress of water regimes and the goal was to bring the marsh vegetation back. So, it is 980 acres and the NAWCA program between the partners and the funding that came out of this was $1.4 million.

 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    There was other Federal money involved in it, too. This is a portion of the dike right here. And this is the water control structure and it is a fish egress and ingress structure. But the important thing in this photo is look behind it. That is the area that was all open water, that is the marsh vegetation coming back and that is what the wildlife like, that is what the fish eat, this is the key to the success right here. It really has made a difference.

    This wall has only been in place now for about two and a half years. And already the 980 acres is practically filled in with marsh vegetation. So, the program is making a tremendous difference and I have a list of two things that you might be interested in here.

    This is a list of the partners in the program.

    Mr. KOLBE. We are going to have to bring this to an end here.

    Mr. SUTHERLAND. That is fine. And this is a list of the projects that have been funded under the program separated by State. And a breakout of matches and all that sort of thing. So, we thank you very much for your time.

    If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them.

    [The statement of Scott Sutherland follows:]


    Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much. That is certainly a very impressive demonstration of what can happen with a project like that.
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. SUTHERLAND. We hope you will support it.

    Thank you.

    Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much, Mr. Sutherland.






    Mr. KOLBE. Our next speaker will be Ron Tipton, Director of U.S. Ecoregion Conservation for the World Wildlife Fund.

    Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. I am not going to read my testimony. I am going to summarize a couple of the major points. Obviously our testimony, our written testimony, covers a range of programs in the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service that are in the budget that you consider and put together.
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    It focuses primarily on restoration of the Everglades, the need to fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, specific programs within the Fish and Wildlife Service, particularly those that relate to protecting a number of species in other countries, and finally, pieces of the Forest Service budget. But I am going to focus in my comments this morning on two things. The Everglades and the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

    At World Wildlife Fund, we went through an exercise this past year of identifying what we considered to be the most important and the most endangered or threatened ecoregions in the world. We picked out 25 that we were going to focus attention on during the next five years at least, and one of those is the Everglades.

    As has often been said, there is only one Everglades and it is in great jeopardy. But I think the prospects for its survival and its return to environmental health are improving greatly, for many reasons, not the least of which is that this subcommittee and the Congress in the last couple of years has become increasingly focused on the legitimate needs of the Federal Government's share of the cost of restoring the Everglades. And we were certainly prepared to thank the chairman and I want to thank the members here today, for the budget that you approved last year for the $136 million in the Department of the Interior for Everglades restoration.

    The request for this year, for the similar program, is a very slight increase over that amount. It is $144 million. We are generally in favor of that request. We will probably come to the subcommittee and talk with the staff about some minor, fairly modest changes in that request, but I would say that it is an excellent start.
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We do believe that this subcommittee needs to look, as do other members of Congress that have an interest in this, we have got to get on with the job of finishing the land acquisition in the South end of the Everglades and, specifically, the area called the East Everglades which was actually added to the park in 1990. There are no developed lands there. It is all undeveloped property.

    After seven years we have only acquired about half of it, and the problem is, we need to begin moving water from the West side of the Southern end of the Everglades over to the East side and you cannot do that until you control the land.

    It is just a matter of there being a very generous amount of money in Fiscal Year 1998 budget for this purpose, there is money in the requested budget, it is going to happen. But we may need to figure out a way to accelerate that so that we can actually begin to do the hydrologic restoration sooner than five years from now. The situation is pretty serious down there.

    We believe, just to summarize on the Everglades, that there are several major reasons why we are making the progress we are and we really encourage and urge the subcommittee to stand behind this problem. It is going to cost a lot of money and it is going to take another 5 or 10 years of a strong commitment by the Federal Government but the public support is high, and the bipartisan political support has never been stronger at either the Federal level or the State level.

    There is no partisan tinge to restoring the Everglades. I think everyone that has looked at this situation carefully—and I applaud the fact that Chairman Regula and Congressman Miller made a trip down there with some staff earlier this year. We have talked to them since they got back. I think they were impressed with what they saw. They pointed out some issues we need to address. We hope that kind of attention continues.
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    But we are at last at the stage where we are beginning to make some specific water management decisions and initiate some projects that are actually going to begin to restore the natural timing flow and delivery of water through South Florida. So, it will benefit the entire Everglades and particularly, Everglades National Park in Florida Bay.

    We have a lot of hurdles ahead of us and a lot of tradeoffs with other water users, but I think that we are optimistic.

    The final thing I will say segues me over into the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We depend very heavily on the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the conservation and outdoor recreation needs of the entire country.

    The largest single beneficiary over the last several years, except for the two major land acquisition projects that the Administration had requested and an agreement was worked out last year, has been the Everglades. There is $81 million in the request this year for Everglades restoration, acquisition money. The State of Florida is matching that money virtually dollar-for-dollar. The State has the largest land acquisition conservation program in the United States. It needs it, given the pace of development and population growth in South Florida.

    But we really urge this subcommittee not only to continue to fund the Everglades portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund but to sustain the funding interest it showed last year when we finally got back to the level of funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund that we had started to attain in the late 1970s.

 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    This program is authorized at $900 million a year. It was authorized at that level almost 20 years ago. The buying power of $900 million today is about $350 million and as Will Rogers used to say, ''They ain't making any more land.'' And it is not getting any cheaper.

    And we need a long-term interest. We need a long-term sustained interest in funding this program at that level. I noted yesterday that the Senate increased transportation funding by 40 percent in their transportation bill. The Congress needs to look at the recreation and the outdoor conservation needs of the country and fund those needs.

    Thank you very much.

    [The statement of Ronald Tipton follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. KOLBE. Thank you. I certainly appreciate your passionate plea here for the Everglades. It is one of the areas that I think this Congress has certainly been looking upon very favorably and it is very important.

    And we appreciate your bringing it to our attention.       


 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  



    Mr. KOLBE. Next we are going to hear from Jean Hocker, President, the Land Trust Alliance.

    Ms. HOCKER. Good morning, Congressmen.

    I am happy to be here this morning to talk to you about two programs that are very much on the minds of the nation's land trusts and those who support voluntary land conservation. Let me tell you just a little bit about the Land Trust Alliance. The Land Trust Alliance promotes voluntary land conservation and provides the leadership and support for over a 1,000 nonprofit land conservation organizations known as land trusts.

    These groups, ranging from fairly large organizations to several small all-volunteer organizations, are helping land owners conserve open spaces and green places all across the country. They are rapidly growing organizations in number and that includes the State of Arizona where there are now eight or nine land trust organizations and Virginia, as well. And all across the country land trust organizations are helping land owners save land through a variety of means.

    They also are increasingly working in partnership with local, State and Federal conservation agencies to help acquire and manage land that is valuable for conservation or frequently they hold conservation easements for the public benefit. And I was delighted to hear you say that you are very familiar with conservation easements from a landowner's standpoint.
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I want to talk about two programs that use Federal funds to leverage private voluntary land conservation in really cost-effective ways. These are the Land and Water Conservation Fund, especially matching grants to States, and the Forest Legacy Program. You have heard something about both of those this morning.

    As you know, historically the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been tremendously successful in promoting community and nonprofit involvement in conservation. Grants have to be matched one-to-one. So, this part of the Land and Water Conservation Fund program fosters a real conservation partnership between communities and it is a really good deal for the Federal Treasury as well as for conservation.

    Unfortunately, as you know, the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund has suffered a dramatic reduction over the past five years. In fact, at this point, the State program is all but shut down.

    In an era when power and responsibility are being returned to the States it is really ironic that such a highly successful, highly leveraged grant program to States has been decimated.

    At one time $375 million out of a total of Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriation of $737 was appropriated to the States. That was 50 percent of the total. But in the past three years the appropriation for State grants has been zero and yet, these are leveraged and they provide money to help protect land and provide recreational opportunities close to where people live.
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We encourage the committee to increase the appropriation for the Land and Water Conservation Fund overall and we strongly urge you to include funding for State grants in the program as well as the equally important funding for Federal projects.

    I also want to talk about a much newer program, the Forest Legacy Program. You have heard from the Northern Forest Alliance about this program. It was authorized in the 1990 farm bill and it enables the purchase of conservation easements on environmentally sensitive timber land that is threatened with conversion to non-forest uses.

    It is a wonderful program, theoretically. It is voluntary. It is private. It is non-regulatory. It encourages partnerships among willing land owners, local, State and Federal agencies and nonprofit organizations. It is highly leveraged. It requires at least a 25 percent State match.

    It preserves the nation's privately owned forests, at the same time, improving water quality, air quality, protecting habitat, curbing sprawl, and promoting sustainable economic land uses. It is a pretty good use of Federal money. It is a program where everybody wins.

    Fifteen States, from Washington and California to Rhode Island and New York, have undertaken the really pretty complex process of qualifying to receive Forest Legacy funds. Four more States are working on it right now and over $50 million worth of projects are currently in the pipeline.

 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    And you know how much was appropriated last year for the entire nation—$4 million. That is about $266,000 for each eligible State, not including ones that are currently trying to become eligible.

    The President's budget this year has $6 million. Still, a paltry sum. It is a very effective, potentially very creative program that is a good use of Federal funds and it is doomed to failure because it does not, it has virtually no funding, or minuscule amounts.

    The Land Trust Alliance urges you, we actually implore you to increase the funding for the Forest Legacy Program to $50 million.

    Now, I know that that is a really substantial increase as a percentage of what has been appropriated, but it is a minuscule amount when you think of the Federal budget and you think of what this highly leveraged investment can do for conservation and for the timber economy in States all across the country, and I think it is terribly important.

    We think it is very important that we have sufficient funds to make this program work. I believe that was the intent of Congress in enacting the program in the farm bill and we just wanted a chance to show what it can do.

    So, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, including a fair share for State side and Forest Legacy funded. They are two of the best deals I know for conservation and for the American public and I urge you to fund them both adequately.

    Thanks very much.
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    [The statement of Jean Hocker follows:]


    Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much, Ms. Hocker.

    You certainly make a very passionate plea for this program and we will take that into account.






    Mr. KOLBE. We will move on to Felice Pace, Executive Director of the Klamath Forest Alliance.

    Mr. PACE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Good morning. I would like to summarize my testimony this morning. Chairman Regula, Mr. Kolbe, and members of the committee, Klamath Forest Alliance appreciates the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee. Our testimony will address two items—the U.S. Forest Service budget and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service budget request for the Klamath River Basin.

    The Forest Service budget has been the subject of controversy for some time because of appropriations which subsidize private corporations and result in harm to the environment. We commend Chief Dombeck and the Clinton Administration for finally beginning the task of addressing these problems and urge Congress and this committee to get on board the reform train.

    Specifically, we support the intent of the Chief to address problems of a massive road system which is inadequately maintained and which, as a result, is causing irreparable harm to the environment and aquatic ecosystems in particular.

    Attached to our testimony is a report we have completed concerning road maintenance on the Klamath National Forest. Our analysis of the Klamath Forest road situation, which was submitted to the Forest Service folks at the Klamath and their engineers for peer review prior to publication, indicates that while funding appears adequate to maintain 75 percent of the road system, nothing near that amount of maintenance is being done. I might add, the monitoring report for the six rivers said they did 100 miles of road, of 3,000 or more miles they have, last year in road maintenance.

    This suggests that the engineering department may be over-staffed, and that maintaining inappropriate staffing levels is requiring excessive overhead. We recommend Congress consider substantial cuts in Forest Service engineering staff at the supervisory level.
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    In May 1997, we audited maintenance records for 36 Klamath National Forest roads, most of them in key salmon watersheds. We found that during the prior five years, 29 of these roads received no maintenance, whatsoever, and maintenance was minimal to inadequate on the other six roads. Details are in the report which is attached to the testimony. It looks like this.

    The Forest Service has requested funds this year to decommission 350 miles of roads during Fiscal Year 1999. This amounts to about 1 percent of a system, which according to the Chief, 60 percent of the roads are not being maintained in that system. That is not enough.

    We need to get to a National Forest road system which is environmentally safe and which we can afford to maintain and the people I represent all live, work and play in those forests. We like our roads but we got too many of them.

    So, in the Citizens Forest Appropriations Initiative, which will be presented formally later by the Western Ancient Forest Campaign—and it already has many organizational signatures including ours—we are asking for an additional $25 million for road decommissioning and an additional $25 million for road maintenance. There are cuts in there, too, that go up even further than that.

    We strongly recommend that these additional funds, as well as managers report language instruct the Forest Service to decommission roads which pose the greatest risk to aquatic resources. We should be aiming to get rid of about 25 percent of these roads by the year 2010 in order to begin to get to a road system we can afford to maintain.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I want to just skip down and say this year the Clinton Administration announced a new clean water initiative. We support it. However, when we look at the Forest Service budget request's explanatory notes, we see that $3 million of the $60 million supporting the initiative is for timber sale management and another $2.3 million is for forest land vegetation management. That usually means either cutting trees or spraying herbicides. And we do not understand how these things are going to get us to clean water. They do not look appropriate. They look like we are hiding some timber sales in there.

    I want to turn my attention now to one of the West's great and least known river systems, the Klamath River of Northern California and Southern Oregon and the Basin Six Wildlife Refuges, which the Fish and Wildlife Service management plan calls the greatest wildlife display in North America and some folks have called it the Everglades of the West. I threw in the Everglades of the West because you heard about the Everglades and everybody knows them.

    But 80 percent of the Pacific flyaway goes through the Klamath Basin and yet we cannot get the kind of money we need either to restore the salmon, to recover the endangered species, or to take care of the needs of these wildlife refuges. And we do not understand why we are not getting this.

    So, last year we began coordinating my organization and Appropriations Initiative for the Klamath Basin. This year we are working very closely with Senator Boxer and her staff on Senate appropriations on this and there is a specific request for increasing the salmon restoration funds pursuant to the Klamath Act of 1996, of $3.5 million, and for marsh restoration in the upper basin that we need to improve water quality. We had a fish kill in the Klamath last year that extended about 30 miles and for about two to three weeks due to high water temperatures and poor water quality and marsh restoration can do a lot for that.
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    So, the details of that particular initiative are still being, the sign-ons are still being put together but you will see that.

    [The statement of Felice Pace follows:]


    Mr. KOLBE. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony.






    Mr. KOLBE. We will hear from Gwen Marshall, Protect Biodiversity in Public Forests.


 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA [presiding]. Thank you. Your testimony will be made a part of the record and you have five minutes.

    Ms. MARSHALL. Thank you.

    All right, the main topic that I am going to talk about is the relationship with the Forest Service budget. What you will see there is basically an increase in budget, decrease in returns and an ever decreasing percentage of returns in relation to expenditure.

    Mr. REGULA. That is because it is the multiple uses driving this.

    Ms. MARSHALL. I am not really going to make a point of what it is or it is not. It is just that is the numbers.

    Mr. REGULA. Yes. I understand.

    Ms. MARSHALL. But I did get them from the Congressional Quarterly which may or may not be the best resource.

    Mr. REGULA. Yes. I understand. I am sure this is true.

    Ms. MARSHALL. Mostly what I am going to be talking about is what I call the slush fund. So, these are the ones, in particular, from the Forest Service budget. And also this is a letter from the Forest Service directed to its rangers a couple of years ago that I will be referencing. So, I wanted to make sure you had all that.
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Basically what I found in reading the Forest Service budget is that it did not seem all that interested in having us do the math. I will give you a copy of my intended oral so that you can kind of keep up with me a little bit.

    Basically the Forest Service tells us that it costs them $113 per thousand board feet to prepare a timber sale but when I did the math I found it was somewhere between $331 and $610. And the qualifying information on that is in the written testimony.

    The Forest Service told us that they planned to earn about $102 per thousand board feet but I have got a letter saying that they are charging $44 per thousand on mixed hardwoods and $9 for pines. So, it seems like they are going to have a hard time catching up to that.

    I also found in doing the math that the grazing program is losing 9.5 times what it is bringing in, mining is 1.7, and half of what they take in on recreation is going just to pay the costs of collection. Those are just numbers that I found in there.

    Mr. REGULA. Is that money since the fee program was put in place or is this prior to that?

    Ms. MARSHALL. All I know is it was in this year's budget comparing expected income to expected expenses.

    Mr. REGULA. On the fee program?
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Ms. MARSHALL. Yes. I mean I am just using their numbers. I have not used any other groups' numbers. Frankly, reading their book took me long enough.

    Okay, basically what I notice is the Forest Service expects to be able to spend their appropriations as well as any earnings from the commodity program and they are not returning money to us. And they are losing money based on the assumption that all the resources they are using actually have zero value. So keep that in mind that the only way they bring any money in is by assuming the trees were worth nothing.

    Of course, you know that I think it is time to end the commodity program. So, we have gone through that one before. The point that I am trying to make though is about the 25 percent fund and the fact that the Forest Service, even though they have got all this money, still is having a hard time paying their taxes. And that is what that letter is about from the Forest Service is on the delinking idea or the problem with the fact that their employees have put so much money in KV and salvage and they specifically reference that that they did not have the money for their taxes.

    But they did promise their employees that they would come up with a long-term solution. And, again, I am quoting their letter.

    Last year, part of their long-term solution to the tax problem was trying to eliminate the purchaser road credit program, because they are paying 25 percent out on the 25 percent fund on nonexistent money. And if you do not want to do that then that would be one way. This year they are proposing to eliminate the 25 percent fund.
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Okay. So, where does the money go? Why cannot the Forest Service pay 25 percent of its income on taxes? Most of us are doing that so why not them?

    Well, what I did was I tried to learn more about this stuff and so I read the CRS book on the special funds. And what I found when I was reading this is that what we really need is maybe a CRS book on Forest Service slush funds for dummies. And then I came to the conclusion that I was the dummy because I read the book and there is just a lot to it.

    And what we really need instead is a Forest Service budget for common sense that we tell the Forest Service here is your money, here is what we want done, you earn any money give it back. Do not worry if you do not earn money. You are not giving us anything back. But what I am looking for is a clean bookkeeping system. Not all this stuff that is described in this booklet. I will leave you a copy of that.

    That is the special copy with my handwritten notes and the updates from last year and the comparisons to the prior years so you can see the numbers. But anyway, what I think we need to do is stop playing the games with the bookkeeping system.

    So, where they hiding money? KV is the big account but my favorite is the salvage fund because that is the one that we are talking about more recently.

    The salvage fund has turned $43 million worth of appropriations from Congress into $160 million which sounds really good but the way they do it is they have written a rule in their own manual, and the specific number is 2435.12, that lets them keep their salvage earnings to build or maintain a fund equal to one and a half times their annual needs. So, that is why we are not seeing any of that money.
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. You mean you are saying it goes into a fund and unless that fund is equal to one and a half times the total Forest budget or just that——

    Ms. MARSHALL. No, no, salvage. The national Forest Service has figured out how much money they think they need to do a salvage program next year. They have said that do not worry, any income——

    Mr. REGULA. Preparing it for sale?

    Ms. MARSHALL. Right. Any income that they get from the salvaged sales they believe that they should be allowed by their own rule to keep one and a half times the need for next year which means that they are keeping all the money, which when the program was first set up was not as big a deal as it is now in terms of the 25 percent fund.

    But then in 1988, Congress started considering that income for the 25 percent fund. Meanwhile the Forest Service was still keeping all of their money in the salvage fund. So, then the 25 percent taxes were paid out of other income.

    So, we are actually losing more money from salvage and instead of having that system, they cannot tell me how much money is earned in salvage and green anyway. Why pretend that there is a difference?

    Like I said, what we really need is to just totally clean up the bookkeeping system and you guys can be suggesting this because a lot of these slush funds were created in the Interior appropriations. What we need is, yes, we should pay 25 percent.
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I totally agree with that, totally agree with delinking. It should be a separate line item but it should be a straight in-and-out budget. Congress tells the Forest Service what they want them to do and the Forest Service does it and returns any income.

    And if we do that we would have an open and honest bookkeeping system and it would stop this group from managing our resources for their benefit instead of be managing it for the benefit of all of us.

    [The statement of Gwen Marshall follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. REGULA. You have all of that information in here?

    Ms. MARSHALL. Yes, everything is in there.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay.

    Ms. MARSHALL. And I would like you to keep that.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. Thank you.

    Ms. MARSHALL. And then the other promise I made you was that if we did it straight in-and-out, the budget would look like this instead of like this and it would save us hours and hours of reading. Now, is that not incentive for all of us?
 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. I am all for that.

    Okay. Thanks for coming in.


Tuesday, March 3, 1998.




    Mr. REGULA. Our next speaker is the National Hardwood Lumber Association, Mr. Paul Houghland.

    Mr. HOUGHLAND. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, I am Paul Houghland and I am the Executive Manager of the National Hardwood Lumber Association, in Memphis. We represent producers and users of hardwood products, ranging from the saw mill up to the finished product in furniture manufacturing.

    Mr. REGULA. Is this just in the private sector or is this coming off of public lands?
 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. HOUGHLAND. In both, both.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay, in both.

    Mr. HOUGHLAND. The statements today address three general areas of concern in the proposed Forest Service budget for Fiscal Year 1999 for the timber sale program, the forest roads program and research. If we look at the National Forest they grow approximately 22 billion board feet a year which is one quarter of what the country needs for wood products and paper products. Yet, the President's proposed budget would allow for only 3.4 billion board feet to be harvested in the National Forest.

    In other words, the National Forest could supply 25 percent of the annual needs of wood but, yet, it actually supplies only 4.5 percent. So, there is 18 billion board feet of wood annually which goes unused and about twice as much as what is being harvested each year dies and rots.

    We consider that an unnecessary waste of renewable natural resource which we need to address.

    The NHLA strongly urges this subcommittee to support efforts to begin rebuilding and restoring a strong Forest Service timber sale program as originally provided for in the Organic Administration Act of 1897, 100 years ago and further supported in the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act in 1960.

 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    The Forest roads program as contained in the proposed budget and in the recently announced proposed moratorium on roads would further cripple the National Forest. The Forest road system is critical, not only for timber production, but recreation access, wildlife habitat management, wild fire control, as well. The proposed moratorium on road construction further threatens the health of much of our National Forest and the economies of small—yes, sir? One minute left? That was a fast five.

    Mr. REGULA. Time goes quickly.

    Mr. HOUGHLAND. It sure did. Well, let me just very quickly on that last four minutes of my five, in Forest Research Service or the Research Service, we believe that a lot of the research that is being conducted ends up on the shelf and not being used. We think this subcommittee needs to address that waste and direct the Forest Service to make certain that the conducted research is put into the hands of small businesses both saw mills and producers. They can use this.

    [The statement of Paul Houghland follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. REGULA. Do you think that the Forest Service is not disseminating the information they are gaining from research?

    Mr. HOUGHLAND. That is correct.

 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. How would this be done? A mailing list or could people write and seek information?

    Mr. HOUGHLAND. If the people do not know the research has been conducted, they do not ask for it. I think that there needs to be a pipeline developed and our association could certainly sit with this subcommittee or the Forest Service and develop a dissemination process.

    Mr. REGULA. The staff tells me that they do have an aggressive Web Site to disseminate this information.

    Mr. HOUGHLAND. And that is fine. But if you are looking at saw mill operator in Appalachia——

    Mr. REGULA. They probably do not have a——

    Mr. HOUGHLAND. They do not have a Web Site or would not know how to access it. And it is like saying, I got a $50 bill out here under the table, if you pick it up, you can go but I will not tell you where it is.

    Mr. REGULA. All right, good point. Okay.

    Mr. HOUGHLAND. I appreciate my five minutes.

    Mr. REGULA. Yes, thank you.
 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    You just deal in hardwoods?

    Mr. HOUGHLAND. Yes, sir.

    Mr. REGULA. So, you are in the Eastern part of the country?

    Mr. HOUGHLAND. Well, we are national. There are hardwoods on the West coast as well. Primarily East of the Mississippi and North of the line down through Tennessee or so.

    Mr. REGULA. Is hardwood private, public, together, growing more than is being cut?

    Mr. HOUGHLAND. Yes. There is more hardwood in the United States today than there was at the turn of the century.

    Mr. REGULA. Interesting.

    Mr. HOUGHLAND. And there is more grown each year than is harvested.

    Mr. REGULA. We have a big basket company up our way and they use maple.

 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. HOUGHLAND. Yes.

    Mr. REGULA. You know, they cut it and make it into the strips to make the baskets and they seem to have no problem getting it.

    Mr. HOUGHLAND. It might be accessible. If you look at the finest cherry and walnut in the country, you will find them in Appalachia and a lot in the National Forest are no longer accessible. You would not have this nice table.

    Mr. REGULA. There is a shortage of those?

    Mr. HOUGHLAND. There is not a shortage of available timber, there is a shortage of what is being harvested because of the restrictions that have been placed primarily in the Forest Service.

    Mr. REGULA. Thank you very much.

    Mr. HOUGHLAND. Thank you.




 Page 53       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. National Trust for Historic Preservation, Mr. Norton.

    Mr. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Good morning, Mr. Chairman, my name is Edward Norton. I am the Vice President for Law and Public Policy at the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear this morning to testify on the Fiscal Year 1999 Interior Appropriations.

    As you know, Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that the National Trust appears not seeking general appropriation for the National Trust from the Historic Preservation Fund. So, I appear here this morning as an unfettered, unencumbered advocate for historic preservation generally.

    The point I would really like to make is——

    Mr. REGULA. You are a statesman today?

    Mr. NORTON. Right. No, I am an advocate actually.

    An advocate for historic preservation but not for the National Trust's appropriation.
 Page 54       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The principal point I want to make is to thank you for allowing us to have a three-year period of withdrawing from the Federal appropriation and specifically to thank you for your strong advocacy in defense of that agreement both in this subcommittee and in the full committee and on the floor of the House. We appreciate that. We think that, in the long run, this will work out for the betterment of all of us.

    That being said, we are here as an advocate for funding for historic preservation and specifically we would like to ask that our $3.5 million that we have received over the last three years go specifically to the State historic preservation offices, not as the total appropriation, but for an increase that is very much needed by the state historic preservation offices for $10 million.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, let me ask this. The State budgets are in better condition than ours. They have surpluses in most of the States because the economy has been very strong and most of them have had historically balanced budget requirements. Why cannot the States do their own financing?

    Mr. NORTON. Well, I think there are a couple of answers to that. First of all, I think it is very important to understand exactly what the State historic preservation offices do in the Federal partnership set up under the Historic Preservation Act. They play a very important role, but the Federal Historic Preservation program could not take place without the Federal Partnership.

    Mr. REGULA. Are you saying they are partners?
 Page 55       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. NORTON. They are partners. They are full partners and, in fact, you could say they are mandated partners, in the administration of the Federal tax credits, for example.

    I think that they should receive Federal funding for their partnership in their Federal role in that Federal/State partnership.

    Secondly, of course, they match their funds. I think that States should increase their funding for historic preservation, but I think that the Federal role played by the State historic preservation offices should receive adequate Federal funding. We should take into account the fact that that funding has declined in real terms over the last 10 years.

    [The statement of Edward Norton follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. Thank you.

    Mr. NORTON. Thank you.

    Mr. REGULA. Do you appear before State finance committees urging them to give more?

    Mr. NORTON. Well, I certainly would if I were asked.
 Page 56       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Well, we will suggest that to them, at least in Ohio.

    Mr. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The only other program that I wanted to specifically mention this morning was the millennium program. That is Saving America's Treasures Program——

    Mr. REGULA. Yes.

    Mr. NORTON [continuing]. Which we strongly support and hope you will, too.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, we are interested. We want to make sure that that money is used wisely, though.

    Mr. NORTON. So do we and we have suggested some specific priorities and made some recommendations to the White House on that so that that will happen.

    Mr. REGULA. Very good. Thank you very much.


 Page 57       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  




    Mr. REGULA. National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. Mr. Eric Hertfelder.

    You are going to tell us you get plenty of money in the States, right?

    Mr. HERTFELDER. Mr. Chairman, there is plenty of preservation that needs to be done.

    Mr. REGULA. I will agree with that.

    Mr. HERTFELDER. This is a very rich——

    Mr. REGULA. Both Federal and State.

    Mr. HERTFELDER [continuing]. This is a very rich country in terms of historic properties.

    I brought an aide today. Thank you. My name is Eric Hertfelder. I am the Director of the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, and in order to save time I am going to refer to them as SHPOs from now on if that is okay. That will cut my testimony in half.
 Page 58       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    On behalf of the 57 State and Territorial SHPOs first I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee for your steady support over the years for the State Historic Preservation Officers and the Historic Preservation Fund. These programs pay dividends in property saved every day, every year.

    The State Historic Preservation Officers have been saving America's treasures since 1966 and are very proud to be a part of the Historic Preservation Fund Partnership with the Federal Government and local governments. We think of the States as the infrastructure of the National Historic Preservation program. They actually are the 57 regional or field offices for the National Park Service and the Advisory Council in the historic preservation actually delivering the services of the national program to the public.

    For this year, we are requesting $40 million from the Historic Preservation Fund for States and certified local governments and for Fiscal Year 1999 we also support the special $50 million appropriation for millennium grants requested by the President, $22 million of which is proposed for the States.

    There are many significant cultural and historic properties at risk and the preservation community will find the matching funds to ensure that some of the most important sites in each State will survive in good shape into the next millennium.

    Our request for the base program for the States is more than requested in the Administration budget, although it is within the overall totals and reflects our difference over the funding priorities with the National Park Service which has tended to create new programs rather than reinvesting and boosting existing successful programs.
 Page 59       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The proposed 1999 level will be the sixth year in a row that the States have had decreasing or level funding. This is very discouraging as the workload on the States grows and it is even more serious if you acknowledge that over time level funding is actually losing ground.

    I have done two little houses here to illustrate that. The one on your left is the Historic Preservation Fund appropriation to the States in relative size in 1981 and this is in 1998 in 1981 dollars proportionally.

    Mr. REGULA. I understand. But our allocation has also been shrinking in real dollars. So, what are we supposed to do?

    Mr. HERTFELDER. No. I understand. I am making a proposal within the bounds of what the President proposed.

    Mr. REGULA. But his proposal is a billion and a half over last year's allocation, and I think that it is unlikely that is going to happen——

    Mr. HERTFELDER. Yes.

    Mr. REGULA [continuing]. Unless he has a billion and a half that we do not know about.

    Mr. HERTFELDER. In his back pocket.
 Page 60       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Yes, right.

    Mr. HERTFELDER. I am sure you are right, but the point I want to make is that level funding over time is actually losing ground.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, I understand that very well.

    Mr. HERTFELDER. And States in the face of this are losing positions to service the Federal side of the program.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, how are the States' appropriations going? Are they keeping pace with inflation? Or most of them, I would think.

    Mr. HERTFELDER. They are basically level funded except for special grants programs. The States, in 1981, the Historic Preservation Fund was cut by almost two-thirds.

    Mr. REGULA. So, the States are shrinking in real dollars also, is that what you are saying?

    Mr. HERTFELDER. If I could finish what I was going to say.

    Mr. REGULA. Yes.

 Page 61       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. HERTFELDER. In 1981, there was a very large cut from $60 million down to about $20 million——

    Mr. REGULA. In the States?

    Mr. HERTFELDER [continuing]. For the States. And what happened was that the States lost virtually all ability to give bricks and mortar grants to provide assistance. They were carrying on the demand functions like the rehab tax credits, environmental review of the National Registry which they still are. But what the States have done mainly since that time is to rebuild some of the grants programs. Some of them have gambling money, some of them have special taxes and so we find that some of that ground has been made up in terms of being able to help properties with grants.

    But the basic core functions, staffing and so forth, have been pretty level and the States generally appropriate to match the Federal appropriation as part of the State/Federal partnership.

    So, in closing, we recommend and hope that the committee will continue to invest and reinvest funds as they become available in these existing programs because I think we are very successful. You will find in my written testimony, for example, last year, Fiscal Year 1997, the States certified $1.73 billion worth of construction activities under the rehab tax credits. That was one of the best years ever.

    Now, granted that was in part because the economy is booming but if that infrastructure was not in place and the staffs there ready to handle all the developers when they came in, that would not have been possible and that is a tremendous private sector contribution to the national program.
 Page 62       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    [The statement of Eric Hertfelder follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. REGULA. Well, thank you very much.

    Mr. HERTFELDER. Thank you.

    Mr. REGULA. We, in this committee, are blessed with so many good things that need to be done and with an amount not adequate to do it.

    Mr. HERTFELDER. Right.

    Mr. REGULA. And we are going to do the best we can in terms of national priorities to meet the needs of all these great programs, all of which are productive and good.

    Thank you for coming.

    Mr. HERTFELDER. Thank you.

    Mr. REGULA. I hope you all understand if I interrupt you I am trying to get this information and I have only five minutes to do it. I do not want to be rude but I want to get as many facts as I can. And, so, I hope you realize that that is what we are trying to do and thank you.
 Page 63       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. HERTFELDER. I would rather have a conversation.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay.






    Mr. REGULA. Okay. The University of Puerto Rico, Mr. Manuel Gomez, Vice President.

    You have an interest in what is happening this week, do you not?

    Mr. GOMEZ. Yes.

    Mr. REGULA. You are going to hold me to the five minutes, right.

 Page 64       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. GOMEZ. Yes, I will be taking my five minutes.

    Mr. REGULA. Did the alarm go off?

    Mr. GOMEZ. No, I will keep the time.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to address you. I am the Vice President of the University of Puerto Rico and with me is Andres Gomez, who is the President of the UPR Foundation who is helping out for the project I am going to talk about.

    Mr. REGULA. Is this a State University?

    Mr. GOMEZ. It is a State University.

    Mr. REGULA. How many do you have?

    Mr. GOMEZ. 68,000——

    Mr. REGULA. No. Do you have one main university?

    Mr. GOMEZ. It is a system of all the——

    Mr. REGULA. Satellite areas?

    Mr. GOMEZ. We have 12 campuses and 68,000 students. It is the major Hispanic-serving institution in the United States.
 Page 65       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Do you have a football team?

    Mr. GOMEZ. No. We do not. We have basketball. We do not have football.

    Mr. REGULA. I am just curious.

    Mr. GOMEZ. That is okay.

    Mr. REGULA. Because it is such a big deal at our Big Ten schools.

    Mr. GOMEZ. I know, I know.

    Mr. REGULA. I happen to be a football fan. So, go ahead.

    Mr. GOMEZ. The purpose of my presence in this committee is to talk about the preservation of a historic site——

    Mr. REGULA. A site?

    Mr. GOMEZ. A site. The University of Puerto Rico Theater. The Puerto Rico Theater is part of the quadrangle which is a historic——

 Page 66       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. Okay. How much money do you need?

    Mr. GOMEZ. We need $5 million.

    Mr. REGULA. How much can you raise locally?

    Mr. GOMEZ. Ten.

    Mr. REGULA. So, is it $15 million total?

    Mr. GOMEZ. It is $15 million total.

    Mr. REGULA. And you would like to get $5 million from us and the 10 you will raise?

    Mr. GOMEZ. We are raising the following form. The University of Puerto Rico puts $5 million from its sources and the private sources—this is an alliance—the private source will raise from three from the foundation and another $5 million.

    The significance of the Theater of the University of Puerto Rico is as a landmark, it is a symbol and an icon.

    Mr. REGULA. My staff tells me historically we have not funded brick and mortar. That is what you are talking about, I assume.

 Page 67       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. GOMEZ. No. We are restoring it. It is not a construction.

    Mr. REGULA. Is this a free-standing building?

    Mr. GOMEZ. It is a free-standing building, part of the University quadrangle, which is a historical site as certified as a historical site.

    Mr. REGULA. And it is a theater?

    Mr. GOMEZ. It is a theater. To give you an idea of size it compares with the Kennedy Center. It is 2,088 seat capacity. It is a big building. It has a long history. Pablo Casals Festivals were initiated in that theater.

    Mr. REGULA. Is it being used now?

    Mr. GOMEZ. It is—that is the problem. It is not being used because it has deteriorated and needs renovation.

    That is the crux. It is a symbol and I think that I want to emphasize that because as you may know Puerto Rico did not have a higher education system or an educational system K–12 during the Spanish time. So, this is a very appropriate time because of the centennial of the Spanish-American War.

    Mr. REGULA. Do you offer a full range, do you offer law, medical?
 Page 68       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. GOMEZ. We offer all those, law, engineering.

    Mr. REGULA. The works.

    Mr. GOMEZ. To give you an idea, the University of Puerto Rico is the sixteenth largest in the nation, not minority, the sixteenth largest in the nation. We have engineers in NASA, and the university has graduated 225,000 people. And that 225,000 are the leaders of Puerto Rico.

    Mr. REGULA. I would be interested, do you get the students that come from out of your country?

    Mr. GOMEZ. We are getting more from Latin America and from the mainland that come down to study in the UPR. We are making a special effort with New Mexico. I am sorry, the scheme will work out because we have an alliance with the New Mexico universities to join forces to exchange Hispanics. We have a Hispanic tradition that we share with them. So, we are working in all kinds of these directions.

    The other importance of the theater is that it has been the meeting place for Latin American exiles, Spanish exiles, and victims of dictatorships. So, it has been a forum for freedom and democracy.

    Mr. REGULA. Now, it is closed.

 Page 69       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. GOMEZ. Now, it is closed. We cannot do that, we cannot use it, and it is depriving us of a cultural facility. It is part of a unique history which could be a symbol; it should be a symbol of the country and the United States' education in the island of Puerto Rico.

    [The statement of Manuel Gomez follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. Thank you very much. Your testimony will be made a part of the record.






    Mr. REGULA. The Nature Conservancy, Bruce Runnels, Chief Conservation Officer.

 Page 70       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. RUNNELS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. REGULA. Good morning.

    Mr. RUNNELS. My name is Bruce Runnels. And I am the Chief Conservation Officer of the Nature Conservancy. We appreciate the opportunity to offer our comments on next year's appropriations.

    As background, and I think you know, the Nature Conservancy is an international nonprofit organization dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. We have 900,000 members, and we protected 9 million acres in the last 48 years of our work.

    It is really on the strength of that foundation, and in the spirit of doing the best we can for future generations, that we offer the following comments.

    Mr. REGULA. Do you go onto private lands as well as public?

    Mr. RUNNELS. Yes, sir.

    Mr. REGULA. And you work with private land holders in conservation practices?

    Mr. RUNNELS. Yes. The Big Darby project is a good example of how we work with private land owners and other stakeholders in communities to foster a community based approach to conservation.
 Page 71       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Right.

    Mr. RUNNELS. But we own and manage almost two million acres in 1,600 preserves.

    Mr. REGULA. It will turn over as appropriate to a public agency?

    Mr. RUNNELS. As appropriate, but we do that on a case-by-case basis.

    Mr. REGULA. What do you do? Do you have a lump sum of money to work with that contributors have built up for your organization?

    Mr. RUNNELS. We have a revolving loan fund and then we raise money for each of the projects as we undertake them and repay the loans on an ongoing basis.

    Mr. REGULA. It is some good work.

    Mr. RUNNELS. Thank you very much.

    In terms of Interior appropriations we strongly support and urge continued use of land and water conservation funds to support land acquisition and maintenance of high priority areas. We cited 36 projects that we think we support particularly——
 Page 72       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Is that in your testimony?

    Mr. RUNNELS. It is in the testimony—in 21 States totaling about——

    Mr. REGULA. The real problem is that you have such a backlog of maintenance that if we add land and/or buildings it just contributes to that difficulty in keeping things up to date.

    Mr. RUNNELS. I appreciate the point because once acquired, it is critical that we provide adequate maintenance to sustain these sites——

    Mr. REGULA. And development, too.

    Mr. RUNNELS [continuing]. Over the future. And it needs to be balanced, I think, with land acquisition.

    Mr. REGULA. Are you familiar with Big Darby?

    Mr. RUNNELS. Yes, sir.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, somebody raised a question with me that the adjacent land owners were not happy about having their lands taken for this purpose. Does that ring a bell with you at all?
 Page 73       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. RUNNELS. My understanding of the project is, in fact, the private land owners, including the farming community, are supportive of a program to establish a refuge here, which would include land acquisition, but also the purchase of development rights to achieve, I think, the community vision for it.

    Mr. REGULA. So, this would be more than a greenway, it would be an area for wildlife conservation, is that correct?

    Mr. RUNNELS. Yes. The main focus of that project is the river——

    Mr. REGULA. Right.

    Mr. RUNNELS [continuing]. And the biological elements that are in the river but it is more than a greenway and is an integrated effort to include the lands and waters in order to conserve them long-term.

    Mr. REGULA. And this would be operated by the State?

    Mr. RUNNELS. Right now it is really a partnership involving the local park department.

    Mr. REGULA. Local, meaning the city of Columbus?

 Page 74       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. RUNNELS. Yes. I believe it is the city of Columbus.

    Mr. REGULA. Probably, yes.

    Mr. RUNNELS. The metro park area.

    Mr. REGULA. That is right.

    Mr. RUNNELS. The university, the Department of Agriculture, the Fish and Wildlife Service. I think the management of the refuge would be under the jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service but that is not the entire area.

    Mr. REGULA. I believe that is correct.

    Mr. RUNNELS. So, that would be one part of a patchwork of partners that would conserve this area.

    So, we support continued use of land and water and I just would cite other programs and initiatives that we have included in our testimony. Mainly because they represent high-leverage use of Federal funds through public/private partnerships and matching funds and I want to mention particularly the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

    That organization has been in existence 12 years and they have made over 2,400 grants. It attracts $3 for every $1 of Federal funds. So, over that 12 years, they have attracted $195 million of outside money from the 82 invested in Federal funds. And I think that is the kind of high-leverage program that we think deserves continued support.
 Page 75       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    [The statement of Bruce Runnels follows:]

    Offset folios 202 to 205 insert here

    Mr. REGULA. Well, thank you for your testimony.

    Mr. RUNNELS. Thank you.






    Mr. REGULA. Ms. Hightower for the Friends of the Carter Barron.

    We are running behind schedule so that anything you can do to keep it tight, we will appreciate.

 Page 76       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Ms. HIGHTOWER. Thank you, sir.

    I would like to say, good morning, and thank you for the opportunity for me to speak here on behalf of the Friends of Carter Barron. We established our 501(c)(3) in 1991 to form a partnership with the National Park Service to preserve and interpret the Carter Barron Amphitheater. Being that I am a professional artist I got involved and when I began to start performing at the facility I——

    Mr. REGULA. This is in Chicago?

    Ms. HIGHTOWER. No. This is in DC, on 16th Street.

    Mr. REGULA. Oh, okay.

    Ms. HIGHTOWER. So, when I went up to perform I began to look at the structure, how it was definitely demising. It is in such a roofless state——

    Mr. REGULA. Well, who owns this structure?

    Ms. HIGHTOWER. The National Park Service.

    Mr. REGULA. It is a part of the——

    Ms. HIGHTOWER. Yes. Park Service, yes, sir.

 Page 77       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA [continuing]. Part of the Rock Creek Park?

    Ms. HIGHTOWER. Yes, sir.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay.

    Ms. HIGHTOWER. So, what the Friends—what I said I wanted to form a community group so that we can identify funds to restore and revitalize Carter Barron so that it can continue to serve as a facility.

    Mr. REGULA. Tell me what is Carter Barron? Is it an auditorium or what is it?

    Ms. HIGHTOWER. Sir, it is an amphitheater that is an outdoor facility that seats 4,200 people. Shakespeare comes every year to kick off the free-for-all, the National Symphony Orchestra comes and performs.

    Mr. REGULA. So, it is operating right now?

    Ms. HIGHTOWER. Absolutely but it is in a state of demise. It is in total——

    Mr. REGULA. Okay.

    Ms. HIGHTOWER. So, what it is, is that two years ago we recruited Mr. Arthur C. Moore, who is a renowned architect. He has prepared a sketch to restore the facility. And we have presented that to the National Park Service.
 Page 78       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. How much?

    Ms. HIGHTOWER. It is approximately $1.5 million.

    Mr. REGULA. To do the whole job?

    Ms. HIGHTOWER. To do the whole job. But, sir, we are not asking the Park Service to give us the money. We are saying that give us the opportunity to renovate it and we can do it.

    Mr. REGULA. You can do it with private funds?

    Ms. HIGHTOWER. We can do it with private funds. We have Mark Touhey from the Board of Trade and we have Jack Evans.

    Mr. REGULA. Why would anybody object to your doing it?

    Ms. HIGHTOWER. Well, counsel.

    Mr. POPE. That is a good question.

    Mr. REGULA. The Park Service is being an impediment?

    Ms. HIGHTOWER. It is a bureaucracy, sir. Absolutely, absolutely.
 Page 79       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. At the moment?

    Well, I will get their story. That does not seem to add up.

    Mr. POPE. I think that, you know, in all candor, I think it takes another session probably to go over some of the finer details as to some of the rough waters that we have been over. And there is a lot of undercurrent that is involved in this.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, if you have time, you can visit with Debbie Weatherly on it at some other time and give her more background.

    Mr. POPE. That is very good.

    Mr. REGULA. But we will question the Park Service.

    Mr. POPE. We have had problems with communication with them trying to resolve whatever misunderstandings and communications that exist between the nonprofit organizations board and the bureaucracy.

    Mr. REGULA. You normally do. Does your nonprofit lease it or do you just use it?

    Ms. HIGHTOWER. Absolutely. Let me tell you what happened. In 1993, we kicked off our first outreach program to children. We have a two-fold mission. We work to preserve the facility and we provide education initiatives to the District of Columbia youth in the field of the arts.
 Page 80       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    So, this is our fifth arts summer season coming up. Shakespeare comes in, the National Symphony Orchestra, they love it. We service each consecutive summer 50 to 100 children. So, I am saying that I do not know what the problem is.

    All we want to do is——

    Mr. REGULA. Well, let us try to find out.

    Mr. POPE. We do have a management agreement with the——

    Ms. HIGHTOWER. Memorandum of agreement.

    Mr. REGULA. But you are the only ones that use it.

    Mr. POPE. No, no.

    Ms. HIGHTOWER. No, we are not.

    Mr. REGULA. Are there other organizations that——

    Ms. HIGHTOWER. Yes, it is but not to the capacity of what we do. No one is offering to restore the facility. No one has offered the pro bono——

 Page 81       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. Except your group?

    Ms. HIGHTOWER. Exactly! What we get is a lot of barriers and we wanted to come before the Interior Committee so that we could be heard and at least some kind of collaborative effort can be examined.

    [The statement of Gloria Hightower follows:]

    Offset folios 213 to 217 insert here

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. We will check into it.

    Ms. HIGHTOWER. Thank you, sir.

    Mr. REGULA. Thank you for coming.

    Ms. HIGHTOWER. And you said we could meet with Debbie?

    Mr. REGULA. Yes, right.

    Ms. HIGHTOWER. Oh, okay. Yes, okay, that is great.

    Thank you, sir.

    Mr. REGULA. Not today, maybe in the future.
 Page 82       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Ms. HIGHTOWER. Thank you.






    Mr. REGULA. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Mr. Sigmon.

    We are happy to have you.

    Mr. SIGMON. We are both grateful for that.

    Mr. REGULA. Go ahead.

    Mr. SIGMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. REGULA. You know the rules better than most here, Neal.

 Page 83       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. SIGMON. I do and I hope I can do this quickly.

    Thank you. It is good to be back in this room especially to see how well you have redecorated it.

    Mr. REGULA. You like it, do you?

    Mr. SIGMON. Yes, sir.

    Mr. REGULA. Those of you that have not been here before, we just got new carpet and drapes after about 40 years and Neal was the staff director here for many years. He can appreciate it.

    Okay. Sorry.

    Mr. SIGMON. I returned to testify on behalf of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation about which you have some familiarity. First, we want to thank you for your generous appropriations to the Foundation. They are the cornerstone upon which the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is built. So, we thank you.

    Your appropriation makes possible our challenge grants, it attracts the paying partners and it is the catalyst for bringing disparate interests together to create solutions to natural resource problems. We believe that over a 12-year period the Foundation has proven its worth.

 Page 84       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Federal appropriations have been leveraged so that for each dollar appropriated more than $3 go out to work for conservation. This is possible because of our partners and due to the fact that we raise our operating expenses privately.

    We think that we could use more money effectively.

    Mr. REGULA. I am sure you could.

    Mr. SIGMON. And from the Fish and Wildlife Service we are requesting an increase to $10 million or an amount that is in line with any increases you can provide the Fish and Wildlife Service. The increase can be used for a dam removal initiative, to address maintenance needs on refuges, and to address keeping species off the endangered list.

    We could productively use $3 million each from BLM and the Forest Service for innovative cooperative programs such as Bring Back the Natives, to restore fisheries, seeking common ground to solve grazing and wildlife conflicts, and two other initiatives, native plant conservation and pulling together, which work to keep range lands healthy with native plants and free of invasive exotic weeds.

    We believe we could be more effective for BLM if we are given leeway to select projects that not only benefit BLM lands, but also attract more paying partners and address broader issues. With the Forest Service we want to continue our partnership with its Challenge Cost Share program while also expanding to cover larger scale forest health issues.

    To close, I would like to tell you about one grant that allowed the removal of the Quaker Neck Dam on the Neuse River in Eastern North Carolina. This one action reopened spawning grounds for striped bass, herring, sturgeon and shad——
 Page 85       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Is this a power-producing dam?

    Mr. SIGMON. No. It was used for cooling water to provide a steady supply of cooling water for the utility. This action opened up 75 miles on the main stem of the river and 925 miles of tributaries. As a result, we expect to see the fishery expand rapidly. A boost to commercial and recreational fishermen, alike.

    This partnership involved the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Corps of Engineers, the State of North Carolina, the North Carolina Coastal Federation, and Carolina Power and Light, the utility involved.

    Quaker Neck Dam was removed without litigation and without any regulatory action.

    Mr. REGULA. Was it earthen or concrete?

    Mr. SIGMON. It was a concrete dam.

    Mr. REGULA. What did you do with it?

    Mr. SIGMON. It was a low-head—the contractor moved the debris over to a landfill that was nearby. I have an article from the Raleigh News and Observer which I can share with you.

 Page 86       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. Yes.

    Mr. SIGMON. It explains everything about that part of it.

    Mr. REGULA. The reason I was asking these questions is we have had a number of proposals for removing dams because of the impact on salmon and various other things. I am curious, Neal, I was just looking over the list, we have any number of groups, Nature Conservancy, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, on and on and on. Is there any other country in the world where they are so well organized in such a variety of groups to protect the natural habitat and species and so on?

    Mr. SIGMON. I am not aware of another country that is so well organized. And we have, for example, we, at the Foundation, with money that we get from the foreign aid appropriation bill, are working with Latin American countries specifically to build organizations there that can help us in the rehabilitation of habitat for neotropical migratory birds, which also use habitat here.

    Mr. REGULA. So, to the best of your knowledge, this is certainly a unique American phenomenon to have so many groups that are all doing very constructive things, in terms of our natural environment.

    Mr. SIGMON. Yes, sir.

    Mr. REGULA. That is interesting. And you are trying to do some outreach with the program you have?
 Page 87       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. SIGMON. Yes, sir.

    [The statement of Neal Sigmon follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. REGULA. Well, thank you very much.

    Mr. SIGMON. Thanks for a view from this side of the table.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, you can leave and I have to stay.






    Mr. REGULA. Next we will have the organization Friends of the Back Bay, Molly Brown.
 Page 88       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. PICKETT. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. REGULA. Good morning.

    Mr. PICKETT. I have a pleasant job annually to come here with Molly who is a very long time supporter and loyal worker on behalf of the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge. They have a land acquisition program that they have been pursuing for almost 10 years now. And she is here to urge you to do your best. So, Molly Brown.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, we always try to do our best. You need to talk to the budgeteers.

    Ms. BROWN. And you have been for our project and I would like to thank you for what you have done in the appropriations.

    Mr. REGULA. Let me ask you, do you get public usage in terms of coming to look at it and——

    Ms. BROWN. Oh, absolutely.

    Mr. REGULA. School groups?

    Ms. BROWN. Yes, sir, and that is what I wanted to tell you about. I want to show you pictures of what land was acquired last year, this 17-acre tract, so, you could actually see where your money has gone. There is a house on this that is going to be turned into an educational site to use for schoolchildren.
 Page 89       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The house just needs to have a little bit of work done and it is being done by volunteers. Partnerships are being formed. And, in addition to that, it puts the schoolchildren about 40 minutes closer because it is on the Western side of the bay, which is, as you know, very important as far as field trip times that they are closer.

    Mr. REGULA. So, this is a horseshoe around a bay, is that correct?

    Ms. BROWN. Yes, yes, it is. And it will add, in addition to the refuge, it already has a visitor's center, but again, this is on the Western side which is closer to the students and, so, they will be able to come.

    This is a result of the money that you have appropriated and you can actually see where it has gone.

    Mr. REGULA. Do you get private contributions and all?

    Ms. BROWN. We get private contributions from organizations and like our organization is all volunteer. We volunteer our time and energy to do a lot of the projects that need to be done. The State has provided some and the city of Virginia Beach also, toward protecting the Back Bay watershed.

    So, the Back Bay is—a lot of people use it, and a lot of people love it and are willing to do work for it.
 Page 90       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. This is off the Chesapeake?

    Ms. BROWN. No.

    Mr. REGULA. I do not know your geography that well.

    Ms. BROWN. No. This is down—if you were coming across the Chesapeake Bay——

    Mr. REGULA. What does the bay open into, what major——

    Mr. PICKETT. Pimlico Sound down towards the North Carolina area.

    Ms. BROWN. Right. So, the entire watershed of Back Bay is in the city of Virginia Beach. And we are the first really undeveloped area south of the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. So, when birds are migrating and they have crossed the Chesapeake Bay, Back Bay provides them a resting area and habitat for them.

    Mr. REGULA. It serves migratory birds?

    Ms. BROWN. Yes. And neotropical birds also. It is a very unique area.

 Page 91       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. You have land areas where you have other types of species of wildlife?

    Deer, for example?

    Ms. BROWN. Right. There are deer——

    Mr. REGULA. Turkey, wild turkey?

    Ms. BROWN. Yes. And then also we have the Atlantic Ocean so that there is an area for a Piping Plovers to rest and also Loggerhead Sea Turtles.

    Mr. REGULA. Some of the Bay frontage that is part of the Fish and Wildlife facilities is on the Atlantic, is it not?

    Ms. BROWN. Yes. If you read my testimony there is a map and if you refer to that, you will be able to see the Atlantic Ocean and what is in blue is the original refuge that was established in 1938 and then the area that is shaded in green is what has been acquired since 1990 through appropriations.

    Mr. REGULA. You are trying to fill-in some of the in-holdings.

    Ms. BROWN. Well, we are filling in the property, exactly, and what you see in yellow is what we are hoping to acquire in 1998 and 1999 is in red.

 Page 92       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. What kind of prices do you have to pay for that?

    Ms. BROWN. Well, the prices vary because some of the property had been zoned for development and some of the property is agricultural and some of the property is wetlands. And so the price varies.

    But we have always had more willing sellers than we had money available. I think the Fish and Wildlife Service has done a commendable job in working with the land owners and negotiating their prices.

    And, so, we are just——

    Mr. REGULA. I am sure this is a great asset for what is probably a fast growing area.

    Mr. PICKETT. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. REGULA. The population base must be expanding there quite rapidly.

    Ms. BROWN. Virginia Beach now is 425,000 citizens.

    Mr. REGULA. It is that large. Wow.

    Ms. BROWN. And I think the metropolitan area is about 1.5 million.
 Page 93       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. You do not even represent all of it.

    Mr. PICKETT. No, no. Mr. Sisisky and Mr. Scott and Mr. Bateman, all of us come together there in Southeastern Virginia.

    Mr. REGULA. You have a city with the rural area then.

    Mr. PICKETT. This Southern part of the city is in my district since it is a rural area, with about 35,000 acres are still farmed in this area.

    Ms. BROWN. But there is a growing need to realize how important it is to protect this area.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, now is the time to preserve open space or it will not be there.

    Ms. BROWN. Well, our project, thanks to the appropriations, has moved forward and we would just ask you for continued support for 1999.

    And, thank you.

    [The statement of Molly Brown follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
 Page 94       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. You have a great champion there.

    Mr. PICKETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Ms. BROWN. Thank you.

    Mr. REGULA. Thank you.






    Mr. REGULA. Defenders of Wildlife, Mary Beth Beetham.

    Ms. BEETHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I am Mary Beth Beetham, and I work for the Defenders of Wildlife and thank you for allowing us to appear here to discuss our appropriations priorities.
 Page 95       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The first thing I wanted to do is to thank you for two items in last year's bill. I would like to thank you for the money for the feasibility studies on restoration of wolves to Olympic National Park and I would also very wholeheartedly like to thank you for the very generous and unprecedented funding increase for the National Wildlife Refuge System operation and maintenance.

    This was the first step that really anyone has taken to address that chronic funding need and we deeply appreciate it. We are a member of the CARE Coalition whose testimony you heard earlier today and as you know CARE has a five-year plan to restore the refuges to try to bring them into a state of health by the 100th anniversary of the refuge system. And it is going to require continued increases of about $55 million a year and we are hoping for the subcommittee's continued support and, again, we tremendously appreciate what you and the subcommittee did last year for the refuge system.

    I would also like to take this opportunity to let you know that for the second year in a row a large and organized coalition of groups is working very aggressively and very diligently to try to get your 302(b) allocation increased because we know the kinds of funding constraints you are under and we know that you always do the right thing with the money and that the amount of money you have is one of the biggest concerns.

    And more and more people have become involved in that effort and we are really doing our best to try and get the money you need for these programs.

    Mr. REGULA. We appreciate that. It is a problem.
 Page 96       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Ms. BEETHAM. Well, I actually feel like in some sense it is more important than even coming in and lobbying on our individual concerns. So——

    Mr. REGULA. Well, as you know, we have been pretty much flat funded in our allocation. And, of course, with the growing needs in parks and forests and everywhere we look there is an unmet need.

    Ms. BEETHAM. Yes. And the more we learn about it, too, the more we feel the same way. And just to let you know we went in yesterday to meet with Jim Dyer to talk to him about CARE and to talk to him about the subcommittee's allocation.

    I would like to draw your attention to one other priority, big priority for Defenders in addition to the refuge system. And that is the Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species accounts. As you know, the President has requested a significant increase this year, probably the most significant increase I would imagine that the Administration has ever requested for ESA.

    And this is another program that is critically under-funded as the refuge system is under-funded. In 1990 there was a Department of Interior Inspector General report which said that the Fish and Wildlife Service was unable to carry out its ESA mission because of its funding needs. And since that time, the number of listed species has doubled. The Fish and Wildlife Service also in the last few years has undertaken a number of reforms to try to address the concerns of regulated interests under the Act.

 Page 97       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    And, so, the funding increases that the President's has requested this year would go a long way to help address both the species conservation needs and some of the needs of the private land owners.

    Mr. REGULA. He sent his request, he did not send the money. That is the only problem.

    Ms. BEETHAM. Well, I know. I know that.

    Mr. REGULA. Touting a balanced budget and we can hardly do that and increasing just this committee a billion and a half dollars. I have not figured out how that all works. But maybe they have a magic formula.

    Ms. BEETHAM. Well, and that is one of the reasons why we intend to spend a lot of time up here on the Hill and just really try to raise the awareness of the funding needs.

    I mean we look at it as a national interest issue and, you know, what does America have? We have our national heritage and it is important to invest.

    Mr. REGULA. I understand that we have to preserve it and take care of it. That is one of our problems, too.

    Ms. BEETHAM. Yes.

 Page 98       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. We have neglected maintenance severely and you should not only be looking for acquisitions, but look for maintenance of what you have.

    Ms. BEETHAM. Well, yes, and that is why we do support the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but that is also why we are supporting these other efforts and trying to get the subcommittee more money.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. Well, thank you very much and stay with it.

    Ms. BEETHAM. I would just like to mention a couple of other programs. The Forest Service's threatened and endangered sensitive species programs are very important and I have a couple of reports here. One is on habitat conservation plans under the ESA which Defenders thinks has a lot of potential but also a lot of flaws and they need proper funding.

    The other one is on the National Forest Systems threatened and endangered and sensitive species program and we are really just, Defenders is really just beginning to understand some of the funding needs in those programs and for Forest Service research in these programs as well.

    [The statement of Mary Beth Beetham follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. REGULA. Thank you very much.
 Page 99       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Ms. BEETHAM. Okay, thank you.






    Mr. REGULA. Seneca Resources Corporation, James A. Beck, President.

    Good morning, again. I think I know the story, but go ahead.

    Mr. BECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Well, I have a few other pieces of information for you.

    Mr. REGULA. All right, tell me just the part that is new.

    Mr. BECK. Okay. What I would like to do is to just to give you a brief overview of the real history and then talk about some of the options available to us. Essentially what I would like to do is give you a map that really shows what the situation was in our West Delta area. This will give you an overview of exactly what happened in the West Delta area.
 Page 100       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Is West Delta an area in the Gulf?

    Mr. BECK. Yes, it is.

    Mr. REGULA. In which you are drilling?

    Mr. BECK. Right. This is in the boundary between State waters and Federal waters in offshore Louisiana and it is about 50 miles Southeast of New Orleans.

    And the map there shows you the drainage situation that occurred between the Federal and the State leases. And you can see that the proportional amount of reserves that were on the State lease versus the Federal lease. And, so, it was there that we had this little conflict that we needed to get resolved. This was where the independent fact finder went in, evaluated this, determined that the State was drained by the Federal lease and that there was a disparity there and recommended——

    Mr. REGULA. Is it common place in the Gulf leases just looking at them generally to go within 500 feet of the line?

    Mr. BECK. Normally you will drill as close as you can to the top of the——

    Mr. REGULA. Because you unitize?

 Page 101       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. BECK. Right.

    Mr. REGULA. Are most of the wells part of unitization projects?

    Mr. BECK. Where there is a difference in a royalty, then there is a unitization hearing. In the Federal leases, where the Government owns both sides of the leases they do not require unitization because the Government gets the same amount no matter how it works out. But where you have a conflict between the State and the Federal royalties, then we had over 100 cases where the State and Federal Government got together and worked out the unitization. And in this case this was one of the few exceptions where it did not occur.

    Mr. REGULA. How far do they get beyond the three-mile line before they stop unitizing?

    Mr. BECK. Basically what they will do is the geology from the seismic and determine how much is on both sides and as long as there is some on both sides of the line you would do unitization.

    It is only where it does not cross the lease lines.

    Mr. REGULA. Like those deep water wells are pretty much outside of that?

    Mr. BECK. Right. So, there would be no unitization. It is really right along the three-mile.
 Page 102       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. You get oil as well as gas out of the Gulf?

    Mr. BECK. Yes. This was a gas deal. But there is a tremendous amount of oil and actually most of the deep water is oil.

    Mr. REGULA. Oh, it is?

    Mr. BECK. Yes.

    Mr. REGULA. Do you get both in some wells?

    Mr. BECK. Oh, yes. You will get what you call associated gas that comes out of the oil. When it comes to the surface gas breaks out and you get gas and oil.

    Mr. REGULA. In your opinion, what percentage of the total reserves are you getting?

    Mr. BECK. It usually in a very good recovery in a gas reservoir you might get 80 percent of the gas. In the case of oil, you may only get 10 percent to 20 percent of the reserves.

    Mr. REGULA. Tertiary, or do you use——

    Mr. BECK. You use water, flood and all of that. It is very difficult to get the oil out. Gas is a lot easier and, so, you tend to get more of that.
 Page 103       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    So, one of the things——

    Mr. REGULA. Is the technology improving to allow you to get a greater percentage of the oil?

    Mr. BECK. Yes. What you will end up doing is you do a water flood which will up the recovery and you can get up to 50 percent is probably the best you will do offshore.     Now, in California, we have gotten as much as 70 percent.

    Mr. REGULA. Do you have to frac these wells at all?

    Mr. BECK. No. These flow naturally.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. So, you use sands rather than——

    Mr. BECK. In fact, if anything, the sand flows into the well. You have to stop it from flowing in so they do what they call a gravel pack.

    Mr. REGULA. Do you case them?

    Mr. BECK. Yes. You case them.

    Mr. REGULA. How far down?

 Page 104       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. BECK. All the way to the total depth usually. If you will drill to 15,000 feet, you will run casing all the way down there.

    Mr. REGULA. What size are they usually?

    Mr. BECK. It tends to run usually most productions are about seven and seven and a half inches in diameter. And then you will run another liner inside that of about five inches and then you will run a three-inch tubing to bring the fluid to the surface. So, it is a very expensive operation to go ahead and do all that.

    Now, one of the ideas—we wanted to propose three different ideas in here—one was to use the environmental fund as already appropriated. The two other options that are available to us and one is a direct appropriation for the full $32.6 million. And the last one is to look at royalty relief. What we had done in the past, Seneca paid $21.2 million to the MMS last year.

    Mr. REGULA. In other words, to take a credit on that until you catch up.

    Mr. BECK. Right. Well, because we are very active in the Federal offshore. We are currently drilling out there and have two—

    Mr. REGULA. You market then to the refineries?

    Mr. BECK. Right.
 Page 105       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. You market your product to the refineries?

    Mr. BECK. We sell into the pipelines. And using the Royalty Relief Act we could run a credit against that to off-set——

    Mr. REGULA. You do not do any refining then?

    Mr. BECK. No. We are a small company and——

    Mr. REGULA. You are just a production company?

    Mr. BECK. We sell to Shell or Exxon or Tenneco or whoever happens to have the closest pipeline to when we find something.

    Mr. REGULA. How deep do you go once you hit the bottom, until you hit earth after you are through the water? How deep do you normally go beyond that?

    Mr. BECK. We have prospects that will drill down—we have got one prospect at 20,000 feet. We have drilled down 10,000 and over 7,000. So, we have gone——

    Mr. REGULA. On slant drilling?

    Mr. BECK. Slant drilling. So, we have, you know, and those wells would run you anywhere between $10 and $15 million to drill one of those wells.
 Page 106       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. I would think so.

    Mr. BECK. It is a very expensive operation.

    Mr. REGULA. You would have a problem if you lost your string down there, would you not?

    Mr. BECK. Well, we have done that, too. [Laughter.]

    [The statement of James Beck follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. Well, I am aware of your situation.

    Mr. BECK. Okay. Thank you very much, I appreciate it.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, thank you. An interesting technology.



 Page 107       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  



    Mr. REGULA. The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Mr. Max Peterson.

    Well, how are you, Max? Nice to see you.

    Mr. PETERSON. Good to see you and Debbie hanging in here.

    Mr. REGULA. Do you agree with Neal that it is unique phenomenon of groups like yours kind of to the United States?

    Mr. PETERSON. Yes. Ours is real unique since we represent the 50 State Fish and Wildlife agencies and also we have members of the provinces of Canada and Mexico.

    Mr. REGULA. Oh, do you?

    Mr. PETERSON. And we also work with the Fish and Wildlife Foundation. In fact, we support both their reauthorization and funding because of the leverage that they provide by getting private funding. So, we work with a large number of those kind of organizations and they do good work.
 Page 108       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Trying to figure out, Mr. Chairman, how to summarize testimony on five agencies. I decided it was impossible so I am going to file it for the record and will just hit a few high spots and maybe I can come up and talk to your staff.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay.

    So, that is fine.

    Mr. PETERSON. There are a few obvious inequities in the President's budget that we mention. Sometimes there is an increase in one agency and not in the other, you know, and you wonder how it kind of went through the OMB process.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, that is our job to make sure it turns out fair when it comes out the other end.

    Mr. PETERSON. None of these, we are saying, are not warranted but there are some, for example, the National Park Service has a large increase in reducing the backlog, there is a little bit in the Fish and Wildlife Service, both of which we support. But then neither the BLM or the Forest Service have any kind of increases to do that.

    So, if you are going to try to eliminate the backlog across Federal agencies, it is very inconsistent.

    Mr. REGULA. We are trying to address that problem for all the agencies.
 Page 109       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. PETERSON. Right. Then one of the things that we do support, too, is the increase that the Fish and Wildlife Service receive for endangered species. But there is no increase for the State side of that and the States have a large role in endangered species responsibility. In fact, in most cases, it is the States that have the data. The States that have zoning authority and other kinds of things that would help out in doing ECP. So, there is an inequity there which we wonder how it got into the system.

    Third there are many agencies that receive increased land acquisition money, as you have noted already but the State side, again, was zeroed out. And the States, as you know, have a major role in recreation, particularly close to home.

    Mr. REGULA. But let me say the State budgets are better off than ours.

    Mr. PETERSON. Yes. And I know that, but I think there is again an equity question that if you provide a little bit of money to your State of Ohio for outdoor recreation they will use some State money to go with it, some private money and they will multiply it. And that is one of the things that your committee has been quite good at, I think, is looking at multipliers.

    Mr. REGULA. Oh, yes. We have tried hard to make it work that way.

    Mr. PETERSON. Yes. I remember when we undertook the Challenge Cost Share program in the Forest Service, for example, that is now up to over $20 million that is being matched. And nobody ever thought of that kind of private sector money that could be——
 Page 110       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Well, that is the only way we could make it stretch.

    Mr. PETERSON. Right. Now, we are working very hard to get your share of the pie increased which you mentioned earlier. Unless we can get your share of the pie increased we continue to argue about smaller and smaller numbers.

    Mr. REGULA. Right.

    Mr. PETERSON. This afternoon, Mr. Chairman, we are going to testify on the reauthorization of the Wallop-Breaux Fund, which, as you know, uses——

    Mr. REGULA. That will be over in the other committee.

    Mr. PETERSON. Yes. It uses fishing tackle and so on. It is very important that the funding for that continue because of the sportsmen's dollars that go into that. So, with that, I will give you back a couple of minutes and I will look forward to coming up and talking to your staff.

    [The statement of Max Peterson follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. REGULA. Well, thank you for the testimony and I appreciate that.
 Page 111       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. PETERSON. Thank you.






    Mr. REGULA. The Society for Protective Legislation.

    Christine Stevens.

    Ms. STEVENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I am happy to be here and I would just submit my written testimony which is very specific.

    Mr. REGULA. Right. All of this will be made a part of the record.

 Page 112       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Ms. STEVENS. And I want to present you, if I may, with a copy of a book very recently published by our companion organization the Animal Welfare Institute, that goes into the fact on my testimony which is to increase the amount going to law enforcement division of the Fish and Wildlife Service by over $11 million. That is very much needed because of the severe criminal—I mean wildlife has kind of become a really enormous thing.

    Mr. REGULA. Poaching is what you are referring to?

    Ms. STEVENS. And smuggling. And also there is in the live animal trade. I mean the reptile and the amphibian trade has more or less substituted for the terrible bird trade that Operation Renegade so effectively cut down. Of course, it is still——

    Mr. REGULA. You are interested in our stronger support for the law enforcement of the Fish and Wildlife Service?

    Ms. STEVENS. That is what is desperately needed.

    Mr. REGULA. You mean for your organization, to some extent.

    Ms. STEVENS. Right. I have in my testimony, you will see, the different places, the amounts and the additional people that need to be hired in order to make it really efficient.

    This is really an extremely modest request. I know it is $11 million and that is not, does not sound, modest but it really is because they cover the whole United States and beyond. A lot of this is animals coming into the United States where the biggest consumer of wild animals and also of parts and products. There is a terrible, we have the rhino and tiger bill coming up, I think, in Congress and they are going to have to stop both in and out. It is shocking to say that there is more rhino and tiger products to be found, if you go seeking for them, in New York City than in Beijing.
 Page 113       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    So, that has become a target that we certainly have to do something about.

    Mr. REGULA. I understand.

    Ms. STEVENS. And also, of course, there is just the plain economic question because they are ripping the United States off. They are not paying any income taxes on what they are selling.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, we are trying to help that. We have money in here to help other countries to police their wildlife, rhinos and tigers, I think.

    Ms. STEVENS. Yes. That is important but we have got to be the tough folks.

    Mr. REGULA. If there is no market the poachers would be stymied. I mean, the market is here, that is part of the problem.

    Ms. STEVENS. Yes. That is the problem. And also in Europe there is a lot of market unfortunately.

    Mr. REGULA. Oh, yes.

    Ms. STEVENS. And it has grown enormously. The largest amount that we are asking for is for the forensics laboratory which must add to its size because the USDA wants to be sure that there will not be any wildlife diseases or diseases caught by domestic animals because people ship——
 Page 114       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Imports.

    Ms. STEVENS. That is it.

    So, that is a substantial amount that is being asked for but it is extremely important, too.

    Mr. REGULA. I can understand that.

    Ms. STEVENS. Yes.

    [The statement of Christine Stevens follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. REGULA. Thank you very much.

    Ms. STEVENS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope you can really take the bit in your teeth.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, I need money instead of a bit. [Laughter.]

    Mr. REGULA. But we need a better allocation.

 Page 115       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Thank you for coming.






    Mr. REGULA. The Maine Coast Heritage Trust.

    Mr. James Espy, President.

    Mr. ESPY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I am James Espy and I am the President of the Maine Coast Heritage Trust. We are a state-wide land trust in the State of Maine, I am grateful to be here today representing 70 local land trusts in the State of Maine that have more than 50,000 members now.

    I would also have to confess right here that although I am banished to the State of Maine, I am actually a native of Ohio, born and raised there. It is a good State to come from.
 Page 116       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. That is good for me.

    Mr. ESPY. I would like to speak about some of the successful partnerships that have been forged in Maine to protect nationally significant fish and wildlife habitat.

    Mr. REGULA. You are like the National Trust in the sense you have a pot of money that you can buy lands that are threatened?

    Mr. ESPY. We raise private dollars to try to—most of our work is done in partnership with other organizations.

    Mr. REGULA. And then hopefully some of it will be picked up by Federal or State agencies. So, you have a revolving fund.

    Mr. ESPY. We have a revolving fund. And we do not do a great deal of pre-acquisition for the Federal Government. Generally we are looking for ways that we can contribute toward their acquisition in some ways, so, that it——

    Mr. REGULA. And information on alerting them to the critical areas?

    Mr. ESPY. Actually with one program that I am going to speak about, the Gulf of Maine Coastal Ecosystem Program, they provide information.
 Page 117       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Okay.

    Mr. ESPY. So, we have been working with the Nature Conservancy, local trusts, land owners, and the Department of the Interior on a number of acquisitions in the State over the last few years. And through those, we have been able to leverage Federal dollars, more than two-to-one, protecting nearly 12,000 acres now throughout the State.

    I want to talk specifically about four programs. The North American Wetlands Conservation Grant is a program that, in the last few years, has allowed 5,000 acres of vital habitat to be protected. And, so, I ask you to, please, do what you can to try to increase their funding to the $15 million annual level.

    The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has been an essential partner in Maine. Through them we have protected over 5,700 acres at this point. They helped us establish a small grants program so that we can work at the local level through land trusts to try to leverage additional funding.

    And I would ask you to, please, consider a $10 million U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fund for them before it is too late in that arena.

    The Gulf of Maine Coastal Ecosystems Program, again of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and I mentioned this before. They operate in Maine providing information, biological information doing geographic information services for us. They have really helped us target what is important. They, at this point, have a very small budget. A million dollars to them each year would provide a tremendous leverage, all across the State. They are only able to work in a couple of areas right now and their mission is to work State-wide.
 Page 118       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Finally, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, Acadia National Park and Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge have a tremendous backlog of acquisitions they have been trying to do for the last few years, quite a few years. The Fiscal Year 1999 proposed budget, in addition to the Fiscal Year 1998 supplemental, would provide Acadia with $2.4 million and the Pitit Manan with $1.95 million. That is not quite enough but it goes a long way.

    Mr. REGULA. How is their maintenance situation?

    Mr. ESPY. Their maintenance budget I am not familiar with. I know that they have been able to do more with less over the few years that I have been associated with Acadia. But I know their acquisition budget, they have many willing sellers. They have over 220 properties in their designated boundary.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, we always reach a point of how much land should the Federal Government have. I mean we are sort of like farmers and I am one, all you want to own is what you have and what is next to it. It gets difficult, you know, because it costs money to take care of it once you have it, and we are on a fairly tight budget in this committee.

    Mr. ESPY. There are two properties, in particular, close to Acadia. One that is right in the downtown Bar Harbor area adjacent to a lot of lands that are used heavily by the public, the last remaining stretch of shore front that needs to be protected. In addition, there are two islands that are in a grouping of islands. The Park owns all the other islands and right in the middle are two islands that are not protected and are not owned by the park. This money would go to those two islands.
 Page 119       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. You know, in-holdings are a problem for us in a lot of areas and that is what these are.

    Mr. ESPY. That is what these are.

    [The statement of James Espy follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. REGULA. Thank you very much. You know we have a tight budget and we will do the best we can.

    Mr. ESPY. I know that you will.

    Thank you.





 Page 120       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. The Partnership for the National Trails System, Gary Werner.

    Mr. WERNER. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

    I thought that the spring was coming early to the Midwest but it is wonderful here in Washington. As you know, I am from Wisconsin.

    Mr. REGULA. It is snowing in Ohio.

    Mr. WERNER. Yes. Well, it has been fickle that way.

    Mr. REGULA. The first time this winter though.

    Mr. WERNER. Well, as you know, I do not need to tell you about the details of the National Trail System.

    Mr. REGULA. You are preaching to the choir on that one.

    Mr. WERNER. What I am here to do is to thank you for the level of support that you have been giving for the funding for the National Trail System and frankly also to thank you for the innovative ways that you have directed that funding, such as, for instance, the Challenge Cost Share funding for the National Parks Service.
 Page 121       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We have routinely been leveraging those dollars that you have been giving us at $2.50 to $1 for projects and in 1997 have accomplished so far 88 separate projects on the trails across the country.

    The thing about it is that the $600,000 each year you have been able to give us, for every project we fund, there is at least one more that is waiting out there for, you know, for more leverage.

    Mr. REGULA. Yes, I understand.

    Mr. WERNER. So, I just think that is a marvelous program.

    I am also here to happily report that we continue to maintain our high level of support in the partnerships for the trail system. Again, last year we have documented about 450,000 hours of volunteer labor that have been poured into the trails and the value of that labor, plus additional monetary contributions, contributed by the various trail organizations equals nearly $10 million.

    This is significant because I am here, and in the testimony that I prepared, to ask you to make a significant funding increase for the National Trail System, a total of $5.2 million for the National Park Service administered trails, 15 trails; $2.8 million for the Forest Service trails; and $1.36 million for the Bureau of Land Management administered trails.

    If you add those three numbers up it comes to about $9.5 million. So, I am basically saying we would like to match our contribution level with a contribution level from the Federal Government in these partnerships.
 Page 122       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The money can be used in several, I think, innovative ways to continue what I would say is the wonderful track record of this committee in guiding money in ways that have strengthened partnerships and have leveraged it.

    One of the things I want to point out is that one of the difficulties we have is that there are eight of the National Park Service administered trails that have been stuck at a very low funding level. Their average annual funding is about $46,000, which is barely enough to do anything.

    Mr. REGULA. A lot of our programs are stuck because we are stuck with an allocation.

    Mr. WERNER. We understand that and we have worked with others in the conservation community to carry the message to your colleagues in the budget committees about the needs for the programs that you are most concerned about.

    Some of the money—and it is detailed in my testimony—would go to improving the funding for these trails. One of the other things that we are trying to promote is better collaboration between the Federal agencies, the Park Service, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. The North Country Trail, with which you are quite familiar, is a good case in point where with the Wayne National Forest and others in five of the other trail States——

    Mr. REGULA. They should be coordinated.
 Page 123       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. WERNER. Well, unfortunately, the funding level for both agencies does not seem to enable them to do it the way it should happen. I am asking that you give some more guidance in that regard and funding to go with it.

    Secondly, in general for the trails that are administered by the Forest Service, the Florida Trail, the Continental Divide Trail, the Pacific Crest Trail and the Nez Perce Trail, these are all trails that are at least a 1,000 miles in length, each one of them. Several, the Continental Divide and the Pacific Crest Trail, are well over 2,000 miles, crossing many jurisdictions and involving literally hundreds of thousands of acres of land that they cross through.

    The point I am getting to is that they are as complex in their management administration as any of the National Forests and, yet, the Forest Service treats them as sort of an ancillary aspect of their administration.

    You did an important thing last year in directing money specifically for those trails and we would like you to continue it. We would like you to encourage the Forest Service to treat these as separate management units.

    Lastly, I would like to repeat what I suggested last year and that is an innovative way to use some of the Land and Water Conservation Fund money. I know, I am hoping that with the supplemental Fiscal Year 1998 money, you will be able to complete the Appalachian Trial project over the next couple of years.

 Page 124       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. I would like to.

    Mr. WERNER. There are critical resources on some of the other National scenic and historic trails, like the North Country Trail, that several of the States are working to try to protect. I am urging you to consider a grant to the States of Michigan, New York, Florida and Wisconsin, which have programs to support the North Country, Ice Age and Florida Trails, from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to match State and private monies to help the States acquire rights-of-way and critical sites for those Trails.

    So, those are several ways in which you could continue the kind of support and innovative ways of, I think, strengthening the partnerships between the Federal Government and private citizens to make these Trails a reality.

    [The statement of Gary Werner follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. Thank you very much. We will do as well as we can given our resources.

    Mr. WERNER. Thanks.


 Page 125       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  




    Mr. REGULA. Dan Rice, from the great State of Ohio.

    Mr. RICE. Thank you very much, Mr. Regula.

    Mr. REGULA. I know your story, Dan, so, please keep it short. [Laughter.]

    Mr. RICE. Well, if I am preaching to the choir you certainly are the choir director, sir, when it comes to heritage areas and we certainly appreciate the opportunity for us to share some information with you about not only the Ohio and Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor but also the other heritage areas across the country, the Alliance of National Heritage Areas.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, do not encourage too many more though, because we do not have the funding to take care of them. Let us take care of what we have.

    Mr. RICE. Absolutely. And actually that is a very good point. I mean the Alliance of National Heritage Areas is not about creating new heritage areas. It is making the ones that already exist successful, as you well know. And our mission, as I outline in my testimony, is to ensure the mutual success of all the National Heritage Areas.
 Page 126       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    And if I can just give you a couple of examples. You talked about leveraging, and along the Ohio and Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor, right in Stark County, just about $125,000 of Federal funds will be used to leverage over $600,000 of private, local and State funding.

    Mr. REGULA. Yes. That has been a real success story so far.

    Mr. RICE. Exactly and another good example would be in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, with the work the Rivers of Steel Heritage Corridor, in which they are renovating a historic building using about $500,000 of Federal funds which are leveraging over $10.6 million of local, private and State funding.

    Mr. REGULA. Is this a corridor along the Ohio River?

    Mr. RICE. Actually it is along the Monogahela, and the Allegheny River right there in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.     Mr. REGULA. Steel-making corridor at one time, is that it?

    Mr. RICE. Exactly. It is one of the heritage areas located in Pittsburgh called Rivers of Steel.

    Mr. REGULA. How long is that one?

    Mr. RICE. It is about a five-county project and it has been around for about eight years or more and it is, again, very successful. It is very similar.
 Page 127       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Is there hiking?

    Mr. RICE. Hiking and recreational resources, and historic resources.

    Mr. REGULA. It follows the rivers?

    Mr. RICE. Exactly, it follows the rivers and has a lot to do with the steel industry.

    Mr. REGULA. Right.

    Mr. RICE. And the history of labor in that particular region of the country. That is what is really neat about the different Alliance members. Each of the 16 National Heritage Areas is unique to our American heritage. By building partnerships at the local, State and Federal level we can really provide greater leverage support, financial as well as technical assistance.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay.

    Mr. RICE. Just two key points, though. In 1997, $4.5 million was appropriated for the Heritage Areas and the President's budget is asking for $5.5 million. Each of the Heritage Areas is going to approach you as well as their members are going to approach you about their individual areas.
 Page 128       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The Alliance is not going to take a position on any particular area. We want to support our individual Heritage Areas because, as we know, each one is at a different stage of development. The only area that we would like to emphasize is in terms of technical assistance. Last year $850,000 was appropriated. We are working with the Park Service on how that is to be spent.

    Because Shenandoah was added last year, we would like, if possible, to see an increase to $987,000. It is just a small increase but, again, it would provide technical assistance which is very valuable for the folks.

    Mr. REGULA. I understand your concern.

    Mr. RICE. And more than anything else, I mean truly the Heritage Areas represent the way in which we can leverage partnerships at the local level and preserve our nation's heritage.

    [The statement of Daniel Rice follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. Thank you, Dan.

    Mr. RICE. Thank you very much, Mr. Regula.

 Page 129       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. The committee will be in recess until 1:30 p.m.






    Mr. REGULA. Our first witness this afternoon is——

    Ms. LONGSWORTH. Nellie.

    Mr. REGULA [continuing]. Preservation Action. Nellie.

    Nice to see you again.

    Ms. LONGSWORTH. Thank you. It is nice to see you.

    I am Nellie Longsworth, president of Preservation Action, and I have been doing this for 23 years. I have to, first of all, say that when I looked at the President's budget and I looked at the Historic Preservation Fund, I could not believe that there were six figures there. I mean, it was a huge shock. We worked for a lot of years.
 Page 130       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Well, the President had the luxury of sending up a budget without the revenues. I mean, he is asking for a billion-and-a-half more dollars in our committee, but he says he is going to balance the budget, and the two do not really fit. I do not know where the billion-and-a-half is coming from.

    I suspect when we get our allocation from the Budget Committee, it will be a billion-and-a-half under what the President is talking about, just so you can understand.

    So it does create expectations. He knows better. That is a little game they play down at the White House. I can tell my wife, ''Spend a thousand dollars, and put $500 in the checking account,'' and that is reality. That is the kind of game that gets played in this town.

    Ms. LONGSWORTH. Well, and we know that, but, still, it has never happened in historic preservation before. We have always had to look at other places that were even getting the attention——

    Mr. REGULA. Well, I think the——

    Ms. LONGSWORTH [continuing]. The White House, no matter who is there.

    Mr. REGULA [continuing]. First Lady is very interested in historic preservation. That may be part of it, and I am taking your time here. So you are going to have to be brief. Digest what you have there.
 Page 131       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Ms. LONGSWORTH. Okay. Well, I just wanted to say that we think that there have been some basically very fine increases in the program, increases for the tribes, increases—in fact, it is increases all across the line.

    I did want to note that we did like the President's millennium program, the Save Our Treasures program, and we do think that being directed towards the restoration or rehab of buildings, monuments, artifacts, and collections, that the $25 million to Federal agencies, $25 million to States and tribes would be excellent, but we think there is more than that. We think this is a tremendous opportunity to, number one, electrify Americans and give rise to the fixing up of the landmarks at the local level. And we think there is a great potential that we will work for to leverage private and corporate funds.

    Mr. REGULA. Why don't you give me a list of the ones you think ought to be done.

    Ms. LONGSWORTH. Guess what?

    Mr. REGULA. You have one with you?

    Ms. LONGSWORTH. I have all of these that have been sent in to Preservation Action by people who heard that this had happened, and they are everything from theaters to Ellis Island.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, you pick out the good ones and give them to me.
 Page 132       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Ms. LONGSWORTH. I will pick them out, and I send them up to you.

    Mr. REGULA. Seriously, because $50 million does not go very far.

    Ms. LONGSWORTH. No, but if we can get private sector involved——

    Mr. REGULA. That is the key. It is to leverage.

    Ms. LONGSWORTH [continuing]. And leverage, yes.

    Mr. REGULA. Absolutely.

    Ms. LONGSWORTH. And I say I think this will bring the country together in a celebration of our past.

    So, as I say it, quickly I will move on and applaud other increases, but our biggest disappointment in the President's budget was the level of funding for the States, and we think somewhere it is not recognized that the States are the real workhorses of the infrastructure for historic preservation.

    This is an ideal Federalism program where the States are carrying out the Federal mandates on a matching-grant basis, and we think it is important to have decisions made by professionals close to the location of the National Register nomination site, tax certification, or 106 agreement. It does not seem fair when there are increases for new programs that there is none for the State programs.
 Page 133       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. But the States are prosperous. In Ohio, we have surplus. Most of the States have a surplus. They have had balanced budgets for a long time, and I have to raise the question. Why don't the States do their own stuff? Maybe we ought to get a grant from the States to the Federal Government.

    Basically, it is all one set of taxpayers, same people paying in Ohio that pay for this. So there is no magic to Federal funding going to the States. It is still coming from the same taxpayers, and they have a surplus.

    Ms. LONGSWORTH. I think our point is that these States are carrying out federally mandated activities; that if the States were not doing this, this would all come back to Washington, D.C., to one little office, the National Park Service.

    Mr. REGULA. But it might not come back anywhere.

    Ms. LONGSWORTH. Well, that is what—we do not want that at all.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, I know, but I think that groups like yours ought to make a greater effort to get the States moving on these things.

    Ms. LONGSWORTH. Well, we are doing that. We are working on it.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, I am not being critical. I am just saying the States have good budgets, in many instances much better than ours, and, yet, they come here for money.
 Page 134       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Ms. LONGSWORTH. But aren't we supposed to be pushing a surplus this year——

    Mr. REGULA. Well, that——

    Ms. LONGSWORTH [continuing]. That we will also be like our fellows in the States?

    Mr. REGULA [continuing]. Surplus, it is the eye of the beholder, but there is no surplus. That is because we take the money out of the Social Security fund. If we did not do that, there would be a deficit of about a hundred billion dollars. So we are kidding ourselves, and we are cheating the baby-boomers that are coming down the road, but you are not here to talk economics.

    Ms. LONGSWORTH. I have some of those baby-boomers, and I want some protection.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, yes, you do. Okay.

    Ms. LONGSWORTH. But, anyway, I just want to add one thing. We ask the committee to look carefully at this, and we ask you to prioritize the funding of federally mandated programs before these new programs because there are quite a few new programs in this particular area.

 Page 135       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    We have supported a balanced program, and we think it is the best interest for the Congress to fund the States for the work they do for these Federal programs.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, when you——

    Ms. LONGSWORTH. We are not saying fund the States for what the States do. This is not a State giveaway. This is not a pass-through. The States match the monies 50/50. So I am saying they are doing the work of the Federal Government, but they are doing it closer to the site. They are making it—they are doing it efficiently, and it is just something I would like to call your attention to, to give an extra look.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay.

    Ms. LONGSWORTH. It will not cost $1.5 billion.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, no, but the total budget they sent up all across the board is about that much more, $1.1 billion.

    Ms. LONGSWORTH. And I will pick out some of these.

    Mr. REGULA. Yes. We would be interested——

    Ms. LONGSWORTH. We will send them up to you.

    Mr. REGULA [continuing]. Because if we do the millennium program, we are not going to just ship money around willy-nilly. It is going to have to be for things that have a great national significance, and we need to know what those are. We are trying in this committee, at least in my stewardship, to manage the people's money carefully and get as much result as possible.
 Page 136       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Ms. LONGSWORTH. And can I add that I think this committee has done an excellent job.

    Mr. REGULA. We have been trying, really.

    Ms. LONGSWORTH. We appreciate it.

    Mr. REGULA. Thank you very much.

    Ms. LONGSWORTH. Thank you.

    [The statement of Nellie Longsworth follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."





 Page 137       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Kane County Commissioner Joe Judd and—oh, Chris—oh, there you are. And the Mayor of——

    Mr. CANNON. Can I submit an opening statement for the record?

    Mr. REGULA. Sure.

    Mr. CANNON. And also a statement by Commissioner Louise Liston from Garfield County, one of the counties affected by the——

    Mr. REGULA. I think you have been here before.

    Mr. CANNON. Then, with no further ado, let me turn the table over to my friend——

    Mr. REGULA. Okay.

    Mr. CANNON [continuing]. Joe Judd, followed by Karen Alvey who is the mayor of Kanab.

    Mr. REGULA. Right.

    Mr. JUDD. Thank you.

 Page 138       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am Commissioner Joe Judd, representing Kane County Commission. I have been accompanied here by the Honorable Karen Alvey, mayor of Kanab City. She will cover the expanding role of the local communities and the monument planning and the management process.

    I thank you for accepting my testimony last year, listening to it, and helping to establish Kane County as a sanctioned participant in the program. We are working with the Department of the Interior, working with the BLM, to build a true partnership, and the citizens of the county are contributing their time and expertise to make this monument a great monument.

    I would like to thank the Utah Congressional Delegation, and particularly Representative Cannon for his time and advice through this last year for keeping the monument issues before the Congress. My written statement——

    Mr. REGULA. You have done that very well.

    Mr. JUDD. We are very proud of him.

    My written statement will explain why we need to begin funding certain facilities this year.

    First, we must have a visitor's center to provide both basic and interpretative programs. This area is a large area, 3,000——

 Page 139       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. Doesn't the——

    Mr. JUDD. Grand Staircase National Monument.

    Mr. REGULA. Yes, I understand. Doesn't the Federal—what is it? BLM, the agency of jurisdiction do the interpretive programs, or do you do some of that?

    Mr. JUDD. Not just yet. We are in the process of a plan, Congressman, and it is a 3-year planning process.

    Mr. REGULA. And you are involved as a county.

    Mr. JUDD. And we are involved in that, naturally, because we hope that we will put together a plan that we can all live with. It is 3,125 square miles, and there is no food or water. It is really a primitive area, as you know.

    It is a very unforgiving country, and the people outside of Southern Utah really do not have much knowledge of it.

    The plans call for a campground to be located in this same place where this interpretative center would be. The campground would have drinking water and showers and rest rooms.

    Mr. Chairman, the planning and design must begin as soon as possible. I wish that we could start right now, but the funds, at least $650,000, have to be included in the FY 1999 bill.
 Page 140       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. And $250,000 in 1998, right?

    Mr. JUDD. There is $250,000, correct, and we need more than that to do what is necessary.

    Second, there is a similar need for information in the two peripheral entry locations at Big Water and Glendale. It will be simple information interpretative centers, with drinking water——

    Mr. REGULA. But won't the Federal agencies build those?

    Mr. JUDD. We are hoping that they will.

    Mr. REGULA. It would seem to me that much of what you are talking about is the responsibility of the agency——

    Mr. JUDD. I could not agree more.

    Mr. REGULA [continuing]. In charge.

    Mr. JUDD. Calling to your attention the fact that in the planning process, that has not been called for just as yet.

    The money that we had, because of this committee's action, allowed us to put a planning process in action. Part of that planning process drew focus on the fact that there are certain transportation needs.
 Page 141       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Well, it is my understanding you had safety——

    Mr. JUDD. Yes.

    Mr. REGULA [continuing]. And health was your concern, a major concern.

    Mr. JUDD. Yes. Law enforcement and all those things——

    Mr. REGULA. Law enforcement, yes.

    Mr. JUDD [continuing]. Would make sure that we do those things necessary, and these interpretative centers, on a periphery of the monument itself, hopefully we will be able to warn them of the ruggedness of the area, inform visitors of the accessible scenic sights, and the total cost of these two centers, we would feel, would cost $440,000. We need that to be an add-on to the appropriation.

    Mr. REGULA. Was BLM underway in doing this? It is their function.

    Mr. JUDD. They are just in a study, Congressman, just in a study of the area as to how to put the plan together.

 Page 142       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. It seems to me they should have responsibility for that.

    Mr. JUDD. I agree, and we have drawn this to their attention through you, hopefully, and we are working together with the Interior and the BLM.

    Now, the third level of participation and responsibility, the country grows each year with a coming implementation, and the first elements of the plan, sharing with the local communities, and the requirements will be $500,000 for the next year. That is $250,000 over the reported, included for us in the President's budget. We ask that that be an add-on for that amount.

    Finally, I would like to mention that, really, our number-one priority, you will be pleased to hear, no funding is involved. In connection with this priority is the BLM monument headquarters, after the 1996 proclamation by the President, the agency entered into a 3-year lease for headquarters space in Cedar City, 80 miles from the monument. At that time, the agency——

    Mr. REGULA. Outside the monument?

    Mr. JUDD. Yes, 80 miles away. They found a location that would meet their needs, and we all agreed amicably that it was fine for a 3-year period during the time of the planning.

    At that time, the agency said a permanent location for the headquarters would be adjacent to the monument. There is now 1 1/2 years left on the lease. We are working with an agency to find an appropriate site, close to the monument, one that is adequate, community amenities for their full-time staff, and our plan is to finance the building and then lease it back to the agency. We ask only that there be some expression of expectation by the committee, and the agency will continue to work with us and not sign another lease, referring to our opportunity to help house them.
 Page 143       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Yes, I can understand that.

    Mr. JUDD. I will now let Mayor Alvey address the community involvement.

    Mr. REGULA. We are about out of time. I hate to say that, but——

    Ms. ALVEY. I am quick.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay.

    Ms. ALVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to say a few things.

    I have been working very closely with the mayors from the Gateway communities of the monument. We are now in the process of adopting a resolution, which details an agreement between the communities. A copy of the resolution is included in my written statement.

    We are determined to bring the permanent monument headquarters to Kanab. The Kanab City Council has adopted a resolution in making this a reality. We are willing to finance the construction of a new facility through grants and revenue bonds, leasing back the facility to——

 Page 144       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. How close is that to the boundary?

    Ms. ALVEY. We are about 10 miles.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay.

    Ms. ALVEY. If not even a little bit closer.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay.

    Ms. ALVEY. So, someday, we hope to make this monument a real showcase, and so, to do that, we think that we need the monument headquarters.

    Mr. REGULA. How big is Kanab?

    Ms. ALVEY. It is about 5,000.

    Mr. REGULA. It is a county seat?

    Ms. ALVEY. It is.

    Mr. JUDD. Correct.

    Ms. ALVEY. Yes.

 Page 145       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. Okay. Well——

    Ms. ALVEY. We would like to invite you to come out and see us sometime.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, I would like to get there. Yes, it would be interesting.

    You have been out there, haven't you, Debbie?

    Mr. JUDD. Yes, she has.

    Ms. WEATHERLY. It was all snowed in, though.

    Mr. CANNON. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, what these two representatives of the area are suggesting is that this is an unprecedented situation, and all of the towns and the two counties that are involved are coming together on a complementary plan with what the BLM is doing. They would like to have the ability to actually do some of those things and make the monument a really great experience.

    Mr. REGULA. That sounds like it is a good effort of working together.

    Mr. JUDD. Trying very hard. With your help so far, Congressman, we have done a pretty good job with Joel. We have really appreciated being able to work with you.
 Page 146       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. Well, thank you very much for coming.

    Ms. ALVEY. Thank you.

    Mr. JUDD. Thank you.

    [The statement of Joe Judd and Karen Alvey follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."






    Mr. REGULA. Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests. Mr. Niebling?

    Mr. NIEBLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 147       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I appreciate——

    Mr. REGULA. If you summarize, this will help.

    Mr. NIEBLING. Yes, I will. Yes. I am not going to read my statement.

    I appreciate very much the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon. The Forest Society was founded in 1901 to protect the White Mountains of Northern New Hampshire. We led a 10-year effort to pass the Weeks Act, which Congress approved in 1911. We have a long history of involvement and association with the Forest Service and with our national forest.

    We also very much support and promote good forestry on both public and private lands, and we practice what we preach. We are unique among State-based conservation organizations in that we own——

    Mr. REGULA. The New Hampshire Forest, is that private as well as public, or just the Federal?

    Mr. NIEBLING. Private as well as public, yes.

    Mr. REGULA. It covers the whole area?

 Page 148       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. NIEBLING. Yes. We own 30,000 acres of lands ourselves which we sustainably manage for timber and other purposes, yes.

    I am going to touch on three items this afternoon, as quickly as I can; first, the Land and Water Conservation Fund and, particularly, the restoration of some funding to the Stateside Program; secondly, the Forest Legacy Program within the State and private budget of the Forest Service. I will briefly touch on a few other programs within the State and private budget.

    I do also want to mention a few brief comments about the Forest Service research budget, and if I have time, I would like to philosophize, I guess, a bit on the National Forest System and some of the concerns that we have.

    Mr. REGULA. You can have a few minutes.

    Mr. NIEBLING. Okay, thank you.

    We support a full appropriation or authorize appropriation to the Land and Water Conservation Fund for fiscal 1999. If failing that, we hope that at least a third of what is appropriated will be committed to the Stateside fund. We think that the program has worked well. It has helped 126 communities in New Hampshire. There have been over 600 projects. It is efficiently administered, and we are very eager to see some modest funding to the Stateside program restored in fiscal 1999.

    Our Governor and the other five New England Governors recently adopted a resolution relative to this, which is part of—attached to my testimony.
 Page 149       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The President in his fiscal 1999 budget proposed $1.8 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for acquisition of lands within the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, and I also did want to express our support for the President's request relative to that particular refuge within both the State of New Hampshire and Maine.

    On Forest Legacy, Mr. Chairman, the Forest Society has a long history of working with conservation easements on private lands.

    Mr. NETHERCUTT [presiding]. Sorry. You have 2 minutes left.

    Mr. NIEBLING. Do I get a little additional time?

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. I do not know. Two minutes, is what I am told.

    Mr. NIEBLING. All right. Fair enough.

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. So do your best.

    Mr. NIEBLING. We are eager to see Legacy given the opportunity to work. It was authorized in the 1990 farm bill. Since then, it has been funded at what I would call sort of a life-support level, and we favor seeing the appropriation to Legacy increased substantially. We are requesting $25 million for that program in fiscal 1999.

    Within the Forest Service research budget, I wanted to express our very strong support for the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program. I have appeared before this subcommittee in past years expressing strong support for FIA, as it is called, and I do understand that the President has proposed some increased funding for the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, and we strongly support that. It is the absolute foundation of good forest policy in our State, if not all States.
 Page 150       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Currently, New Hampshire is at a 15-year inventory cycle. We support funding to get that cycled down to 10 years.

    Finally, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say a few words about the national forest system and its current troubled state of affairs. As I mentioned to Chairman Regula, our organization promoted the passage of the Weeks Act in the early part of this century. We have 97 years of history advocating for the national forest system, and we are deeply concerned by the agency's increasing inability to meet its multiple-use mandate and to fully implement, economically implement our forest plan adopted in 1986.

    This committee sent a very strong message last year when it included language in the fiscal 1998 conference committee report imposing a moratorium on forest planning. We are being asked to go into an exhaustive process of forest planning, with no expectation that what comes out on the other end will be implemented. I want you to understand that we understand your frustration. We would like to work very closely with our congressional delegation to explore some creative alternatives to the current structure of the way our national forests are managed.

    To that end, I would urge support from this committee for perhaps some pilot funding for various alternative models that are being proposed by groups like the Thoreau Institute, the Forest Options Group, and I think that we are at a time where we need to begin evaluating some different approaches that give a greater variety of people, more of a direct say in how the lands are managed.

    It seems to me that, more and more, the professionals on the ground in our national forests do not have the authority and the privilege of being held—I should not say the privilege—the right to be held accountable to their decisions. Everything seems to be coming from the administration these days, and that is terribly frustrating to us.
 Page 151       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    So, with that, I will conclude my testimony and be pleased to answer any questions if you have any.

    [The statement of Charles R. Niebling follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. We appreciate your being here before the subcommittee, and we will make sure your testimony is a part of the record. We appreciate your coming.

    Mr. NIEBLING. Thank you.

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you so much.





 Page 152       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. The next witness will be The Wilderness Society, Michael Francis, Director of the National Forests Program.

    Welcome, sir.

    Mr. FRANCIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. You are very welcome.

    If you have a prepared statement, it will become part of the record, and we are delighted to have you summarize it in the 5-minute time allotment that you have.

    Mr. FRANCIS. I think I can handle it, 5 minutes, I hope.

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you.

    Mr. FRANCIS. On behalf of the 206,000 members of The Wilderness Society, I appreciate the opportunity to present our views on the values and funding needs of the natural resource of programs of the Interior Department and the USDA Forest Service. A summary of our recommendations are as follows.

    For the National Park Service, The Wilderness Society recommends an added $630 million to meet the operational and safety needs of the Nation's park system in FY 1999.

 Page 153       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    The Bureau of Land Management, The Wilderness Society recommends an increase of $125 million to support BLM.

    Fish and Wildlife Service, The Wilderness Society urges you to appropriate $275 million for refuge operations and maintenance in FY 1999. This is a $55-million increase that we are requesting over 1998 funding.

    For the Land and Water Conservation Fund, this is a visionary program that has produced an extraordinary gift of conservation, open spaces, outdoor recreation for our Nation. The Wilderness Society supports full funding of the $900 million for FY 1999.

    The Biological Resource Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, The Wilderness Society believes there is a need for a minimum of $185 million in new appropriations for BRD, and for my favorite topic, the Forest Service.

    Since its creation, the national forest system has been subject to intense and conflicting pressures. The Nation's forests provide less than 4 percent of the timber harvested in this country, but they offer the greatest land area for wildlife habitat, recreational opportunity, and water supply for use by all Americans.

    The Congress should de-fund environmentally damaging subsidized activities of the Forest Service in FY 1999 in passing an appropriation bill that focuses on conservation of our forest resources. To this end, The Wilderness Society recommends the following changes in the Forest Service appropriation for FY 1999.

 Page 154       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    First, eliminate the subsidized funding of forest logging roads for a savings of $37 million.

    Second, eliminate the appropriated subsidy for Forest Service's commercial timber program by reducing funding for the forest land management account by $110 million, leaving $147 million in that account. The $147 million that would be saved by these reductions should be added to other Forest Service programs, along with additional funding that is needed.

    In particular, for forest roads, The Wilderness Society recommends an additional $100 million for a total of $207 million in road maintenance. This will greatly enhance the Forest Service's ability to establish a 5-year goal of obliterating 40,000 miles of unneeded and unnecessary roads.

    There is an estimated 433,000 miles of roads in the national forest system, including 60,000 miles of unplanned and unmanaged roads. The agency has requested $107 million to maintain the existing roads and obliterate 3,500 miles. The Forest Service should establish a more aggressive road obliteration maintenance bridge and culvert repair schedule.

    For forest research, we recommend a total of $250 million.

    For the conservation and recreation programs, The Wilderness Society specifically singles out a recommendation for $120 million in wilderness management for the fiscal year 1999.

    For wildlife and fish habitat management, the Society recommends an appropriation of $200 million for these wildlife and fish programs in the Forest Service.
 Page 155       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    For Forest Legacy Program, The Wilderness Society recommends $15 million in order for the program to function more effectively as a national program. Funding at this level will enable this chronically underfunded program to complete projects more rapidly, expand the program to more States, and respond more effectively to the needs of timberland owners and to save a significant amount of threatened timberland

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you very much for being here today.

    [The statement of Michael Francis follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."






 Page 156       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. NETHERCUTT. The next witness is the Museum of Science and Industry, David R. Mosena.

    Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, if I may?

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. Yes, sir.

    Mr. YATES. I would like to present Mr. Mosena by saying that he heads the Museum of Science and Industry, which is one of the great educational and cultural forces in the City of Chicago.

    I was there almost every Sunday with—my son, and they are creative. They are imaginative. They have a coal mine in the center of the museum, and you go down into the coal mine as though you were a miner. They have other exhibitions that are incredible.

    It is a privilege to present him today, Mr. Chairman, because it is such an outstanding museum, and, of course, he himself is an outstanding person.

    I believe he is testifying in favor of an appropriation by the Federal Government for a submarine that was captured in World War II, and he will tell you all about it. It is a heroic story, and I am sure you would like to hear it.

    Mr. Mosena.

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. With that great introduction from Mr. Yates, you are very welcome here, sir, and we are delighted to have you. Your testimony will be made a part of the record and we are happy to have you testify here today.
 Page 157       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. MOSENA. Maybe I should say thank you and stop right there.

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. That is great. There is nothing more to say, right?

    Mr. YATES. It would be wise. [Laughter.]

    Mr. MOSENA. Congressman Yates, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman—Nethercutt—thank you for providing us the opportunity to testify here today.

    With me is Ward Quaals who is the retired chairman of the Tribune Broadcasting Company in Chicago, who is leading up the private fund-raising side for this effort. We are here seeking half of the funds from the Federal Government.

    As Congressman Yates said, I serve as the president of the museum, and first opening our doors in 1933, we are the oldest science museum of our kind in the western world. We attract roughly 2 million people a year, and we are one of the top cultural destinations in the City of Chicago and among the seven most visited museums in the United States.

    In 1954, we acquired a World War II-captured German submarine, the only Man of War to be captured by the U.S. Navy since the War of 1812.

    The capture of the U–505, 2 days before D-Day, enabled the allies to break the German code, and within 60 days, all German U-boats were disabled hastening the end of the battle of the Atlantic.
 Page 158       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Since coming to the museum, the submarine has been viewed by over 20 million people and has served as a monument to the 55,000 Americans killed at sea during World Wars I and II.

    The Museum of Science and Industry was the first museum in North America to develop the idea of hands-on interactive exhibits, and during a 20-minute guided tour of the submarine and adjacent galleries, visitors get a taste of life on board the submarine, while also hearing about the science of World War II submarine warfare.

    Unfortunately, the U–505 was not designed to be out of water and certainly not designed by the Germans to be in the Chicago winters all these years. It has been outside the museum exposed to——

    Mr. YATES. I would say neither were we. [Laughter.]

    Mr. MOSENA. It has been exposed to both drastic temperature changes and humidity changes over the years, and the interior, the hull and the deck of the submarine are deteriorating at a very alarming rate.

    Due to the national significance of this artifact, the museum launched a plan in 1996 to restore the U–505 and to relocate it to a climate-controlled facility, thereby protecting it for future generations.

    We also plan to connect the submarine to a $5-million exhibit, which opened in 1994, called Navy Technology at Sea.
 Page 159       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Last October, we held a private fund-raising kickoff. This is a point that the Congressman referred to, a fund-raising kickoff event, which was attended by numerous veterans of World War II, some having served on the U–505 itself at the time of its capture. In fact, a fascinating story about that event was that one of the German sailors on board the boat as it was being captured pull the plug to scuttle the boat and sink it, and one of the American sailors who had never been on a submarine before dove down the tower, found the plug, and stuck it back in and saved it. Both of these gentlemen are still alive, and both came to our fund-raising party as we kicked off the effort to raise the funds, which shows that we not only exhibit—do great exhibits and great education at the museum, but we can also bring old enemies together as friends.

    Mr. Chairman, in 1989, the U–505 was designated a national historic landmark. It has since been placed on the National Park Service's Priority One list of distressed objects. In fiscal year 1999, the museum is seeking the remaining Federal share of half the cost of restoring and relocating the U–505. That is $2.1 million.

    We have been solely responsible for the vessel ourselves since 1954 and have never requested before Federal funds to restore or maintain it. We ask the subcommittee to consider funding the remaining Federal share of the restoration of this Priority One artifact with the National Park Service's historic preservation fund account in fiscal year 1999.

    The total cost of the project is $6 million, and $3 million will be raised by private sources led by the Tribune Company and Mr. Quaals and his colleagues.

    Since we began our fund-raising effort in October, we have already raised on the private side. Mr. Chairman, the Museum of Science and Industry thanks you for this opportunity to speak to you and present this testimony, and we very much thank Congressman Yates for all his support over the years.
 Page 160       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. You are very welcome, and it is interesting to acknowledge that you have approached it on a public-private arrangement relationship, which I think has proven to be successful in this atmosphere of tough budgets and trying to balance things and prioritize our spending. So we will certainly give it all consideration.

    You have a champion here on your side. I yield to Mr. Yates for any comments he has.

    Mr. YATES. I really have no questions. I think he has covered everything.

    Ward, how successful is your drive getting to be?

    Mr. QUAALS. It is going to be very successful. We will deliver as soon—we will deliver. The Tribune Company will commit a minimum of a half-million dollars. That is the minimum from our company. We will also champion the project, Mr. Yates, on radio, television, and in the newspaper. We are willing to do anything we can to stimulate additional civic campaigns on behalf of the fund. We will get the job done.

    Mr. YATES. I am sure you will. Thank you very much.

    Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. MOSENA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 161       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you both for coming.

    [The statement of David R. Mosena follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."





    Mr. NETHERCUTT. The next witness will be the National Volunteer Fire Council, Allen—Kightlinger?

    Mr. KIGHTLINGER. Very good.

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. Good. ''Nethercutt'' is hard, too. So I can relate to long names. Welcome, sir, and as I stated to the other witnesses, your testimony will become part of the record, and we are delighted to have you here.

    Mr. KIGHTLINGER. Thank you.
 Page 162       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    My name is Allen Kightlinger. I am the Nevada director for the National Volunteer Fire Council and deputy chief for the City of Elk Fire Department. Prior to that, I was a rural volunteer fireman, and in 24 years in fire management helping to administer the Rural Community Fire Protection Act.

    I am here representing the National Volunteer Fire Council to recommend the increased appropriation, up to $10 million, to what has now been changed to the Rural Volunteer Assistance Act as part of the USDA Forest Service.

    We have presented our facts in our prepared testimony there and wanted to just expound on them a little bit. Rural fire protection in America is primarily provided by the volunteer fire service in, adjacent to Federal lands, communities, and large metropolitan areas. The Volunteer Assistance Act funds directly affect the delivery of those services, directly affect the viability of the volunteer fire service, and directly affect the viability of protecting Federal lands with volunteers.

    Throughout all the previous testimony, it has been very significant that you and Congress are looking towards a partnership. Of all of the programs that Congress does, we happen to be prejudiced that this is one of the best, and that it is a guaranteed, mandated pass-through of funds through the Forest Service, with no administrative fees allowed to be taken out at State and Federal levels. It has to be matched dollar for dollar or more, usually 2 to 1 on the State and Federal levels, and directly goes to the health, safety, welfare, and the ability to deliver the services by the volunteer fire service of America. That is some 800,000-people strong in the United States, over 26,000 volunteer fire departments in the United States, and as we said, most of those adjacent to Federal lands and directly fighting fire on Federal lands without the proper equipment, without the proper training, without the proper FEPP surplus equipment, properly equipped. This Volunteer Assistance Program Act does that.
 Page 163       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    In our handout, we have shown that over the course of the years how the declining budget in that is done. I can tell you right now that in fiscal year 1997, the total appropriation for the State of Nevada was $13,000. $13,000 does not buy squat, plain and simple. They did not even accept the money because it was so meager with only a $1.2-million appropriate and the deviser on the share into that program.

    We as the National Volunteer Fire Council, representing those departments that need this the most, that will guarantee through fund-raisers, through cake sales, through any way we can make that money out there and match it, will do it. We are committed to that.

    A study was done a couple of years ago on Congress' behalf through the U.S. Forest Service called Fire Protection in Rural America. The study took place for 5 years. It identified three primary areas of concern, personal, protective clothing for the volunteers; the lack of communications equipment to communicate among themselves or with their neighbors; and the third one was the development of rural fire protection, fire water locations throughout America.

    This increase in funds can directly start attacking those problems. Those are real problems. They have been identified by a real live study that was concluded. We have left them here on the side table for the committee and Congress' benefit, and we ask, please, that every consideration be made towards a $10 million appropriation to the Volunteer Assistance Act.

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. We will do what we can.

    I can tell you that before I got this job, I was a lawyer in Eastern Washington and was the secretary for two rural fire protection districts, Lincoln County—8 and Grant County—6, and so what you say is true. These are really volunteer efforts.
 Page 164       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    They need Scott air packs. They need communication assistance, and it is a 50/50 match. At least some money comes through our State and then to the local district, but it is the life blood of rural America in terms of the need for that volunteer fire assistance, and the resources to just do the job. So we will do our best. I appreciate your testimony because I know something about it.

    Mr. KIGHTLINGER. Very good. Thank you.

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Yates.

    Mr. YATES. Thank you.

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you very much for testifying.

    [The statement of Allen Kightlinger follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."




 Page 165       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. The Humane Society of the United States, Wayne Pacelle?

    Mr. PACELLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. Did I say that right?

    Mr. PACELLE. Pacelle, yes.

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you, sir. Welcome. As I stated, your testimony will become part of the record.

    Mr. PACELLE. Thank you, and good afternoon to you and Mr. Yates.

    I will summarize, of course. I just want to point to a few highlights for The Humane Society of the U.S., which is the Nation's largest animal protection group representing 5.8 million members and constituents in the United States.

    First, I would comment just very briefly that we support the administration's budget request of $112.9 million for implementation of the Endangered Species Act. On that same subject of threatened and endangered species, I do want to make a couple of comments about the African Elephant Conservation Act. The African Elephant Conservation Act is a law that we have supported since 1988 when African elephants were imperiled by massive poaching across the continent of Africa. Elephant populations declined from 1.3 million in 1979 to just 600,000 in 1989. There is much good that is being done through the passage of this act and the appropriation of generally very limited funds.
 Page 166       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We are concerned about the Fish and Wildlife Service awarding grants to some parties for activities that we believe are inconsistent with public attitudes. Money has been used, and we have documented it in the testimony. I would just point to that, and if you would like any additional information, we would be happy to provide, to promote the ivory trade, which the U.S. Government has strongly opposed since 1988 and 1989. We think that language should be included in the report urging the Fish and Wildlife Service not to permit any use of funds in promoting the ivory trade.

    Second, it is also clear that money is being used to promote the trophy hunting of African elephants, and some have likened shooting elephants for trophy to shooting a parked car. It is not very difficult, and 84 percent of the American public, according to a poll done by Penn and Schoen, opposes the trophy hunting of this threatened species.

    The Safari Group International has been awarded repeated grants through the African Elephant Conservation Act to promote trophy hunting in Zimbabwe through the Campfire program which Mr. Yates knows well. We troubled him and bothered him during the USAID and the foreign operations budget, and we appreciated your support on that, sir.

    So, in short, we are concerned about the use of tax dollars, Americans' hard-earned tax dollars going to promote the ivory trade and trophy hunting, and we do not think that Americans supported the passage of the African Elephant Act for those specific purposes. If the activities go on, they should go on with private funds, not with public dollars.

    I want to reserve the balance of my time to speak about the wild horse and burro program. The Wild Horse and Free-Roaming Burro Act was passed in 1971, an outpouring of public concern about the destruction of horses and burros on America's public lands in the West.
 Page 167       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The Bureau of Land Management has been severely criticized for mismanagement of this program. We have worked with the Bureau of Land Management. We think there are many fine people in the BLM who are trying to do a good job. Problems remain, however.

    Too many horses are being taken from the range without adequate scientific support to justify those removals. The adoption program that is in place costs more than $1,000 for each wild horse removed from the public lands. Too many horses are being removed. The BLM is too severe in its judgment about how many horses should be on the range. We urge that the funds that are appropriated be shifted away from the removal and the adoption program to more on-the-ground management of horses in the range, especially wild horse monitoring, range monitoring, and habitat restoration.

    Also, the HSUS is pioneering work in immunocontraception, contracepting wildlife to alleviate conflicts between people and wildlife and also conflicts between wildlife and the range.

    There has been excellent work done through fiscal year appropriations 1993 to 1998 that has brought immunocontraception very close to practical application for wild horses in the West.

    A field test in 1992 and 1995 led to a one-shot immuno-contraceptive vaccine that reduced pregnancy rates and treated animals for one year by at least 85 percent. This is a tremendous investment for this Congress. If we can put monies into contraception, we can obviate the need for range removals, and then obviate the need for this $1,000-plus expenditure for each removal of animals from the range.
 Page 168       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    So we are requesting $250,000 to support further research in wild horse immunocontraception as a very modest investment for the future to protect the range, to protect horses, and ultimately to save the taxpayers thousands and thousands and ultimately millions of dollars.

    I think I will just close there by simply saying that the Horse and Burro Act is a very important one. We urge strong funding for it, $18.6 million, but we would like to see this committee direct the BLM to use the resources more efficiently and more wisely.

    Thank you.

    [The statement of Wayne Pacelle follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you very much for your testimony.

    Mr. YATES. How do you know that it costs BLM $1,000 a horse in order to remove them?

    Mr. PACELLE. That is the BLM's estimate.

    Mr. YATES. Is it——

 Page 169       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. PACELLE. Yes. And, in fact, the Park Service, as a consequence of the California Desert Protection Act, is removing burros from the Mojave National Reserve right now, and they are trying to sidestep the BLM, in some ways, I believe to not endure that very high cost.

    We think there should be costs in the adoption program. One of the concerns is that the horses and the burros are being adopted, and then they are being sent to slaughter for human consumption overseas. We are troubled by that. We would like safeguards, but the best safeguard is to keep the horses on the range, and if we can have fertility control to limit the population growth of the herds on the range, we do not need to have all of the safeguards built into the adoption process.

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. How many horses can you treat with that $250,000 that you request?

    Mr. PACELLE. Well, this is really for work with specific herds. There has been a lot of work with herds in Nevada, and, again, the progress has been just extraordinary, and the Congress' support of these projects has been critical and very important.

    Ultimately, if the one-shot vaccine is developed, it will be not a very large cost for each horse, and obviously far, far less than the removal cost would be, and it will stop reproduction for an entire year, which means that the foals will not be produced.

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you very much.

 Page 170       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. PACELLE. Thank you.






    Mr. NETHERCUTT. The next witness is the Frontera Audubon Society, Faith Thompson Campbell, Ph.D. Welcome, ma'am. We will make your testimony a part of the record, and we are delighted to have you here.

    Ms. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Yates.

    I am here as Faith Thompson Campbell to represent Frontera Audubon Society, which is based in the four southeastern counties of Texas, including the towns of Brownsville, Harlingen, McGalin, and West Waco.

    Frontera Audubon Society requests that Congress ensure an appropriation totaling $10 million in fiscal 1999 for land acquisition at the lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge. The reason I say totaling $10 million is that we are not sure at this time how much of the $4.8 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund's special appropriation last year, the refuge will be allowed to spend over the course of the next several months.
 Page 171       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. YATES. Dr. Campbell, is that the place where the cougar is endangered?

    Ms. CAMPBELL. Ocelot and jaguarundi.

    Mr. YATES. Yes.

    Ms. CAMPBELL. Yes. It has——

    Mr. YATES. Oh, the ocelots.

    Ms. CAMPBELL. Yes, yes.

    Mr. YATES. Your Congressman was——

    Ms. CAMPBELL. It was de la Garza. Now it is Hinojosa and Ortiz, right.

    The Santa Ana Refuge that is pictured in the office there, that is part of the lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge.

    The lower Rio Grande is a very high national priority refuge for acquisition. It has a greater variety of wildlife and plant species than any other similar-sized area in the country, including half of the bird species that live in or migrate through the United States.
 Page 172       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Completing the refuge is also an urgent task. The two metropolitan areas in the valley are among the 10 listed in the Washington Post a month or so ago as having the highest and most rapid economic development in the entire country, and, therefore, with this rapid development, the cost of land will rise, the cost of water rights rises, and, of course, important lands are converted to other uses and are no longer available.

    For these reasons, both the high biodiversity level and the rapid economic development in the valley, the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge has always ranked for 20 years in the top 10 priorities on the Fish and Wildlife Service list.

    I would add that the refuge is entirely a willing seller program, and there are now more than 20 land owners who have made offers to the refuge, which lack of funding has prevented the refuge from following up on.

    Expansion of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge will benefit the region's economy by encouraging tourism and spreading the revenue to additional towns. Already, nearly 100,000 birders visit the lower Rio Grande Valley every year. They spend $34.5 million there because it is a birding hot spot, and for these reasons, the Valley Chamber of Commerce and the Chambers of Commerce of Brownsville, Harlingen, and McGalin sponsor birding, butterfly, and other festivals.

    As the refuge is expanded and other sites become accessible to visitors and famous for their birding resources, that kind of economic benefit can spread up the valley into Star County as well.
 Page 173       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    As I mentioned, Representatives Hinojosa and Ortiz are full supporters and have frequently asked this committee for additional funding for the refuge, and the refuge is also supported by a number of environmental organizations that I have listed in my testimony.

    I would be pleased to take any questions either of you may have.

    [The statement of Faith T. Campbell follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. It is nice of you to testify today. We thank you very much.

    Ms. CAMPBELL. Thank you.

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. I do not have a question.

    Mr. Yates.

    Mr. YATES. I just wonder how your ranchers like the ocelots.

    Ms. CAMPBELL. Well, I gather they have lived with them for these last 200 years. They recognize the economic benefit of tourist dollars in the valley, and that is why they come.
 Page 174       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. YATES. Sure. We have that problem with the wolves at the Yellowstone and a few other things.

    Ms. CAMPBELL. Ocelots are a little smaller. They probably take a lot—only chickens or something like that. I would doubt they would take anything much bigger than that.

    Mr. YATES. Right. Thank you very much.

    Ms. CAMPBELL. Thank you.

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you very much.






    Mr. NETHERCUTT. The next witness will be the Alliance for Community Trees, Nancy A. Wolf, President. Welcome, Ms. Wolf.
 Page 175       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Ms. WOLF. I am Nancy Wolf, president of Alliance for Community Trees, and I appreciate greatly the opportunity to give my remarks here and also to thank Mr. Yates personally for his long, valued support of urban and community forestry and to say do not retire.

    Mr. YATES. Well, thank you very much. I am not very retiring.

    I think you should thank Mr. Regula as well.

    Ms. WOLF. Oh, absolutely.

    Mr. YATES. He was a supporter for it. Canton is in his district.

    Ms. WOLF. We have felt that this committee has been a great supporter, and we count the Alliance for Community Trees as being one of the stalwart supporting nongovernmental groups for urban and community forestry, and we have given testimony each year to the committee's record, continuing to support this successful program. It is always a pleasure to come and testify on behalf of what is considered I think by most people who know a very, very great success involving perhaps the largest numbers of Americans ever in forestry issues, both at the urban level, but also understanding the total forestry picture through their efforts in urban and community forestry. So we are once again saying that we are really very, very supportive.

    One of the things that we would like to bring to your attention—and, of course, it is in my testimony—is that we would like to help you and have you help us make sure that the quality of the program continues to grow. It is a program that has so many demands on it that sometimes it is easy for the quality to be outpaced, and we are particularly happy that the standards have now been put in place, and, hopefully, you have had an opportunity to review those standards. Instead of guidelines, they are now standards.
 Page 176       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We commented last year, extensively, on those standards. We are very, very eager to see all the States be urged and helped and given incentives to come up to the exemplar States, and we are going to be spending time this year identifying those programs that we consider to be really exemplar.

    I was reviewing some of them the other day, and it is exciting to see what the States that have really gotten into it have been able to do. We want to see all States come up to more uniform quality.

    Our organizations have been involved, of course, at the grass-roots level. That is the group that we represent. We have more than 40 grass-roots independent and local organizations, and we are in touch, of course, with literally thousands of volunteers, many of whom are your constituents here on the committee.

    So we are urging attention not only to the success of the program, but how we can continue to do a quality delivery. We are hoping that the committee will urge the Forest Service to urge its regional forestry staff to make certain that the States deliver quality across the board, and we will be pointing, as I said, to various exemplar States that we think are doing a particularly good job. We would like to see all States come up to that level.

    We are asking for $35 million, or even more. This year, I understand that the President's budget has asked for 30. We think there should be more because this is a growing program, and it is a program where a lot of inventive ideas are being put together.

 Page 177       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    On the base of the State-Federal partnership now are many extra programs. Some of them have come from the Washington, D.C., office. Some are coming from the regional offices. Some are coming from the ground level where people have come up with very creative ideas, but as good as they are, each one of them, if it is taken off the base that is there now, the base of funding, it is going to eventually affect one way or the other what I call the entree of the program, and that is the State and Federal partnership which delivers most of the programs.

    So we are going to be working hard to make sure that is safe, and we urge your attention to the fact that this program, which is successful and growing, really needs to have more funding, and we are suggesting $35 million this year.

    Last, but not least, we always make a special case for the Urban Forestry Research Staff, which we have supported very strongly now every year. Some of it is based in Chicago. Some of them are based in David, California, at the university there, and some at Syracuse, New York, at the State university there.

    We are very anxious to make sure that they stay in business. Their work is known not only throughout this country, but worldwide they are considered to be really in the forefront of air pollution research and energy conservation research. We use their research all the time at the local level. So you imagine being in front of a city council. If you have that kind of research with you, of course you are in a stronger position, and we have already asked Mr. Walsh to give to the committee the language that he and Mr. Fazio have supported over the past few years. So, hopefully, you will be receiving that.

    [The statement of Nancy A. Wolf follows:]
 Page 178       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. REGULA [presiding]. Thank you very much.

    Ms. WOLF. So, if you have questions, I would be happy to answer any.

    Mr. REGULA. Thank you.

    Ms. WOLF. Okay, thank you.






    Mr. REGULA. Our next witness is from the Mississippi River Museum. I understand, Mr. Nussle, you are going to introduce your constituents.

 Page 179       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, nice to see you.

    Mr. REGULA. Nice to have you here.

    Mr. NUSSLE. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to come and introduce my constituents to this committee. I want to first thank you for your leadership.

    Mr. REGULA. Is your district on the Mississippi?

    Mr. NUSSLE. How about that?

    Mr. REGULA. I did not know that.

    Mr. NUSSLE. In fact, the entire eastern border of the district is on the Mississippi River. So——

    Mr. REGULA. Is that right? You did not get flooded, though.

    Mr. NUSSLE. Actually, we did a few years back. So that is exactly right.

    What we are proposing—and I would like to ask the mayor of Dubuque to give a presentation. He has a number of other people as well. It is just to give you an idea of an interpretive center that is being proposed that is underway and, in fact, is going to be processed. We are looking for a partnership. We believe that the significance of the upper Mississippi River, in particular, has not only past significance, certainly current significance, but also a future significance that needs to be told, needs to be studied, needs to be interpreted, and needs to be shared with the rest of the country.
 Page 180       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    As a member of the Budget Committee, you know I do not come here very often, knowing how very tight things are, but I thought this was an important project that we ought to at least talk about.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, you said it was underway. How much of it is underway?

    Mr. NUSSLE. Why don't I let the experts share that information with you.

    Mr. REGULA. Yes.

    Mr. NUSSLE. It is a neat idea.






 Page 181       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. DUGGAN. Good afternoon. I am Mayor Terry Duggan from the City of Dubuque, and, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Yates, thank you for having us here today.

    I would like to ask at this time if I could have the constituency of the upper Mississippi River that came with us today, if they would please rise.

    Mr. REGULA. You have got more people than that.

    Mr. DUGGAN. Well, we probably do. Thank you very much.

    Mr. REGULA. How big is Dubuque?

    Mr. DUGGAN. We are 60,000. The metro area would be a population of about 90- to 100,000 people, and we thank Congress for the floodwall that we did have during 1993 that did keep us dry. We were saved from that. So we want to thank all of you for that.

    We come to you today, business executives, elected leaders, foundation board members, and private citizens, and some students from the University of Dubuque, to present a bold new partnership between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the people of the five States of the upper Mississippi to create a national interpretive center.

    As a private citizen, business owner, and as mayor, I have never seen such a dramatic project with such strong multi-State support and such a long-term national impact.

    I introduce Jerry Enzler, director of the Mississippi River Museum and the National River Hall of Fames.
 Page 182       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. ENZLER. Thank you, Mayor Duggan, and thank you, Congressman Nussle.

    The Mississippi River, some people call it America's river, and the Upper Mississippi National Wildlife and Fish Refuge certainly is a very significant refuge, established in 1924, really at the urging—established by Congress, but established at the urging of people from Chicago and Northern Illinois.

    It is the longest refuge that the Fish and Wildlife Service maintains.

    Mr. REGULA. Is it right along the river?

    Mr. ENZLER. It is right along the river from Wabasha, Minnesota, down to Rock Island, Illinois.

    Mr. REGULA. How far is that?

    Mr. ENZLER. 261 miles in length.

    Mr. YATES. What do you mean by a refuge?

    Mr. ENZLER. Well, it is the upper——

    Mr. YATES. You say the longest refuge.
 Page 183       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. ENZLER. Well, it is the longest in length. It is the longest that we have been working with, Region 3 of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and they are very proud of this refuge and note that it is the longest in terms of its length, and it has 194,000 acres.

    Mr. YATES. Oh, I see.

    Mr. ENZLER. Right. It is not the longest length.

    Mr. YATES. I am thinking of a building. I am sorry.

    Mr. ENZLER. No. This is the refuge itself.

    Mr. YATES. Okay.

    Mr. REGULA. Does it border on the river?

    Mr. ENZLER. Yes. It borders on the Mississippi River and the States of Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Wisconsin.

    Mr. REGULA. So the flood plain essentially is the refuge?

    Mr. ENZLER. That is right, and these are acres that have been purchased by the Federal Government and are held in trust and are habitat for wildlife.
 Page 184       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    It is the most visited refuge that the Fish and Wildlife Service maintains. In fact, it has 3 to 3 1/2 million visitors a year, which is the equivalent of Yellowstone National Park.

    The significant factor is there is no major interpretative center. There is no interpretative center for this refuge, and what we propose is a partnership to address this national need.

    Now, the citizens and the local units of government in the five States are putting forth $13 million to establish this center, and it is a $26-million total cost. We are obligating ourselves to handle all of the operating costs. So there will be no ongoing operations and maintenance costs to the Federal Government.

    Mr. REGULA. That would be the State or the local community?

    Mr. ENZLER. It would be the local community, yes.

    We have a 20-year history of operating a museum. Our museum currently exists in this building here.

    Mr. REGULA. Oh, so this is an expansion.

    Mr. ENZLER. It is an expansion, yes. We are in this building, and we are on this steamboat. It is a national landmark steamboat, the William Black.
 Page 185       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Over half of these private funds have been raised so far. We have over $6 million raised, and we have spent 7 years so far in planning. We have worked with some of the top national experts in the country, historians and conservationists and educators and scientists and biologists. We have a signed partnership agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, and the partnership agreement says that we will work together to interpret this refuge.

    We are developing right now the final language for a signed partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Mississippi Valley Division and all six districts.

    Mr. REGULA. I was thinking, wouldn't the Corps of Engineers have exhibits in this?

    Mr. ENZLER. They certainly should, yes.

    Well, this is a Corps dredge, and the Ice Harbor was created by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

    Mr. REGULA. Would they contribute to the cost of this?

    Mr. ENZLER. We believe they will. In fact, in this year's water resources bill—or last year's water resources bill, the Corps was instructed to provide dredge material to create this outdoor wetland, so significant partnerships with the Corps.

    Also, the Environmental Management Program which is at Onalaska, Wisconsin, for 10 years now, they have expended over $100 million researching and monitoring the upper Mississippi River, and, yet, there is no outlet for the public.
 Page 186       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Yes.

    Mr. ENZLER. And we are working collectively with them now to create exhibits to bring this research to the public.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, maybe, Jim, have you explored getting some from the Energy and Water Subcommittee?

    Mr. NUSSLE. We have, Mr. Chairman. We are exploring everywhere that we can explore, as you might guess.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay.

    Mr. NUSSLE. This is just the latest stop on our exploration.

    Mr. REGULA. Good. Good luck on the rest of them.

    Well, it seems to me, this logically—a portion should be borne by the Corps since I would assume that it is going to tell part of the story of their operation in the Mississippi.

    Mr. ENZLER. That is correct.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. Well, we are out of time. Thank you very much.
 Page 187       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. ENZLER. Thanks for having us today.

    [The statement of Terry Duggan and Jerome A. Enzler follow:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."





    Mr. REGULA. Next is the Western Ancient Forest Campaign, Steve Holmer.

    Mr. HOLMER. Thank you for this opportunity to testify, Chairman Regula and Representative Yates.

    The national forests continue to suffer mismanagement, and much of it stems from the funds that are appropriated by Congress and the internal budget incentives and a lack of financial accountability we see with the agency. We would like to propose a forest appropriations initiative that would address these problems and cut what we view as environmentally destructive subsidies and, instead, offer some increase that we think would actually support real restoration of our national forests.
 Page 188       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I do not know if you have a copy of my testimony available.

    Mr. REGULA. Yes, we do, and it will be in the record.

    Mr. HOLMER. Okay, great.

    Well, the key points that I would like to raise, one deals with timber roads. We believe that given the current backlog of over $10 billion dealing with the road system, that building new roads does not make sense. So we would like to urge you to fund no money for new logging roads.

    In addition, the President's budget has proposed an elimination of purchaser credits, and we would like to urge you to support elimination of purchaser credits.

    And there has also been a Forest Service proposal to institute an 18-month moratorium on road-building in some national forest roadless areas, and we would like to urge your committee to support that moratorium and to not entertain any riders that would stop it.

    Mr. YATES. Why do you want to eliminate purchaser credits?

    Mr. HOLMER. Well, purchaser credits have been identified by the administration as an administrative burden on their ability to carry out the roads program, and there is also a subsidy that is linked to that. There is a profit margin that is built into the credit system, and in our view, the credits have allowed for the logging of marginal areas that otherwise would not be economically to enter.
 Page 189       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The next point I would like to raise has to do with logging and road-building on unstable slopes. We would urge you to at least include report language urging the Forest Service to stay off the steep and unstable slopes just because of the damage that has been broad and the lives cost in recent years.

    We are also very concerned about the off-budget funds, such as the K-V and salvage fund. The Forest Service is currently under a lawsuit for illegally diverting funds from reforestation into their salaries and overhead, and the salvage fund has also been identified to create incentives, bad incentives for forest management where the agency would choose revenue-generating activities over other activities that might be more appropriate.

    We are also very concerned about a new off-budget fund proposed in the Smith forest health bill, H.R. 2515, that would perpetuate this same kind of misguided incentives, and we would urge the appropriators to weigh in and stop that proposed fund.

    The next issue has to do with subsidies of the Timbers Sale Program. The Forest Service admitted for the first time this year that the Timber Sale Program loses money, and I would just like to share with you an analysis of these losses. I believe I have other copies of those available for others present here.

    Mr. REGULA. We have about 2 minutes left. So you will have to summarize.

    Mr. HOLMER. Okay. Well, as you can see in the first box, it shows the Forest Service admits they lost $14.8 billion or something in that range, but if you add in the payments to counties, the road costs, the overhead costs, you quickly come up to $457 million, as The Wilderness Society did in their analysis, and then Randall O'Toole for the Thoreau Institute added in the off-budget accounts and you get a $560-million loss. Then The Sierra Club did a straightforward cash-in/cash-out analysis just looking at the receipts brought back and how much Congress appropriated, and then you get a staggering——
 Page 190       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Did this include anything to multiple-use values, hunting, fishing, camping?

    Mr. HOLMER. No. This is just talking about the——

    Mr. REGULA. Well, I understand, but the Forest provides a lot of things besides timber, and I believe you are measuring this only on the timber sales versus the cost to the Forest.

    Mr. HOLMER. Well, we generally do not view the timber sales as a benefit for the Forest.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, I understand that.

    Mr. HOLMER. We are spending a lot of money on restoration right now.

    Mr. REGULA. But would you not have to place value on the multiple use if you were going to try to accurately assess the real cost?

    Mr. HOLMER. Well, certainly. Our concern here is that this chart appears that the value of timber has been given predominance over other Forest values.

    Mr. REGULA. By whom?
 Page 191       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. HOLMER. Well, by the agency and by the incentives built into their budgets over the years.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, we have always emphasized—Chairman Yates did, and I do, too—the multiple-use dimension of the forest.

    Mr. HOLMER. Well, we feel that there are certain values that have not been adequately dealt with, and if you look at the next section dealing with funding increases, we would like to propose $25 million more for road maintenance and $25 million more for road decommissioning.

    Mr. REGULA. I saw that.

    Mr. HOLMER. And so we think that it is very important, and there is a lot of real restoration that could take place that would provide a lot of jobs.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, we will look at your statement, and I understand what you are saying. We will try to strike a reasonable balance.

    Mr. HOLMER. Sure. I guess I would just like to close with, you know, this does need to be viewed in an overall context, and our organization does believe that the roadless area and the old growth and riparian areas deserve permanent protection.

    We put together a report early this year that documents the need to protect roadless areas in our national forests. We think that both on economic and ecological grounds that they are worth a lot more protected than they would be if we went in and roaded and logged them.
 Page 192       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Okay, thank you.

    Mr. YATES. Thank you.

    [The statement of Steve Holmer follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."





    Mr. REGULA. The American Hiking Society. Welcome.

    Ms. SLOAN. I am Mary Margaret Sloan, and I am the conservation director for American Hiking Society, a national nonprofit organization serving 10,000 individual members and the more than 500,000 members of our 120 affiliated clubs.

    Federal land managing agencies, the National Park Service, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management all recognize recreation's rapid growth and are moving to meet the accompanying demands.
 Page 193       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The National Park Service has requested a 42-percent increase to the rivers, trails, and conservation assistance program. Forest Service Chief Michael Dombeck just announced that recreation will be a major focus for the Forest Service in the coming years, and the Bureau of Land Management has restructured its staff to better emphasize recreation.

    Mr. REGULA. I think you are accurate that all of these things will get a lot of pressures, and what you are asking for is to support the Trails Program. Am I correct?

    Ms. SLOAN. Correct.

    Mr. REGULA. Yes.

    Ms. SLOAN. They have all been emphasizing recreation, but the outcome on the ground has not been commensurate with the rhetoric.

    Mr. REGULA. You mean in terms of what they do or in terms of the number of people that are taking advantage of it?

    Ms. SLOAN. In terms of what they do. In terms of what they are able to do with the funding they currently receive.

    This subcommittee has been extremely supportive of recreation, and we recognize that and appreciate that. We would like to turn your attention to a couple programs that interest us.
 Page 194       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    In the National Park Service, the Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program, this year the administration has requested a $3-million increase to the base program, which we support.

    Mr. REGULA. Now, I am familiar with that, but it is a new program.

    Ms. SLOAN. They tell us that it is not a new program, and that it is to——

    Mr. REGULA. I guess there is a difference of opinion on that.

    Ms. SLOAN. In any case, our organization supports a $3-million increase to the base RTCA program. We also support a $500,000 increase over the administration's request for the national trails system.

    Mr. REGULA. We had testimony this morning on the trails. So we are pretty much up to speed on that.

    Ms. SLOAN. That is fine.

    Within the Forest Service, the administration this year for FY 1999 has requested only $13.2 million for forest service trails, construction, reconstruction, which we feel is woefully inadequate. We would urge the subcommittee to appropriate at least $36.5 million.
 Page 195       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Well, your members do enjoy the forests and——

    Ms. SLOAN. We do enjoy the forests.

    Mr. REGULA. Then you do enjoy the multiple-use concept.

    Ms. SLOAN. Yes. Well, we enjoy the foot paths, the hiking aspect.

    Mr. REGULA. But they have to get to the paths. If they live in Ohio, they have to go out there and get to the trail head, don't they?

    Ms. SLOAN. That is true.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. Thank you very much. We have been very supportive of the hiking programs.

    Ms. SLOAN. Yes. I would just like to close with reference to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We support the fund in full and would like to direct your attention to some of the national scenic trails that are hoping to receive funding from the Stateside Atlanta Water Conservation Program.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, if we put it in the Stateside, we will have less to do the things that you want. It is kind of a Catch-22, honestly, because we have X-number of dollars, and we have lots of needs.
 Page 196       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    When I walked in this morning, I said until we get done together, I could double the budget and still not get everything done that will be requested.

    Ms. SLOAN. That is true.

    Mr. REGULA. That is our dilemma, frankly.

    Ms. SLOAN. We understand, and we appreciate your dilemma. So we hope you will look closely at these national programs that are able to benefit.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, we try to. We want to finish up the Appalachian Trail, hopefully. We have been doing it year after year. I happen to like trails myself. I live on a farm. I have a couple of miles that I personally take care of, cut the brush, mow it and so on. I enjoy it.

    Ms. SLOAN. You can appreciate that time and the effort that that takes.

    Mr. REGULA. Yes, I certainly can.

    Ms. SLOAN. We hope that that will be reflected.

    Mr. REGULA. Thank you very much.

 Page 197       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Ms. SLOAN. Thank you.

    [The statement of Mary Margaret Sloan follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."





    Mr. REGULA. Forest Water Alliance?

    Mr. COSGROVE. How are you, sir? Thank you for having me here today. My name is Sean Cosgrove. I represent the Forest Water Alliance. It is a coalition of 21 conservation groups from the Pacific Northwest, mostly Western Washington, Western Oregon, and Northwestern California. All told, these groups represent about 100,000 people across that region.

    This coalition was brought together because we are concerned about the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan and the impact that is having on ancient forests, salmon population, municipal watersheds, and forests with watersheds.

 Page 198       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    I want to just give you a quick idea of some of the projects that we are seeing happen here that my coalition is concerned about. You understand, this part of the country gets a fair amount of rain. Erosion and landslides from clear cuts and logging roads are——

    Mr. REGULA. On Federal lands, you are talking about?

    Mr. COSGROVE. On Federal lands, yes, sir, the 17 national forests.

    Mr. REGULA. Your mission is to protect the quality of water in the streams. So you are concerned about the riparian.

    Mr. COSGROVE. Absolutely.

    Mr. REGULA. The impacts of forestry from erosion.

    Mr. COSGROVE. Absolutely.

    Mr. REGULA. Roads which, of course, contribute to erosion.

    Mr. COSGROVE. Certainly.

    Mr. REGULA. The objective of your group is to contain that as much as possible. Is that correct?
 Page 199       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. COSGROVE. We would actually like to see it contained and, actually, a lot of these areas restored.

    Mr. REGULA. Areas that have been logged?

    Mr. COSGROVE. Areas that have been logged and eroded and——

    Mr. REGULA. But doesn't the Forest Service do a lot of regeneration?

    Mr. COSGROVE. Regeneration and——

    Mr. REGULA. Planning?

    Mr. COSGROVE. And planning. That does happen, but, unfortunately, what they do not have the funds and the ability to take care of is some of the mudslides and things like this that happens from logging projects. This is on the Umpqua National Forest. These are roads that they want to rebuild so that they can go back in and do more logging.

    Well, the logging projects they want to do now, they are proposing, is, say, the Lane Creek timber sale in the Umpqua National Forest. This is a municipal watershed that provides drinking water for the City of Cottage Grove. This is a watershed where the forests—you can see the signs here. The Forest Service says please note do not swim in here, do not camp in here, because we want to protect the water qualify.
 Page 200       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Right.

    Mr. COSGROVE. Well, within this same area, within some stream side reserves, they want to do a logging project. This seems somewhat——

    Mr. REGULA. The Forest Service?

    Mr. COSGROVE. The Forest Service does.

    So these are the kind of projects that we are still seeing after 4 years of implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan. We have some pretty big concerns here, but what that leads to, of course, is the impact not just on drinking water for municipalities, but also with salmon species. We are very concerned about the endangered and threatened salmon species.

    You can see this is a copy of an article from the Oregonian Newspaper. Just last week, there is a proposed listing of a number of different salmon species. You can see the wide-ranging impact this would have.

    Mr. REGULA. Do you have an opinion on the Elwha Dam?

    Mr. COSGROVE. On the Elwha Dam? I believe that it should be removed, and I think funds should be appropriated from that. I am from Washington State. I am told from old-timers that I have run into there that some of the greatest Chinook runs came right up there in the Elwha. I would love to see that area restored.
 Page 201       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. I guess when we were on the dam-building binge, we never thought about the fish.

    Mr. COSGROVE. Yes, exactly, and that is a problem that we would like to see addressed. You know, we are talking about the entire natural system there, and we think that starting with rehabilitating some of these logged-out areas, restoring some watersheds would be a good place to start. Maybe taking a look at dams would be a good idea. We do not necessarily deal with that right here, but, anyway, you understand the problem that I am bringing to you here.

    I would just like to go through a very short list of some of the obvious.

    Mr. REGULA. Please be quick. We are out of time.

    Mr. COSGROVE. The President's budget proposes elimination of purchaser road credits. We support that, absolutely.

    The President's budget proposes a change from 25 percent payment to States to an annual appropriation, a flat fee, a flat rate. We support that, absolutely.

    We would like to see overall $96 million that is proposed for road reconstruction and construction in fiscal year 1999. We would like to see that eliminated. We do not believe that they need to build new roads or reconstruct new roads in the National Forest System.
 Page 202       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Wouldn't this deny access to some of the multiple-use people?

    Mr. COSGROVE. My organization definitely does support multiple use. With over 440,000 miles of roads in the national forest system, we think it is pretty well accessible.

    We also would like to see an increase for $25 million for the road maintenance budget, an increase of $25 million for road decommissioning.

    We would like to see, ideally—and this is kind of the big picture over the next decade. In the Pacific Northwest, we would like to see road decommissioning for 25 percent of the road mileage that is in the national forest system now, and a decade after that, another 25 percent. We believe that is the best way to try and restore salmon stocks and create healthy national forests.

    We also, of course, in allocating these funds for road decommissioning, support funds going to projects and programs that help train people, either retraining for people that work in the woods or new projects to get people out there and learn skills.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. Well, thank you very much.

    Mr. COSGROVE. Thank you so much.

 Page 203       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    [The statement of Sean Cosgrove follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."





    Mr. REGULA. The next witness is Mayor Rendell from the City of Brotherly Love on the National Constitution Center.

    Mr. RENDELL. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. REGULA. Do you still have brotherly love in your city?

    Mr. RENDELL. Well, we have modified it to include sisterly affection now, to be politically correct. So that is our new slogan.

    Mr. REGULA. Times change.

    Mr. RENDELL. Yes, they sure do. [Laughter.]
 Page 204       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by thanking you and this committee and, of course, the Congress for its support of the National Constitution Center, which as you know was established by the Congress and President Reagan in 1988 to promote a better and more effective understanding.

    Mr. REGULA. Was it given a charter? You say ''established.'' Was there a charter issued for this?

    Mr. RENDELL. No. We have our own charter that came from the corporation as a nonprofit, but it was just the legislation which gave us some specific mandates as to our educational goals and, of course, to build a museum down the road.

    We have done this work with $236,000 of Federal-matching funds over the years, which you all have appropriated for us. This year, the administration raised that level of $500,000. We are appreciative of that, and we, I think, have done as good a job possible in achieving our mission during Constitution Week, several programs, including ''I Signed the Constitution,'' which offered citizens and school children the ability to sign the Constitution in every one of our 50 States. We have a web site which in its first 2 weeks received over 200,000 hits. We do contests for high school students on our web sites, and we off-load programs to teachers on the web site for how to best teach the Constitution, particularly to elementary and middle school kids in modern-day terms, to make it relevant in modern-day terms, but as I heard you say, we have not achieved our goal because a poll that we ourselves took showed that Americans have an appalling lack of knowledge about probably the greatest document that man and womankind have ever put together.
 Page 205       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    One out of every two Americans cannot name the total number of U.S. Senators. Six percent, only 6 percent of Americans, can name the four freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment, and two out of three Americans cannot name the three branches of our Government.

    Mr. REGULA. I notice some of them lately know the First Amendment.

    Mr. RENDELL. That is correct. That is correct.

    But the good news in the poll was that despite this lack of knowledge, 91 percent of Americans said the Constitution was important to them in their daily lives, and 84 percent said for it to be effective, we should have a knowledgeable and active and concerned citizenry.

    So we believe it is time for us to do the second part of our congressional mandate and build that museum. Toward that end—and I know, Mr. Chairman, you are familiar with the FMP that——

    Mr. REGULA. Does the bill or the language refer to a museum?

    Mr. RENDELL. Yes. It talks about a museum in the bill.

    We have waited because we wanted the center to be on the Mall of Independence National Historic Park, which as you know is referred to as the most historic square mile in America, and it truly is with Independence Hall and Congress Hall and Carpenters Hall, the Liberty Bell, and all those things in the park. The GMP that the Park Service finished last year calls for a restructuring of the Mall.
 Page 206       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    In the first two blocks, we will see a new Liberty Bell Pavilion, and we will see a great new visitors center, some additional landscaping, and that is a $75-million project, which I am happy to tell you, $72 million of which was raised locally by the State, the City, some foundations, Ambassador Annenberg, and our own Parking Authority. Only $3 million of that capital cost is Federal money.

    What we were asking for is for the museum, for the center for the Constitution, which will be on the third block of the Mall and will face Independence Hall, with the Liberty Bell to its right and the visitors center to its right as well, and create a perfect juxtaposition between Independence Hall, which really celebrates the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution Center at the end of the Mall. It will make it a truly rich and historical experience for Americans and for people from all over the world.

    As you know, Mr. Chairman, over 200 countries have used our Constitution as the basis for their constitution, and, yet, it is a document that we Americans do not know much about.

    We are asking for a commitment from the Congress and the Administration for $65 million over 3 years. We offer that, and I hope you will make that a match, because we believe we can use that to stimulate giving.

    The State of Pennsylvania has put in its capital redevelopment assistance, $30 million.

 Page 207       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. How many square feet? You have a center now that you operate?

    Mr. RENDELL. No, we just have an office. It is just an office with a computer.

    Mr. REGULA. Nothing.

    Mr. RENDELL. If you asked to come to the center, you would see an office about the size of the typical freshman Congressman's office, not much bigger than that.

    Mr. REGULA. Not very big.

    Mr. RENDELL. That is right, not very big. And that is our center, but this center, in addition to being a wonderful interactive museum that will teach children and adults about the relevance of the Constitution in modern-day terms, it will also be a center—the University of Pennsylvania has partnered with us—a center of learning. There will be a scholars in residence program. There will be a wonderful auditorium where we can hold debates about constitutional issues.

    One feature that I did not get a chance to tell you, but one feature at the end of the visit, each visitor will get a delegate pass. At the end of the visit, right before you get a chance to sign the Constitution itself, you will go into a room, and whatever the current constitutional issue is—say last year, the balanced budget amendment—we will have two prominent speakers film a 4- or 5-minute videotape, pro and con. Then the delegates, ordinary citizens from this country, will get a chance to cast a vote. It will be like a running public opinion poll.
 Page 208       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    So this will be a wonderful, dynamic, interactive center where people can really learn about a document they revere, but know very little about.

    I also want to add, because I know it is of great concern to you, Mr. Chairman, that this is all the money we are asking for. There will be no request for operating funds.

    Mr. REGULA. What guarantee do we have of that?

    Mr. RENDELL. Number one, I am not only the mayor, but I am the chairman, and I intend to be the chairman for a long while, and, number two, we have just put it on record, and, number three, we intend, unlike everything else on the Mall—we intend to charge admission, and it is the admission that will cover the operating expenses for this.

    We have found that when we do focus groups on this and poll and ask people, a modest admission is nothing; that people balk at it, as you know from your experience with the national forest. When you consider the price of the Disneyworld or the Disneyland experience, a modest admission is something that people actually believe in, and believe is a better way than using Federal dollars.

    Mr. REGULA. We are about out of time.

    Mr. RENDELL. Well, thank you very much, and we appreciate your listening, and, again, appreciate your past help to the center.
 Page 209       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Thank you.

    [The statement of Ed Rendell follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."






    Mr. REGULA. Appalachian Trail Conference.

    Mr. FIELD. Chairman Regula?

    Mr. REGULA. Yes.

    Mr. FIELD. My name is Dave Field. I am the volunteer chair of the Board of Managers of the Appalachian Trail Conference of which you have obviously heard, and it is almost deja vu all over again here. You clearly recognize the existence and importance of the Appalachian Trail.
 Page 210       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The good news is that it is almost completely protected.

    Mr. REGULA. Right.

    Mr. FIELD. We have got about 33 miles left to go.

    Mr. REGULA. Our intent is to finish that as quickly as possible.

    Mr. FIELD. Yes, with a little help from our friends, and you have been our friends for a long, long time. And that is enormously appreciated. It has been steady right through.

    I think Dave Startzell here, the executive director, is still committed to the year 2000 as the completion for this project.

    Dave will speak specifically about what the needs are. One interesting thing about this whole project I think is the fact that, at least on the National Park Service side, as Congress has been generous consistently over the years, the Park Service has spent all the money. That is not the case with every program and——

    Mr. REGULA. Well, you have done well, and we have done well by you.

 Page 211       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. FIELD. It is a win-win.

    I am going to let Dave talk about the specifics.

    Mr. REGULA. We are persuaded, and we are out of time, but go ahead.

    Mr. FIELD. While he does that, I will just show you a few pictures of what you have already bought.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay.

    Mr. FIELD. Excuse me. You have not bought that yet. That is important.

    Mr. STARTZELL. Mr. Chairman, on the last page of our written testimony, which you have, I have outlined a funding scenario over the next 2 years based on about $7.5 million in each of those years, again with the objective of completing the program in the year 2000.

    However, we do have a rather unique opportunity at this time by virtue of the supplemental appropriation that was in the 1998 bill.

    Mr. REGULA. Right, I am aware of that.

 Page 212       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. STARTZELL. The administration, as you know, has requested $15 million.

    Mr. REGULA. That is true.

    Mr. STARTZELL. And I understand that their method of delivery was perhaps not what the committee was seeking, but, nonetheless, I cannot fault the message.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, we are going to review every item that they sent up to us, and, of course, we have been friendly to the Appalachian Trail, historically.

    Mr. STARTZELL. So we hope you will join us in seeking that year 2000 completion date by one funding scenario or the other.

    With that, we will close, and thank you.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. Thank you for coming.

    Mr. FIELD. Thank you, sir.

    [The statement of David N. Startzell and David Field follow:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

 Page 213       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  




    Mr. REGULA. The National Parks and Conservation Association, Mr. Chandler.

    Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I am Kevin Collins, National Parks and Conservation Association, a last-minute switch.

    First of all, I wanted to begin by recognizing, as you mentioned earlier, that this subcommittee also operates under budget limits, as agencies do, and we appreciate your efforts in the past to——

    Mr. REGULA. What is the mission of your group?

    Mr. COLLINS. To protect the resources of the National Park System.

    Mr. REGULA. Why do you think the Park people do not do that?

    Mr. COLLINS. They do do it. Sometimes they do not do it as well as we would like. Sometimes they do not have the resources to.
 Page 214       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. So you are kind of a hairshirt for the Park System.

    Mr. COLLINS. We are a watchdog group, that is right. We are an advocate for the Park System as opposed to an advocate for the Park Service.

    Mr. REGULA. What do you like about what they do and what do you not like?

    Mr. COLLINS. Well, what I like is they do a wonderful job of interpreting the resources, of educating people about the significance of the parks. Historically, they do not do such a good job of scientific protection of the resources. In the past, in many cases still in the present, they have a tendency to put visitor convenience, if you will, over the protection of the resources. That is something——

    Mr. REGULA. I would think this would be an ongoing struggle for the park superintendent because the parks are for the people—

    Mr. COLLINS. It absolutely is.

    Mr. REGULA [continuing]. And people want access, they want to use them. One of the interesting little footnotes to our fee program that I heard from the superintendents is that they experienced a drop in vandalism. When people pay a little money to get in, they have a little different attitude than when they just walk in and out.

 Page 215       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. COLLINS. I can well understand that.

    Mr. REGULA. Do you support the fee program?

    Mr. COLLINS. I do, indeed. Yes, sir.

    Mr. REGULA. And will that help in some of the concerns you have?

    Mr. COLLINS. It absolutely will help. I heard today a concern that the new fee money might be scored by CBO, and I do not know if that is accurate or not, but——

    Mr. REGULA. They made us come up with the money that would have gone to the Treasury. It was scored against us because we are letting the parks keep it. But I am perfectly willing to eat that because I think it is important for the long term to have, (A) the fee program, and (B) to have the fee stay in the park where it is generated.

    Mr. COLLINS. I agree.

    Mr. REGULA. The story made no sense, to collect fees in Yellowstone and send them to the Treasury.

    Mr. COLLINS. You are absolutely right.

 Page 216       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. And there is no incentive. But now that it is there, they expect to collect about $400 million over the next, three years. We are not reducing their appropriations, but trying to hold them.

    Mr. COLLINS. I understand that.

    Mr. REGULA. We are saying, that is extra to enhance the visitor experience, and conduct maintenance that may otherwise be neglected. Does that fit with your group's objectives?

    Mr. COLLINS. Absolutely.

    Mr. REGULA. Do you try to monitor all the parks or do you selectively do them?

    Mr. COLLINS. No. We try to monitor all the parks. We try to respond to issues in all the parks. We are physically incapable of doing every single park, but yes, we try to do that.

    Mr. REGULA. Do you have members?

    Mr. COLLINS. We have about 500,000 members.

    Mr. REGULA. Oh, really?

 Page 217       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. COLLINS. Yes.

    Mr. REGULA. And do they pay a little in the way of dues?

    Mr. COLLINS. They pay dues, yes, they do.

    Mr. REGULA. And that provides your staff.

    Mr. COLLINS. It is primarily membership supported, the organization.

    Mr. REGULA. From all across the country?

    Mr. COLLINS. All across the country.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, I have used up your time. [Laughter.]

    You have a minute left to tell me why you are here.

    Mr. COLLINS. Well, before we ask you for more money, I do want to say thanks for the efforts that you have put in past——

    Mr. REGULA. And you want more money for the parks.

    Mr. COLLINS. We do not want that much more money. This year, the budget is focused primarily on maintenance, and we understand.
 Page 218       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Well, that is because I have been driving them on maintenance.

    Mr. COLLINS. Absolutely.

    Mr. REGULA. We have neglected that.

    Mr. COLLINS. And I want you to understand that we agree with the GAO's findings that there are certain things that should not be included in the maintenance backlog. We agree that you need to ride herd on certain construction projects in the Park Service. So I want to start from the premise.

    There is one specific program, the Vanishing Treasures Program, which we are supportive of.

    Mr. REGULA. That was a new initiative coming out of our subcommittee.

    Mr. COLLINS. It was a new initiative doing work that has been ongoing, that is essentially right, maintenance work in the Southwest. The budget request last year was $3.5. It came out at $1 million. This year, the budget request is $500,000, which we believe is tantamount to ending the program and we think that that should not happen.

    Mr. REGULA. We are going to do all we can.
 Page 219       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. COLLINS. Okay. I appreciate that.

    Mr. REGULA. Thank you very much.

    [The statement of Kevin Collins follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."





    Mr. REGULA. National Audubon Society.

    Mr. BEARD. How are you, Mr. Chairman?

    Mr. REGULA. Mr. Beard, nice to see you again.

    Mr. BEARD. It is nice to see you again. I was just reminded as I was sitting watching Mr. Yates that I arrived here the day you did, which was, as I recall, February of 1975.
 Page 220       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. I came to this committee in February of 1975, that is right, second term. It is a great committee. It is the best one in Congress.

    Mr. BEARD. It is. I had a better seat in those days than I have right now.

    Mr. REGULA. Is that right?

    Mr. BEARD. Yes. I was sitting back there. It is always better.

    Mr. REGULA. Do you agree, Lori? [Laughter.]

    Lori Rowley is new to this. Tell me quickly what you have in mind.

    Mr. BEARD. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to begin by thanking you and the subcommittee. I think you have done a terrific job under the most difficult of circumstances over the last couple of years. We particularly appreciate the funding that you have given to some of the programs that we think fondly of, those programs that protect birds, other wildlife, and their habitat.

    There are really six things I want to mention to you. One is the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We support the full authorization for that. We have appended to our testimony a set of priorities which we have developed with our membership. We have 550,000 members in the United States, Canada, and Central America, and we have gone out to them with a list of national Land and Water Conservation Fund priorities. They have come back and given that list to us. We presented it to you and your staff.
 Page 221       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    In addition, the Everglades restoration has been one of the major priorities for our organization and——

    Mr. REGULA. You know we are doing that.

    Mr. BEARD. And you are doing an excellent job. The $144 million requested by the administration, we support, and we would urge you to support that.

    We also appreciate the work you did on the National Wildlife Refuge System and the operation and maintenance funds additions that you put in last year. The administration has matched your leadership and come forward with a little bit more money. We think there are some additional funds that could be made available.

    The Endangered Species Program, for the first time, the administration has come forward with what we think are some increases that are more than justified and long overdue. We would support the administration's request.

    There is a small program called the Office of Migratory Bird Management in the Fish and Wildlife Service. This small program, $18 million, has struggled along for years and we would urge you to consider additional funding to be able to enhance the ability of that office to meet their statutory responsibilities, and it particularly has to do with our ability to assist in making some small grants to assist in winter habitat for birds in Latin America.

    And finally, we would support the administration's request of $6 million for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
 Page 222       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Less than five minutes, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. REGULA. The response to your request will probably be less than you requested, so——

    Mr. BEARD. I absolutely understand.

    Mr. REGULA. Was Mr. Yates chairman in 1975?

    Mr. BEARD. Yes. I was his first——

    Mr. REGULA. He must have just taken over then.

    Mr. BEARD. Yes. I was his first associate staff member and I was here and I recall the first hearing we had was Secretary Tom Kleppey——

    Mr. REGULA. I remember him.

    Mr. BEARD. Who referred to you as Mr. Regula. [Laughter.]

    Mr. REGULA. Yes. That was not the last one.

    Mr. BEARD. He was not the last one? That is too bad.

 Page 223       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. That is all right. Just so they vote right. [Laughter.]

    I do pretty well in the ethnic districts.

    Mr. BEARD. Ever since you got that chair, you have done much better, right?

    Mr. REGULA. Julie Hanson was prior to that, I think.

    Mr. BEARD. Yes. She had been prior to that and the subcommittee at that time was over in the Capitol and Mr. Yates was the one who insisted on having this room and also insisted upon having this table instead of a dias, as some of the members insisted at the time.

    Mr. REGULA. That is interesting.

    Mr. BEARD. And then also, he was the first person to publish the budget request documents for the agency. Remember, he published them as volume one and volume two and made them publicly available. Prior to that time, they were not available to anybody, and so those of us who have a stake in the committee, never had an opportunity to really voice concern.

    Mr. REGULA. He did a great job. I enjoyed working with him.

 Page 224       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. BEARD. A terrific job.

    Mr. REGULA. It has been a great committee. Thank you very much.

    Mr. BEARD. Thank you, Mr. Regula.

    [The statement of Daniel Beard follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."






    Mr. REGULA. National Association of State Foresters

    Mr. IMBERGAMO. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I am Bill Imbergamo with the National Association of State Foresters. I have brought with me for show and tell my president, Marvin Brown, who has lost his voice. He was going to deliver our testimony this afternoon.
 Page 225       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I want to thank you first off for the support that you have shown over the years for the State and private programs. We appreciate it and we look forward to working with you and your staff in the future.

    State forestry agencies implement most of the programs within the State and private budgets, so, of course, we are very concerned with this appropriations process and we have submitted written testimony and we know that will be made part of the record.

    What I would like to stress here is that the figures in our testimony really more reflect the priority. They do not reflect the needs of the programs. They fall short of what is needed to really adequately cover the sustainability of the nation's State and private resources.

    There are several studies that point to some salient facts about forest sustainability in this country, including the National Research Council's study that came out recently. First, the sustainability of forest resources in this country in large part is dependent upon non-Federal lands and State and private lands in particular, particularly those owned by individuals who are not associated——

    Mr. REGULA. What percentage of the wood fiber used in the United States comes from the private versus the public sector?

    Mr. IMBERGAMO. It is at least 60 percent.

 Page 226       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. Does that 60 include State, or is that totally private?

    Mr. IMBERGAMO. That is just non-industrial private, actually.

    Mr. REGULA. Non-industry, 60 percent?

    Mr. IMBERGAMO. Private lands, 60 percent, and the estimates are kind of all over the place. Some range well over 70 at this point.

    Mr. REGULA. Are you eliminating the Weyerhausers and all of those?

    Mr. IMBERGAMO. Right, out of that.

    Mr. REGULA. And it is still 60 percent?

    Mr. IMBERGAMO. That is correct.

    Mr. REGULA. Just small farms and——

    Mr. IMBERGAMO. Non-industrial private woodland owners, on average, own—I believe it is well less than 80 acres per landowner. We have also seen proliferation of ownerships below 20 acres in the past 50 years. So the majority of the resource, including the wood fiber, is coming off of those small ownerships.
 Page 227       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. That is very interesting.

    Mr. IMBERGAMO. It is a long-term trend and I think the industry is aware of it and it is an important——

    Mr. REGULA. I assume you encourage it.

    Mr. IMBERGAMO. Pardon?

    Mr. REGULA. You encourage it.

    Mr. IMBERGAMO. We encourage it, but it presents some challenges as the land ownerships get smaller.

    Mr. REGULA. Yes. That is happening.

    Mr. IMBERGAMO. The ability and the interest of landowners in managing for timber and other resources gets harder and harder to have them make adequate plans——

    Mr. REGULA. Yes, I can see that.

    Mr. IMBERGAMO [continuing]. And that is what our programs are really intended to accomplish. It is really a pretty minor investment that is made by the Forest Service, around $200 million if you include some of the research programs, but only about $140 million a year reaches the ground, and that is probably optimistic in and of itself.
 Page 228       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We do have priorities and they have been the same as in the past within State and private, the Co-op Fire Program, Landowner Assistance Programs, the Urban and Community Forestry Program, and a balanced Forest Health Program. I will just run through them quickly.

    We appreciate the support you have shown for Cooperative Fire. The request the administration has made for this year includes moving volunteer fire assistance directly into the Forest Service. It had been a pass-through program from another USDA agency. The move is pretty long overdue.

    Mr. REGULA. You support that?

    Mr. IMBERGAMO. We support it very strongly, so we hope you can help us with that.

    The Forest Health Program, the request of the administration is relatively strong. It does not include enough money to fund the ''slow the spread'' program, and as you know, if your district is at the end of the spread of the gypsy moth, that program really needs full funding at some point. The expansion of the Forest Health Monitoring Program is something we support, as well.

    The Landowner Assistance Programs continue to be a major priority. These are the main tools that the State forestry agencies have to reach those landowners we talked about. They have been cut several years ago. They are slowly building back up. We would like to see in particular the Stewardship Incentives Program go back up over $10 million so it can function as a national program.
 Page 229       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. We are about out of time.

    Mr. IMBERGAMO. I would just like to close. We appreciate your support, particularly of the Urban and Community Forestry Programs, and we will be available for any questions.

    Mr. REGULA. Do the State forests produce quite a bit of fiber?

    Mr. IMBERGAMO. The State forests? Yes, indeed, they do, and in several States, they are basically revenue-generating trust agencies, in States like Montana——

    Mr. REGULA. Are States getting the same quantum leap in multiple use that the Federal forests are?

    Mr. IMBERGAMO. In terms of expense?

    Mr. REGULA. No, in terms of usage by the public.

    Mr. IMBERGAMO. It is fair to say they are seeing an increase. I do not have any really good figures on it. The NRC study showed that about 26 million acres of State forest land are managed primarily for recreation, but where the State manager is under a trust mandate, the emphasis is more on timber and other uses like that. But they do allow multiple use.
 Page 230       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Thank you very much.

    Mr. IMBERGAMO. Thank you.

    [The statement of Bill Imbergamo follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."





    Mr. REGULA. American Forest and Paper Association.

    Mr. HEISSENBUTTEL. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Heissenbuttel. I am with AFPA.

    I would like to begin by recognizing that today is the 107th birthday of the Forest Service. I do not know how many people knew that, but on March 3——

 Page 231       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. You did not tell me, Chris.

    Mr. HEISSENBUTTEL. On March 3, 1891, the Creative Act was enacted.

    Mr. REGULA. The public lands were out there, but there was no management prior to that, I assume.

    Mr. HEISSENBUTTEL. Well, what it did was authorize the President to establish forest reserves, so it is really the beginning of the National Forest System and the Forest Service itself. The mission was clarified in 1897 through the Organic Act.

    But to me, it is funny what a difference 100 years makes. Back then, we had an administration that was committed to establishing something good for the benefit of the masses, and today, we have an administration that seems bent on dismantling an organization to the benefit of a few.

    What I would like to do in my testimony today is just go briefly over three points. The first is the mission of the National Forest System. Second, the mission of the Forest Service research program. And finally, the mission of the State and private forestry program.

    What we have done is reviewed the administration's proposed budget for the National Forest System, together with the call for the roads moratorium, and we do not see an organization with a mission to manage lands sustainably for multiple use for the benefit of the masses. What we have recommended in our testimony represents maintaining some life in the concept of managing national forests for multiple uses, but to be honest with you, maybe it is time to consider more of a custodial approach, something along the lines of benign neglect. We need to talk about mission.
 Page 232       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    As we reviewed the proposed budget for Forest Service research, what we see is an organization dedicated largely to producing research that benefits the National Forest System. Now, the original intent of the Forest Service research program was to produce research that is useful for non-industrial landowners for all the forest lands of the United States.

    Mr. REGULA. Would not research that affected national forests also affect the private forests? The problems have to be the same.

    Mr. HEISSENBUTTEL. In some ways, but much of the research is now dedicated to wildlife and forest management——

    Mr. REGULA. As opposed to products.

    Mr. HEISSENBUTTEL [continuing]. That is unique to National Forest System lands. What we would like to see is research that benefits the entire forest resource base and we are not seeing that right now.

    Mr. REGULA. You are saying State, private, and Federal.

    Mr. HEISSENBUTTEL. Correct. You bet. That was the original mission of Forest Service research. If we want a more restricted mission on Forest Service research, maybe that is okay. Maybe we should just consider how we get additional funds to universities to provide research to benefit the remainder of the forest land.

 Page 233       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    One thing I would be remiss if I did not mention is the FIA Program within the Forest Service has the real potential to be a shining star to produce valuable information for everybody involved in forest management across the United States. Your committee helped a great deal last year in giving direction to the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program. We would like to encourage you to keep their feet to the fire.

    Finally, State and private forestry, no doubt part of their mission is protecting forest health through cooperative insect and disease and fire suppression. What is beyond that role has always been a subject of intense debate in the forestry community. We applaud the Forest Service. They are looking at strategic direction in State and private. We hope that they create some sort of substantive role for the other forest land owners to talk with them in that strategy.

    In sum, mission is really the heartbeat of an organization and our view is, currently, the Forest Service is on a resuscitator and we cannot determine yet whether the heartbeat is irregular or the heartbeat has just gone flat lined. We cannot figure out whether we should be pulling the plug or trying to revive the patient. That is where we are at today.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, let us know when you figure it out. [Laughter.]

    Mr. HEISSENBUTTEL. I would be glad to. Thank you.

    Mr. REGULA. Thank you.

 Page 234       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    [The statement of John Heissenbuttel follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."





    Mr. REGULA. American Sportfishing Association.

    Mr. PROSSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Norville Prosser and I am Vice President of the American Sportfishing Association. I think, Mr. Chairman, you know we represent the sportfishing industry. Since we were last here, we now know that that industry is about $108 billion a year in economic activity and supports about 1.2 million jobs. So much of that is supported by the public lands, which are under your jurisdiction——

    Mr. REGULA. You mean for the user?

    Mr. PROSSER. Absolutely, yes sir.

    Mr. REGULA. And you represent people that manufacture fishing equipment?
 Page 235       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. PROSSER. That is exactly right.

    Mr. REGULA. The boating industry——

    Mr. PROSSER. Boats, motors, trailers, fishing rods.

    Mr. REGULA. Tell me what is good or bad about the present environment.

    Mr. PROSSER. All right. I am happy to be here to do that for you today, sir.

    We, of course, our industry depends upon a health, sustainable aquatic resource out there, and yet we do represent an industry that supports a lot of jobs and the result of using that.

    We believe that the President's budget for fiscal year 1999 is a pretty positive one for aquatic resource conservation, and in our written testimony, which we have submitted, we are pleased to support many aspects of that.

    In the very few minutes that I have before you here this afternoon, I would like to highlight three items for you.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay.
 Page 236       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. PROSSER. First is the matter of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Federal fish hatchery system. The last gentleman talked about a resuscitator. We have a similar situation there. Under your leadership last year, you took a very meaningful step in addressing the maintenance and construction, rehabilitation backlog in the Fish and Wildlife Service's refuge system.

    Mr. REGULA. We are trying to do that all across the board.

    Mr. PROSSER. Well, this is a particular program area that is really in need. They conservatively estimate that the backlog is about $117 million.

    Mr. REGULA. You are saying that the hatcheries are in bad condition.

    Mr. PROSSER. That is correct.

    Mr. REGULA. Just so I can understand it.

    Mr. PROSSER. That is exactly correct.

    Mr. REGULA. We will do all we can on that. You can count on it.

    Mr. PROSSER. All right. I appreciate that very much.

 Page 237       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    In addition to the maintenance and rehabilitation backlog, we have reduced the operational capability of the hatcheries by about 11 percent.

    Mr. REGULA. Is this through closings or just by each hatchery being able to do less?

    Mr. PROSSER. This Congress has instructed the administration to undertake a very careful analysis of their hatchery systems and make sure that they match top Federal priority programs, and they have done that and there have been some closures and transfers of Federal hatcheries to States.

    Mr. REGULA. Right.

    Mr. PROSSER. But the Federal funding level itself for the remaining hatcheries has declined by about 11 percent with CPI adjustments.

    Mr. REGULA. You are saying there is a point that they are no longer operating effectively.

    Mr. PROSSER. They are no longer able to—that is right.

    Mr. REGULA. This reduces the amount of small fish to restock and so on.

    Mr. PROSSER. The issue is both the number of fish and then how we use those, to use them properly, make sure that they are quality fish when we put them out there. We just have to enable the agency to be able to do that.
 Page 238       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Right.

    Mr. PROSSER. The second item I bring very quickly to your attention is that the Bureau of Land Management, they have, 276 million acres of this country to manage and all the aquatic habitats thereon. They have 66 aquatic biologists on staff.

    Mr. REGULA. They need more.

    Mr. PROSSER. They do, indeed.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. What else do you have?

    Mr. PROSSER. The last thing, I just want to support the President's request for the inland fisheries budget of the U.S. Forest Service. They have asked finally for a responsible amount to do that work, $23.5 million, and we want to support that, and those are the three things I want to bring to your attention.

    Mr. REGULA. As you have heard me say before, the President's budget is unreal because the money is not there. I mean, it is easy to send up any number that occurs to them, but they do not have to come out and raise the money to do it. So we will do the best we can with the resources we have.

    Mr. PROSSER. We appreciate it.

 Page 239       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. I do not know what we will have in the way of an allocation.

    Mr. PROSSER. Fine.

    Mr. REGULA. Thank you very much.

    Mr. PROSSER. We appreciate it and look forward to working with you on that, sir.

    Mr. REGULA. Thank you.

    [The statement of Norville Prosser follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."





    Mr. REGULA. The Appalachian Mountain Club. Is this on the Appalachian Trail?
 Page 240       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. STEINBACH. The AMC is a membership organization that is focused from Virginia to Maine, not just on the Appalachian Trail.

    Mr. REGULA. Just on trails that are part of the Appalachian Mountain chain, is that right?

    Mr. STEINBACH. We focus on conservation and recreation of all types from the States from Virginia to Maine, so in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States.

    I am Tom Steinbach. I am the Conservation Director of the AMC. I wanted to thank you for taking the time to let me be here today. I really have three things I want to talk about, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Forest Legacy Program of the U.S. Forest Service, and conservation of the Northern Forest.

    Mr. REGULA. Right.

    Mr. STEINBACH. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, you, through this committee showed, I think, great leadership last year in stepping up and providing significant funding for LWCF.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, we do all we can, but as you understand, we have real priority choices we have to make and it is not easy.

    Mr. STEINBACH. I fully understand that. I am also interested and bolstered by the news that revenues from the oil and gas leases on the outer continental shelf were, what, I guess, $4.7 billion in 1997——
 Page 241       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. That is deep-water drilling. That has become very productive.

    Mr. STEINBACH. And expected to rise.

    Mr. REGULA. Right.

    Mr. STEINBACH. What I would like to see and what the AMC would like to see is an ongoing commitment to the full funding of the Land and Water Fund at the $900 million level. In addition, we would like to see at least $200 million of that flowing to the State side of LWCF.

    Mr. REGULA. I have trouble with the State side and I will tell you why. They have more money than we do. Their budgets are in good shape because the States' boats have gone up with the Federal, in terms of the economy.

    Mr. STEINBACH. The individual States?

    Mr. REGULA. Yes. Right. Many of them have surpluses and I have a hard time thinking why we should collect money and send it out to the States to do as they please when we have so many unmet needs. If you sit in here today, tomorrow and Thursday, and you had an adding machine, it would come out to about triple what we have in our 602(b) allocation.

    Mr. STEINBACH. My challenge and the challenge we face in the Northeast in particular is that we do not have many Federal lands. So in order to leverage the money that States do provide, and in many cases it is not substantial, we need the help of the State side program.
 Page 242       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Well, you have more Federal land per person than we do in Ohio, I would guess.

    Mr. STEINBACH. Perhaps. As you move west, however, that proportion changes dramatically.

    Mr. REGULA. You have the White Mountains and a lot of State land, public lands, Federal lands.

    Mr. STEINBACH. In fact, Maine itself ranks lowest in the nation for public lands.

    Mr. REGULA. Is that on a per capita basis or is that per square mile?

    Mr. STEINBACH. On area.

    Mr. REGULA. Per square mile? Well, sure.

    Mr. STEINBACH. In any event, the State side is a critical tool for us to be able to leverage that State money you were talking about and we would like to see a slow and steady resurgence of the State side of LWCF.

    Mr. REGULA. I think until our budget gets a lot healthier, that is not likely to happen, simply because we are hard-pressed to meet the Federal obligation, which is in the National Park System, the Forest System, the BLM, all the cultural agencies downtown. As I said, the money is just not there.
 Page 243       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. STEINBACH. I understand the challenge.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. What else do you have?

    Mr. STEINBACH. The Forest Legacy Program of the U.S. Forest Service, a relatively small program but effective. It is a public-private partnership. It allows landowners to essentially sell conservation easements. That allows them to continue owning the land but provide for its long-term stewardship. We would like to see a dramatic increase or a serious increase in funding.

    Mr. REGULA. This would be using Federal money to buy the easements?

    Mr. STEINBACH. Yes. States can hold those easements or the Federal Government can hold those easements.

    Mr. REGULA. I think wherever possible and wherever funds are available, easements are an efficient way to add to the land base of given institutions.

    Mr. STEINBACH. Absolutely, and it gets around the operations and maintenance problem.

    Mr. REGULA. I understand, and that is one of the things we are trying to avoid, because every time we add something we get an operations and maintenance cost down the road.
 Page 244       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. STEINBACH. Yes.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. You had one more.

    Mr. STEINBACH. One more is the Northern forest, and mostly, I wanted to highlight the fact that the administration has highlighted the Northern forest as one of four priorities in its budget for the coming year. There are several projects that are detailed in my testimony——

    Mr. REGULA. When you say Northern forest, are you talking about buying additional land or just the management of it.

    Mr. STEINBACH. Buying additional land, both using Forest Legacy and, hopefully, State side LWCF. Then in addition, using two Forest Service programs, the Stewardship Incentive Program and Rural Development Through Forestry, both of the Forest Service programs, to help with rural economic development. What we have in the Northern forest are economies that, in many cases, are struggling. They need this sort of technical assistance and assistance to ensure that they are able to continue providing stewardship for that place.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. Thank you very much.

    Mr. STEINBACH. Thanks.

    [The statement of Thomas E. Steinbach follows:]
 Page 245       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."





    Mr. REGULA. The Garden Club of America.

    Ms. HENLEY. Good afternoon.

    Mr. REGULA. How are you?

    Ms. HENLEY. I am Jane Henley and I come here from Colorado Springs and I am representing the Garden Club of America. I am their Chairman of National Affairs and Legislation. I think you have some friends that are members of our club.

    Mr. REGULA. It starts in my bedroom. [Laughter.]

    Ms. HENLEY. All right. At any rate, we have 193 clubs with a membership of 16,500 from 40 States. What we are doing here today is to speak to you about a need that we have discovered in some of our activities to do with the need for botanists to be in the Federal staffing group within all of the departments in the entire Interior.
 Page 246       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. You do not think they have enough?

    Ms. HENLEY. Not enough. They have scientists, they hire biologists, but the biologists are often Fish and Wildlife people for animals. They are not plant people. We are not saying ''botanist'' has to be the title. We are saying ''plant ecologist'', but that within the background, they should have a lot of expertise in plants.

    Now, the reason I say this is because two-thirds, almost two-thirds, over 60 percent of your endangered species are plants. Now, this is little known because the animals get all the play.

    Mr. REGULA. That is right.

    Ms. HENLEY. So there are very few people that are out speaking for plants and the Garden Club of America is one of about two groups that are actually advocating legislatively for that constituency.

    We have a program called Partners for Plants and through that experience we have dealt with five different Federal agencies. It is a partnership with each of them, and all within your budget. They are named here. At any rate, all of them, and I have talked to every one in the last few days and they each say the same thing. You are right. We do not have enough plant people.

    I will give one example. The biological resources, when they formed that, they all came from Fish and Wildlife and they do not have any plant experience. It is sad, because they are doing all the surveying——
 Page 247       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. We should have more of them. Why do they not? Did they give you a reason?

    Ms. HENLEY. Well, they gave the excuse, well, we came from Fish and Wildlife. That is the way it was just put together. But that does not mean to me, especially with the Endangered Species Act being mainly the realm of Fish and Wildlife, that they particularly should have plant people, but they do not. It is just they do not. Now, they have 40 botanists in the whole BLM out of thousands of employees. It is pretty similar with Fish and Wildlife. It is incredible.

    What we are asking is not necessarily—we want you to particularly fund as best you can the Endangered Species Act because there are all these voluntary programs that have just been instituted in it. This will help plants, because, by the way, on private land, plants are not covered by the Endangered Species Act. These are voluntary incentive programs to get your private landowner into it with the conservation easements that you just mentioned and so forth.

    Mr. REGULA. Do you like the Kempthorne bill?

    Ms. HENLEY. We, as the Garden Club of America, are leaning very close to supporting that for this reason. It is because of these private incentives and also because we feel that the ball should start moving. We do not believe that the bill should die. That is unlike some of the other organizations that are out there.

 Page 248       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. I do not recall. Has it passed the Senate?

    Ms. HENLEY. It has not come up yet.

    Mr. REGULA. It has not been on the floor?

    Ms. HENLEY. No, it has not. So we are leaning in that direction. It has not been definitely——

    Mr. REGULA. We will raise the question as the agencies come before us on the matter of botanists.

    Ms. HENLEY. But what we are asking is, number one, that you do fund them as best as you can for their staffing. Within that funding, if you could do this for us, which is—I think when I have spoken to them, they say nothing will happen with those funds if you do not, and that is that we urge you to include language in your committee report which will require agencies to address their needs for field staff with expertise in plant sciences.

    Mr. REGULA. I understand that, because they really ultimately make the decision.

    Ms. HENLEY. Right.

    Mr. REGULA. We do not earmark and say they should have so many botanists. But we can put in report language.
 Page 249       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Ms. HENLEY. But if you would put report language in there bringing to their attention and ask them, then maybe they will do it.

    Mr. REGULA. In the hearings, we will ask about it, and that may then justify language.

    Ms. HENLEY. But we mentioned it to Secretary Babbitt the other day when we had all of our Garden Club ladies here about a week ago and he said, ''You are right. We need to do something about it.''

    Mr. REGULA. And he is in a position to do something about it.

    Ms. HENLEY. Right.

    Mr. REGULA. We will help him.

    Ms. HENLEY. Okay. Thank you.

    Mr. REGULA. Thank you.

    [The statement of Jane Henley follows:]

    Offset folios 574 to 577 insert here

 Page 250       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  




    Mr. REGULA. Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, Sharon Apfelbaum.

    Ms. APFELBAUM. Yes. I am a board member of the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy and, in fact, have been involved in it since its inception. I was one of the founding people, so I am happy to be back here. The conservancy——

    Mr. REGULA. Where is this? Tell me.

    Ms. APFELBAUM. This is in the Coachella Valley, which surrounds Palm Springs, California, and its adjacent cities. It is a resort area that is very dependent on its mountain setting.

    Mr. REGULA. Is it private land or is it public land?

    Ms. APFELBAUM. The valley encompasses nine separate cities, a county, and is overseen by an umbrella organization called the Coachella Valley Association of Governments.
 Page 251       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. And the conservancy district is a non-profit private——

    Ms. APFELBAUM. The conservancy is non-profit, but it is a State agency and was designated so in 1991.

    Mr. REGULA. How do we fit into this?

    Ms. APFELBAUM. With your money.

    Mr. REGULA. That is something new today.


    Mr. REGULA. Did we give you money?

    Ms. APFELBAUM. You have, indeed, given us money and helped us with land and water conservation funds. We have acquired some important parcels in our valley that protect scenic views and protect——

    Mr. REGULA. So your group can hold title to land?

    Ms. APFELBAUM. Yes.

 Page 252       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. Do you have a staff?

    Ms. APFELBAUM. We have an executive director and an assistance executive director who work very hard.

    Mr. REGULA. So your mission is to preserve open spaces within this valley——

    Ms. APFELBAUM. Exactly.

    Mr. REGULA [continuing]. Which is probably rapidly developing.

    Ms. APFELBAUM. It is so rapidly developing, and the portions we want to acquire are pressured by development right now, so timing is a key.

    Mr. REGULA. I can understand that. So the role we could play is whatever we can do in providing you some financial assistance?

    Ms. APFELBAUM. Actually, you have heard from the conservancy for some number of years now and you have helped us, so I will just refresh your memory to remind you that the mountain ridge forms the backdrop of all these Coachella Valley cities and is a key to our economy. Mountains rise steeply from the desert floor. In fact, it is one of the steepest escarpments in the United States. It is quite beautiful. The mountains when I left were snow-covered. The desert was sunny. It is a beautiful place. If you have not been there, I invite you to come.
 Page 253       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. I have been to Palm Springs a couple of times, and I presume it is typical of what you are talking about there, right?

    Ms. APFELBAUM. Yes. Yes. Exactly.

    Mr. REGULA. Is this not a valley that goes up to Los Angeles?

    Ms. APFELBAUM. No. It does not go quite that far. It is about 60 miles in length and it goes from—Palm Springs is the northernmost city and then the nine cities spread south to the Salton Sea.

    Mr. REGULA. It runs north and south?

    Ms. APFELBAUM. Yes, at a slight angle.

    Mr. REGULA. You have a real problem with the Salton Sea.

    Ms. APFELBAUM. Yes, we do. That is——

    Mr. REGULA. It has a new name. That may help.

    Ms. APFELBAUM. Yes. We hope it will help. Name recognition counts in this day and age.

 Page 254       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. We put $1 million in last year, while Sonny Bono was still here, and I understand the problem. How about your cities and the counties and the State? Are they helping you?

    Ms. APFELBAUM. We have tremendous support from our cities. Every city contributes to the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, and, in fact, the City of Palm Desert just promised $1.5 million for a piece of land that is north of our visitors' center that the BLM operates and is key to the mountain sheep——

    Mr. REGULA. There is some BLM land in the valley?

    Ms. APFELBAUM. Oh, yes. We have lots of BLM land in the valley.

    Mr. REGULA. There is a visitors' center?

    Ms. APFELBAUM. Yes.

    Mr. REGULA. A BLM-operated visitors' center?

    Ms. APFELBAUM. Yes. It is one of the prettiest I have ever seen.

    Mr. REGULA. So anything we would do would support the BLM operation?

 Page 255       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Ms. APFELBAUM. Essentially, yes, but what is important for you to know is that we have a really strong volunteer operation and the volunteers run the visitors' center and the volunteers also are fundraisers for this conservancy, very strong community support through all the cities and the county and volunteer people.

    Mr. REGULA. That is important, very important. Thank you very much.

    Ms. APFELBAUM. All right. Thank you.

    [The statement of Sharon Apfelbaum follows:]

    Offset folios 584 to 587 insert here





    Mr. REGULA. National Network of Forest Practitioners. Mr. Cordova?

 Page 256       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. CORDOVA. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify as part of these public witness hearings on the Forest Service budget for 1999. I am Max Cordova, President of the Truchas Land Grant in Truchas, New Mexico. Our land grant was given to us by the government of Spain in 1754, by the government of Mexico in 1829, and by the Government of the United States in 1892. It was ratified by Congress in 1905 and by President Theodore Roosevelt at the same time.

    The land grant people are descendants of the settlers who came from Spain in 1598 and intermarried with Pueblo Indians. They have used the land to sustain themselves and to maintain their families into the future.

    Mr. REGULA. This is a form of reservation, then? Would you consider this a Native American reservation?

    Mr. CORDOVA. Very similar, sir.

    Mr. REGULA. And you have a lot of forests?

    Mr. CORDOVA. We had a lot of forests. They are now managed by the national forests.

    Mr. REGULA. They are managed by the national forests?

    Mr. CORDOVA. Yes.

 Page 257       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. Okay.

    Mr. CORDOVA. I am here today as a member of the National Network of Forest Practitioners, a national coalition of over 100 individual organizations and small businesses in 31 States living and working in forest-dependent communities like mine. I am here today to express support for the Forest Service Economic Action Program, which fund part of the agency's cooperative forestry programs.

    The demonstrated effectiveness of these programs in rural communities across the country has generated a rising interest in them among communities suffering environmental and economic ills. In recent years, however, the funding for Economic Action Programs has declined——

    Mr. REGULA. These are programs coming out of the Forest Service?

    Mr. CORDOVA. Yes.

    Mr. REGULA. And you basically would like additional funding for those programs?

    Mr. CORDOVA. Yes, sir.

    Mr. REGULA. Do they work well?

 Page 258       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. CORDOVA. Very well, sir.

    Mr. REGULA. In your groups, do you sell fiber to the market? Do you harvest some of your forest products?

    Mr. CORDOVA. Yes, sir, we do.

    Mr. REGULA. And do you also have multiple use by people coming to hunt, fish, whatever?

    Mr. CORDOVA. Definitely, sir.

    Mr. REGULA. So basically, you want us to support this program within the Forest Service?

    Mr. CORDOVA. Yes, sir.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay.

    Mr. CORDOVA. To show you how successful the program is, the Economic Action Programs have decreased from one in three applicants to one in five applicants. For this reason, we respectfully request a 1999 appropriation of $20 million for Economic Action Programs, a figure on par with the appropriation for 1997.

    Mr. REGULA. You are saying this is about what was in the 1997 budget?
 Page 259       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. CORDOVA. Yes.

    Mr. REGULA. How about 1998?

    Mr. CORDOVA. Much less than that.

    Mr. REGULA. So you would like an increase?

    Mr. CORDOVA. Yes, sir.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. That means that we have your statement. That does not mean okay on the increase.

    Mr. CORDOVA. Yes, sir. I understand that.


    Mr. REGULA. I have to be careful here.

    Mr. CORDOVA. One of the reasons I am here today is to alert you and the rest of the committee to the pivotal role that the Forest Service has played and can play in assisting communities like mine and to express the appreciation of the role the Congress has played in making these things possible.

 Page 260       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    In my part of the country, there are 38 forest-dependent communities which have traditionally relied on the local national forest for wood to heat our homes and to cook our food and for the forest resources to build our homes and to sustain our way of life.

    Mr. REGULA. What else do you have in your economy besides forest products? Do you have farming?

    Mr. CORDOVA. Almost no farming at all.

    Mr. REGULA. Do you have any small industries?

    Mr. CORDOVA. The biggest employer is Los Alamos National Lab.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. That is probably a pretty good size, then, in numbers.

    Mr. CORDOVA. Yes, sir.

    Mr. REGULA. Do you have small privately-held businesses, wood crafts or any stores, whatever?

    Mr. CORDOVA. We are just starting those up through economic programs. In my community, for example, we are facing high unemployment, poverty, increased restrictions on access to national forests, which we actually——

 Page 261       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. So you utilize the national forests in addition to your own?

    Mr. CORDOVA. Yes.

    Mr. REGULA. You harvest out of the national forests?

    Mr. CORDOVA. We do not have any national forests on our land anymore so we have to rely off the national forests for our way of life.

    Mr. REGULA. You do not have forest land in your reservation——

    Mr. CORDOVA. No.

    Mr. REGULA [continuing]. So you have to go to the national forests——

    Mr. CORDOVA. Yes.

    Mr. REGULA [continuing]. And you are running up against some of the restrictions that are being imposed?

    Mr. CORDOVA. Yes, sir.

 Page 262       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. Okay.

    Mr. CORDOVA. To help us address some of these problems, we received a grant from EAP funds to start a wood lot where wood products will be harvested in nearby forests. They will be sorted, processed, and marketed. In return, the project will contribute to forest health, forest restoration through things and habitat improvement.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. Thank you for your time. We appreciate it.

    Mr. CORDOVA. Yes, sir. In closing, I would like to tell you that I feel that the EAP is cost effective, leveraging between $5 and $10 for every Federal dollar spent. Number two, EAP is a non-regulatory approach which focuses on the capacity of people to solve their own problems. Number three, EAP works at the community level, engaging the Forest Service staff directly with the community. And number four, EAP is very adaptive to changing social and economic conditions within the community.

    Mr. REGULA. Thank you very much.

    Mr. CORDOVA. Thank you very much, sir.

    [The statement of Max Cordova follows:]

    Offset folios 595 to 598 insert here

 Page 263       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  




    Mr. REGULA. National Woodland Owners Association. Mr. Argow.

    Mr. ARGOW. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the special effort you and your predecessor have made to make these hearings open for the opportunity for us to speak.

    I am a representative of that 60 percent of America's wood production, as that State foresters spokesman, since I have never seen a voiceless State forester before but I have now today, so eloquently spoke. I am the President of the National Woodland Owners Association and our affiliated American Federation of State Affiliates.

    Mr. REGULA. So your membership would be made up of small woodland owners?

    Mr. ARGOW. Small woodland owners——

    Mr. REGULA. States?

 Page 264       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. ARGOW. We are in all 50 States and the median acreage is 82 acres. We own 59 percent of the commercial timberland and we produce, as you heard—we do not know for sure, but somewhere between 55 and 60-plus percent.

    Mr. REGULA. What percentage of your membership's production would be hardwoods versus soft?

    Mr. ARGOW. The majority would be hardwood. I could not give you a percentage, but we are extremely strong in the Northeastern U.S. and then our next great strength would be the Northwest lake States and then in the South, too. In the South would be a lot more pine production. But hardwood is very common.

    Mr. REGULA. Are we on a sustained yield on hardwoods?

    Mr. ARGOW. I would say we are, sir. The NIPF, we are over-cutting right now, but the prices are high and a lot of our members are not sure if they are going to be allowed to cut in the future with the term of regulation. But given the big picture, and particularly with the growth we have on the national forests right now that are not being harvested, nationwide, we are clearly growing more than we are harvesting, and with balance and work, we can be sustainable.

    Mr. REGULA. You supply the furniture industry, I assume.

    Mr. ARGOW. That is correct, and the American hardwoods are to us an American treasure.
 Page 265       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Oh, they are beautiful.

    Mr. ARGOW. There is nothing like it in the world and they are the most competitive product in the world. That is why we do support continued certification. In fact, Ohio, where your woodland, your farm is, is, as you very well know, extremely productive.

    I was just going to skip over and use the testimony for the highlights. I would point out a couple of things. The State and private forestry is a catalyst for a State forest matching fund of about eight-to-one. That figures out, the 16,000 State forestry personnel, of one forester for every 625 woodland owners. Much of that gap is being made up in the free enterprise system with consulting foresters, but we feel that the public share of service forestry is cut about as far as it can go. We do not want to see it cut any more.

    Also, you have heard about fragmentation, the sales, again State foresters point out, of landowners buying smaller tracts.

    Mr. REGULA. That land is being broken up.

    Mr. ARGOW. We are replicating. People like me have 2,500 a week. That is new landowners and many of them have not had any experience on the farm and in stewardship.

    Mr. REGULA. I see that happening in our area. When the farmer dies, they break it into 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-acre parcels.
 Page 266       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. ARGOW. Which is a wonderful lead to the six bullets I have here. Of course, all of our budgets are recommended along with our past recommendations and your past committee actions, which, by the way, have been very supportive. We feel well-treated by this committee.

    The bullets are forest stewardship authorized, which you are very well familiar with, in the 1990 farm bill. It is hard to say too much good about the Forest Stewardship Program.

    The same with SIP cost sharing. Cost sharing has a proven track record and another committee will look at FIP, but that leverages a great deal of private dollars.

    The forest health and fire protection initiatives, which I am sure you have heard about today and you are going to hear more of tomorrow and Thursday.

    On Forest Legacy, you will see we are very supportive of a legacy but we also have a warning flag up there. We think it is time to rethink the authority and bid Forest Legacy easements like we do the Conservation Reserve Program. We will get far more lands protected with limited Federal dollars. Right now, we are using the standard appraisal, which is expensive to administer and it is also—the average easement is worth 50 percent and we are just not getting the bang for the buck that we could, and I have emphasized that.

    Finally, the cap on forest and range research. We support the administration's recommendation and particularly also highlight FIA, the Forest Inventory and Analysis, and then the urban and community forestry.
 Page 267       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    And finally, we do support the administration's position on the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

    Mr. REGULA. Thank you very much.

    Mr. ARGOW. Thank you.

    [The statement of Keith Argow follows:]

    Offset folios 604 insert here





    Mr. REGULA. Society for American Archaeology. Ms. Julia King, right?

    Ms. KING. Good afternoon. My name is Julie King. I am an archaeologist with the Maryland Historical Trust and today I am here representing the Society for American Archaeology and also the Society for Historical Archaeology and the American Anthropological Association. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify before your subcommittee and also to thank you and your committee for the leadership and support that you have shown in the identification and preservation of cultural and archaeological resources in the last few years.
 Page 268       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The testimony that we have turned in concerns the National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service and the Advisory Council, but I thought since it was late in the day and that you have heard a lot of testimony today and that every year we present not the same testimony, but certainly advocating for preservation of resources, I thought maybe, with your permission, I could show you some artifacts that have come from an archaeological site on the Potomac related to the——

    Mr. REGULA. Are you concerned that the Federal agencies are not sensitive enough to this?

    Ms. KING. I think the Federal agencies are sensitive enough. In fact, they have a statutory obligation to identify and preserve these resources, but the funding is not there always to identify and preserve these. Some organizations have more funding. Other organizations do not even have line items. For example, I believe Fish and Wildlife Service does not even have a line item for the preservation of this material.

    Mr. REGULA. So your interest is enhancing the activities of the agencies as far as archaeology?

    Ms. KING. Right, so that these organizations can carry out their statutory obligations.

    I brought some special artifacts here from an Indian site, a late 1600's Indian site. Much of the research has suggested that Native Americans were pretty much gone, moving west by 1650. This is about 40 years after Jamestown. This particular site was occupied in the 1680's, late 17th century, Native American site on the Potomac River just south of Washington.
 Page 269       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    You can see that you have both Native American artifacts as well as European artifacts in there, and if you see the white stone projectile point, that is made out of quartzite, then notice the brass projectile points, the same traditional Native American technologies using European materials, which is a very interesting statement about the preservation of their cultural traditions at this very late date in colonial history.

    This site was excavated using, partially using funds, or it was coming out of the Historic Preservation Grant Fund, and this is one of thousands of projects that have been funded and there are tens of thousands of archaeological sites on these Federal and private lands. This also made the Washington Post, for what that is worth.

    I just wanted to reemphasize for you the fact that all of these agencies, these Federal agencies, have the statutory responsibility to identify, protect, and interpret to the public these sites, and oftentimes they do not have the funds to do it in the way that really enhances the preservation.

    Mr. REGULA. Well, those are judgments they make, in part, because we do not necessarily line item their budgets.

    Ms. KING. Okay.

    Mr. REGULA. I mean, the agencies make a judgment, how much of their resources they want to apply on the archaeological site.

 Page 270       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Ms. KING. That is partially true, and they are juggling, of course, a lot of different competing things there.

    Mr. REGULA. That is the problem we have.

    Ms. KING. But since the Federal Government is the largest landowner in the country and because that is where archaeological sites occur, we feel it is important to bring that to your committee's attention.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. Thank you very much.

    Ms. KING. Thank you very much.

    [The statement of Julia King follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."





 Page 271       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation.

    Ms. GUNN. I am Sue Gunn. I am on the Board of Directors of Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation. It is a coalition of about 150 organizations that came together to revitalize the Land and Water Conservation Fund, including the State side.

    We think LWCF legislation is probably one of the best pieces of legislation in recent history and really responsible for shaping the landscape of our country, which is unique in the world. Despite the fact that maybe, I think it is close to seven million acres of land have been acquired and nearly 37,000 State and local parks and recreation projects have been completed, the need is still enormous and it is because our population is expanding. That expansion puts real pressure on wildernesses, watersheds, critical habitat.

    Mr. REGULA. Let me ask you, what percent of America do you think ought to be Federal land? It is now 30.

    Ms. GUNN. I do not have an answer to that question. I do not think it should be less.

    Mr. REGULA. No, that is a given, but how much more can we handle?

    Ms. GUNN. I kind of see——

    Mr. REGULA. I mean, that is the dilemma that confronts us, in a way. We have to take care of what we have. We have in-holdings, which I think have a high priority. But I do not know at what point we reach a balance between private and public ownership.
 Page 272       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Ms. GUNN. But the question is, what kind of population load can we take in our country? If we do not look at the population load——

    Mr. REGULA. I understand.

    Ms. GUNN [continuing]. We are going to have all private land and not—I mean, what little bit——

    Mr. REGULA. I understand that.

    Ms. GUNN. So we have competing problems. I understand where you are coming from, but I also understand without the vision to take care of the population issue, somebody has got to provide a buffer against this unchecked development and urban sprawl, and that is the real concern here.

    Mr. REGULA. I think it is something to look at. Conservation easements offer an opportunity to do this.

    Ms. GUNN. Yes.

    Mr. REGULA. That gives you the open space without the burden of taking care of it.

    Ms. GUNN. Yes. But we do have these sort of rosy economic indicators, and as one of the previous speakers mentioned about offshore oil and gas revenues coming up, that maybe not this year we will have full funding, but I think we could look towards——
 Page 273       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. I had an interesting call from a Californian very strongly in favor of increasing the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I said, great, we will lift the moratorium on offshore drilling and that would generate a lot of money out in California.

    Ms. GUNN. And Don Young would like to do that up in Alaska.

    Mr. REGULA. So would I, but I said, what should we do. He had not thought about that. It is great to drill off of Louisiana and spend the money in California.

    Ms. GUNN. Yes, and——

    Mr. REGULA. We will do all we can within the constraints of our budget. I like land.

    Ms. GUNN. I know you do, and I would like to compliment you, because if you exclude the 699 from last year, your committee and the Senate committee really raised the bar on the baseline. It is up close to $100 million, and the President's budget this year is requesting level funding from last year, so I think you have set the standard there.

    We are really concerned about the State side and urban issues. The administration has put $2 million in for UPAR, which seems symbolic in many ways because it is not sufficient funding, but these are critical needs and I think urbanites and suburbanites need to——

 Page 274       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. Organizations like yours, though, ought to put more pressure on States. They always look to us to do the land acquisition. Certainly, the States would love to have it. It is like revenue sharing, with the land and water. But why should the States not be making a greater effort? They are in pretty good shape financially.

    Ms. GUNN. Some of them are, some of them are not, and then there is the internal distribution. I mean, getting into core urban areas, there is sort of a bias in the way that money is distributed internally. We would really like to work with you and your staff to explore ways to meet these needs and satisfy you and satisfy the community.

    Mr. REGULA. You have an organization, probably with a national base of membership.

    Ms. GUNN. Right.

    Mr. REGULA. We have had a whole series of organizations today. I wonder if they put the same amount of energy, particularly in the populous States like Ohio and New York, in getting the States to take a larger role on the preservation of open space.

    Ms. GUNN. This is our first official year, and we bill ourselves as a grassroots educational organization and our goal is to get out there. We are having a conference down in New Orleans, and to spread the word and to get more support out there.

    Mr. REGULA. I would encourage you at your conference to say to your members, take a look at the State activities, the State potential——
 Page 275       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Ms. GUNN. Right.

    Mr. REGULA [continuing]. Because the States, many of them, are in pretty good shape financially.

    Ms. GUNN. And I think we are looking at all the various kinds of resources out there. I mean, our concern is open space, recreation, and conservation, but LWCF, and that is why I am here today, represents one of the best vehicles to handle those issues.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay. Thank you.

    Ms. GUNN. Thank you.

    [The statement of Susan Gunn follows:]


    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."



 Page 276       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  


    Mr. REGULA. Society of American Foresters.

    Mr. BANZHAF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bill Banzhaf with the Society of American Foresters. It is nice to see you again, and we certainly appreciate your support over the years. I know you have received a lot of testimony this afternoon. I will try very, very hard not to go over the same sort of thing you have heard before.

    Mr. REGULA. Appreciate it.

    Mr. BANZHAF. I have taken our presentation, our written remarks.

    Mr. REGULA. It will be part of the record.

    Mr. BANZHAF. I have put it in a more concise form and we will go with even a briefer format.

    What I would like to talk about today briefly will be the BLM. We have a concern that though some very good legislation passed last year that put a great deal of authority into forced ecosystem health and recovery activities, that currently they do not have the personnel to implement and to move forward on those activities.

 Page 277       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. You are talking about the Forest Service?

    Mr. BANZHAF. The BLM. Over the last 20 or so years there has been a real decrease in the budget for the forestry division of over 65 percent, whereas other divisions about 10 percent. We are finally coming down just to a people crunch.

    Mr. REGULA. They are not managing as well as they should.

    Mr. BANZHAF. They do not have the people——

    Mr. REGULA. The lack of people, that is what I mean.

    Mr. BANZHAF [continuing]. To be able to get on the ground to do what is needed.

    Now in terms of the Forest Service, briefly research. I am sure you have heard this story before, but clearly we are asking for some serious trouble. It is a disaster waiting to happen as far as I am concerned in terms of future policy debates with regard to the use of science on the ground. We will not have the information when our elected leaders like yourself ask, what is the good science?

    Mr. REGULA. I agree with you. Did you hear the testimony of the Garden Club that we need more botanists?

    Mr. BANZHAF. I would certainly agree that botanists, ecologists, foresters are needed in that area. But right now the whole issue of ecosystem management, which is supposed to be at the forefront of the Forest Service, is only 3 percent of their budget. This kind of research not only helps the Forest Service and public lands, but is needed for private landowners to best know how to manage their resources in accordance with their objectives. So it is not simply a public agenda.
 Page 278       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I would like to reiterate what many have said, that the forest inventory analysis where we have forest inventory data is really the cornerstone of any planning and decision-making opportunities and activities. You have to know what you have out there or you run into problems.

    In terms of State and private, there is a real need based on the reduction of timber production from the Forest Service down from 12.7 to 3.4. You may have heard before that 94 percent of all timber production is now coming from non-Federal. I think Mr. Argow mentioned that somewhere around 60 to 66 percent come from the NIPF, or Non-Industrial Private Forest area. Yet of the landowners that Mr. Argow represents, 90 percent of them do not have a forest management plan upon which to base the information.

    Mr. REGULA. I can believe that.

    Mr. BANZHAF. So State and private can be a real partner with the private sector consulting firms in providing information to the landowner.

    International forestry. This is something that many times is put on the back burner, and yet the U.S. is the world's largest importer and the second largest exporter. The forests of our world now are looked on as a global resource. We are moving towards some very serious policy decisions coming out of the UNSED conference several years ago and we need to be active participants in that debate. The best way to do that, or one of the most effective ways is through the Forest Service international forestry program.

 Page 279       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Road maintenance and reconstruction; last one. We were very frustrated with the moratorium that has been proposed on building of roads in roadless areas. Nevertheless, we do agree with the Forest Service's goals and their identification of a real road system crisis. Many of the roads in the National Forest system are 50 years old. Sixty percent of them are not maintained at the standard for which they were built. So those are the red flag areas that we would identify.

    Mr. REGULA. Would you put more money into closures?

    Mr. BANZHAF. I would say that you need to to put more money on maintenance and reconstruction. That would be the issue right now.

    Mr. REGULA. Do you think that most of the roads are used either for the sportsman or the multiple user or for additional harvesting?

    Mr. BANZHAF. Sure, the majority is used for multiple use. They may be constructed for forest management or harvesting purposes, but then they move to recreation purposes.

    Mr. REGULA. So there is a reason for their continued existence?

    Mr. BANZHAF. Absolutely. You really cannot have solid management, whether it is timber production or wilderness management without a sound road system.

    Mr. REGULA. Then you get into fire suppression.
 Page 280       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. BANZHAF. Exactly, pre-suppression. That was one of the difficulties that we recognized in the moratorium is that right now we have got areas that are susceptible to fire. They cannot go in there right now and do any thinning, prescribed burning, to reduce the——

    Mr. REGULA. Do you think a lot of these roads are contributing to environmental pollution of streams and so on?

    Mr. BANZHAF. There is no question that roads that have not been maintained, that are not up to the standards that they should be, have the potential to pollute.

    Mr. REGULA. Should we have a policy of trying to get these up to standards so they are not a threat to the downstreams and so on?

    Mr. BANZHAF. I think there needs to be the standards, and I would assume the Forest Service has that, that should be maintained so that environmental degradation is at a minimal. Any time you go into an area you are going to have some of that occur. But you have to look at the trade-offs in terms of benefits should as forest health preservation.

    Mr. REGULA. Thank you.

    Mr. BANZHAF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Page 281       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    [The statement of William H. Banzhaf follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."





    Mr. REGULA. Public Lands Foundation.

    Mr. LEA. Mr. Chairman, I am George Lea, president of the Public Lands Foundation. I want to thank you for this opportunity to discuss the BLM's budget with you. The Public Lands Foundation is a group of retired BLM people who are still dedicated to good public land management. We support the Bureau, but we are not a captive of the Bureau.

    I would like just to point out to you again that their request for $1.2 billion seemed like a chunk, and it is.

    Mr. REGULA. For BLM?

    Mr. LEA. Yes. But 25 percent of it is pass-through money, PILT, payment in lieu of taxes, the Department's fire program, the Department's hazmat program.
 Page 282       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Right.

    Mr. LEA. So you are looking at probably $800 million of the budget. You were looking for money a while ago; the Bureau is predicted to produce $1.6 billion in this fiscal year. So you are getting two for one.

    Mr. REGULA. It is from oil and gas and all kinds of sales.

    Mr. LEA. The whole thing, right.

    Just let me step over some things and emphasize a couple shortfalls. In the recreation area, the Bureau has what they call the challenge cost share program where they can get five for one. For one Federal dollar they can pick up five private dollars to cooperate in joint ventures on the ground. There is no bureaucracy involved. It is on the ground activities. And they have identified a lot of partners which this budget will allow them to accommodate. So I would suggest that the committee look at that opportunity.

    In the case of wild horses and burros, there is an increase here for that program, and it needs it. They have found that most wild horse populations under normal conditions increase about 18 percent a year. These horses under current stress conditions have upped their reproduction abilities and now they are reproducing at 24 percent a year. They are growing faster than they can remove them.

    They have a real problem, sir. Currently there are 6,000 horses in Government corrals today being fed that they cannot find homes for. The problem can be explained this way. There is habitat for 26,000 horses and there are roughly 44,000, increasing at 24 percent a year. Under current law it is a very expensive——
 Page 283       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. What would you suggest we do?

    Mr. LEA. The law needs to be changed, sir.

    Mr. REGULA. To do what? In what way?

    Mr. LEA. In several ways. There needs to be established a series of, if you would, refuges for wild horses in the West.

    Mr. REGULA. That will not solve the problem though. They will multiply there.

    Mr. LEA. But now we know where the lines are. We know what the habitat carrying capacity is. The horses that are not within these established areas would be taken off the land. That is the solution.

    Mr. REGULA. I understand.

    Mr. LEA. And the law would have to be changed. Otherwise this is a very expensive program. It is going to continue to be. The quality of the animal suffers, and the quality of the habitat.

    Another situation exists in the Endangered Species Act in the Southwest desert. There is another train wreck coming; the same train wreck that occurred in the Pacific Northwest. There are some 60 species of animals and plants that are endangered or at risk. All agencies are working to improve the riparian situation in the desert washes, but they are behind the eight-ball and they need financial and encouragement to get on with it.
 Page 284       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    You were talking a while ago about personnel needs with the gentleman before. I have got a paragraph in my statement which I suggest you read. There is a perception somehow that if you reduce range conservationists—and the Bureau has suffered a 43 percent reduction in range conservationists—that somehow there is less work to be done. They do not understand that grazing permits are annually exercised and they need to be supervised, and it takes bodies.

    Mr. REGULA. Right.

    Mr. LEA. Thank you very much.

    Mr. REGULA. Thank you.

    [The statement of George Lea follows:]

    Offset folios 641 to 644 insert here




 Page 285       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. National Recreation and Park Association, you are the witness we have been looking for. You are the last one.

    Mr. TINDALL. It is better being sought than being sought out for some other reason, Mr. Chairman. You remind me of——

    Mr. REGULA. We are not going to subpoena you. Go ahead.

    Mr. TINDALL. I am probably the last one in town then that has not received a piece of paper of that nature.

    Mr. REGULA. You and Carville. Go ahead.

    Mr. TINDALL. Well, he is certifiably crazy. I am just suspected of being so. [Laughter.]

    But your observation reminded me, Mr. Chairman, I was witness number 80 out of 80 some years ago on a program called CETA, the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. You are probably familiar with that. That goes back a while. But the same drill, the chairman said, I am certainly glad to see you.

    I do appreciate the opportunity to be here, Mr. Chairman. Let me just quickly respond to the observation or the question that you asked Ms. Gunn representing the Americans for Heritage and Recreation a few minutes ago about encouraging the States and local governments to invest. The State and local governments, I can assure you, are investing heavily in public recreational park resources. Two year ago, the States and locals passed over $4 billion in bond issues.
 Page 286       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. Yes, Ohio has done a good job.

    Mr. TINDALL. And there are numerous States. I was in Texas recently. They are doing a major statewide initiative that is going to result in more money. New Jersey has passed something like 11 or 12 consecutive major bond issues. City of Boston has something coming up next spring.

    Mr. REGULA. That is a good positive thing.

    Mr. TINDALL. That is just the new investment, if you will. If you look at who was managing the nearly 100,000 non-Federal park and recreation sites in this country in terms of direct management, restoration, expansion, new investment, dealing with increasing diversity in populations that are bringing challenges to the resource themselves and to the recreation managers, there are major investments going on out there.

    I would say in that context, relative to our recommendation to restart the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the States and locals are not coming to the Federal Government for a hand-out. Literally, they are coming to the national government to say, pass some of our money through so that we can get on with our business as well and let them—to your party's clear objective to let the State and local governments make decisions relative to their most immediate and long term needs.

    Mr. REGULA. We just do not have it to pass through. What would you take out of budget to allow us to do that?
 Page 287       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. TINDALL. The first thing I would do would be to enhance the allocation to this subcommittee.

    Mr. REGULA. Assuming we do not get that?

    Mr. TINDALL. We are working to assume that that happens, Mr. Chairman. If it does not happen, I frankly would look at some of the patterns of investment of the Federal resource agencies. Now there are people in this room and elsewhere that would attack probably you and me for saying that.

    Mr. REGULA. There would be a little unhappiness.

    Mr. TINDALL. There probably would be unhappiness. But I think all of us, every system, every managing agency ought to be open to scrutiny to see if we cannot more efficiently do things.

    Mr. REGULA. I have not had a request today for flat funding or a reduction. We will hear from the Indians on Thursday, and they will have enormous needs. It is just a difficult situation.

    Mr. TINDALL. I certainly understand that. I think that—and you and I probably would agree that either a balanced budget or at least a sustainable balanced budget is maybe illusionary.

 Page 288       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. Yes, it is. But on the other hand, how about when the baby boomers hit Social Security and Medicare?

    Mr. TINDALL. I could not have said it better. If you look at our statement, we have a window of opportunity. There are two things happening in terms of demographics generally and boomers specifically. There is relatively clear evidence that as more people retire there will in fact be less money available to invest in all kinds of public services.

    Mr. REGULA. That is true.

    Mr. TINDALL. The actuaries tell us that you need 70 percent to 80 percent of your existing salary just to have your same standard of living. That means 20 percent less money, at best, to invest in things. The demographics of America are changing recreation, the kinds of recreation we engage in, and where we seek recreation. And the new Americans, if you will, which are mostly non-Anglos by percentage, are bringing all kinds of other pressures and circumstances to bear.

    So we have a mix of things that in our judgment, Mr. Chairman, really encourage you and the rest of the subcommittee to reexamine this issue relative to State partnerships. We have got two examples in here, Assateague Island National Seashore and Assateague State Park, and Indiana Dunes State Park and Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. While neither one of the State parks in those areas—both of them preceded the Land and Water Conservation Fund, they represent real savings that can result from the Federal Government by other governments picking up some of the load.
 Page 289       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Assateague Island, for example, has 40 seasonal employees that otherwise would be paid for by the national government, 10 full-time employees who would be paid for by the national government.

    Mr. REGULA. That is as it should be. The people who are using it are there.

    Mr. TINDALL. We are not disagreeing. We are saying that those patterns——

    Mr. REGULA. The taxpayers in what, Maine, or wherever it is——

    Mr. TINDALL. Those patterns should be replicated. And there are hundreds and hundreds on the ground as a result of the State side Land and Water Conservation Fund. We think the national government in some respects ought to be the pocket of last resort to pay for park and recreation resources.

    Mr. REGULA. Then you get California which wants no offshore drilling, which really cuts the flow of money going into the fund. Now it is Florida that wants no offshore drilling, North Carolina wants no offshore drilling, and that was a major source of income for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

    Mr. TINDALL. I think the substantial increase in OCS revenues, notwithstanding whether States prefer a moratorium——
 Page 290       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. It is going now to Louisiana and deepwater drilling.

    Mr. TINDALL. But that is not Louisiana's money. It is not Texas' money. It is not Florida's money. It is your money and my money.

    Mr. REGULA. But that land off of California is mine, too. But the Californians do not want me to have any benefit from it.

    Mr. TINDALL. I understand that. But I think that issue ought to be reexamined. Certainly the technology is there to do great things.

    Mr. REGULA. I know, with very little visual impact.

    Mr. TINDALL. When you get 150 miles offshore, it takes a pretty good eye to see anything.

    Mr. Chairman, I encourage you to take a look at this.

    Mr. REGULA. We are going to do the best we can. I am very sympathetic to open land. I would like to have another couple hundred acres beside what I own now.

    Mr. TINDALL. Where would you like it?

 Page 291       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. Right next to mine. [Laughter.]

    Mr. TINDALL. Are you near or contiguous to an Ohio State park or a special district or something.

    Mr. REGULA. No, I mean I would like to just own it. In other words what I am saying is, it is never enough. I would like to expand the parks, and especially the inholdings. I think we should, as much as possible, get the inholdings as we acquire land.

    Mr. TINDALL. Again, people will disagree with either me personally or my organization. Certainly we need to take care of those inholdings which are most troublesome now or in the near future. But if I had to make a choice between a remote inholding somewhere for fiscal 1999 and restoration of a downtown city park that is going to serve hundreds of millions of people a year——

    Mr. REGULA. Why does not the city take care of that? We should not be doing——

    Mr. TINDALL. Many of the cities—the cities and the States, Mr. Chairman, you asked why they are not paying for these. The cities and the States are paying for child care, they are paying for health care.

    Mr. REGULA. So are we.

    Mr. TINDALL. But the national government is paying very little on a ratio to what the other governments are paying for these things.
 Page 292       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REGULA. But we are paying for defense, and they are not paying a dime for that.

    Mr. TINDALL. I understand that.

    Mr. REGULA. I am just saying, when I look at the budgets in, say, Ohio, they have a rainy day fund of $1 billion for which I congratulate the governor. We have no rainy day fund in the U.S. Government, not by a long shot. They have a rainy day fund because their revenues have been good. And this is true with a number of States.

    I do not know whether Ohio is expanding their park system and so on, but Central Park in New York City is a Garden of Eden for that city. But the city ought to take care of that. I should not have a taxpayer in Ohio taking care of it.

    Mr. TINDALL. I do not know, there may have been some urban park money into Central Park at one point. Central Park, the city of New York has just struck a deal with the Central Park Conservancy in fact to be the principal manager. So they are out there looking for creative solutions to resource conservation.

    Mr. REGULA. I think organizations such as yours and many that we have heard from today should be focusing not only on us but on the States as well.

    Mr. TINDALL. We agree and we are doing that.

 Page 293       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. Good. We all have a common goal.

    Mr. TINDALL. There is one part of our budget, Mr. Chairman, that talks about other Federal programs where vast sums are being proposed where recreation can help out. These range from juvenile justice to—I have heard you testify on the Older Americans Act and——

    Mr. REGULA. The pressure on open space is going to grow. We have the Cuyahoga Valley National Park, 33,000 acres between Cleveland and Akron, and on the weekends it gets pretty crowded because people seek open space. I understand, and I like it.

    Mr. TINDALL. You certainly are aware that the core of that park in fact was at one time managed by non-Federal interests.

    Mr. REGULA. I understand.

    Mr. TINDALL. Those partnerships are possible again if we can jump-start Land and Water——

    Mr. REGULA. I think we will use more conservation easements prospectively, where it stays as farmland but it still does not get used up for urbanization.

    Mr. TINDALL. You have been generous with your time. I commend you, encourage you to take a look at our statement. We will work with you and staff to——

 Page 294       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. We are going to do all we can. I am sympathetic to parks. I love parks and open space.

    Mr. TINDALL. We will try to get one near your estate. [Laughter.]

    Mr. REGULA. I maintain my home frankly. But everybody needs that potential experience. Everybody needs the potential of being close to a park, to an open space.

    Mr. TINDALL. We would observe, Mr. Chairman, there are an increasing number of Americans who do not have and may never have that experience.

    Mr. REGULA. I suppose that is true.

    Mr. TINDALL. So that is where our interests lie, and I know you believe that, too.

    Mr. REGULA. We have a common interest. It is a matter, of course, of dollars. We have no idea what our 602(b) allocation will be, but the vibes we are getting are that it is not going to be very much more than we have had.

    Mr. TINDALL. That certainly is a root problem for all of us. If we can work with you and your folks on that, we would certainly be happy to do so.

 Page 295       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. REGULA. If you have any friends who can help make the 602(b) decision, you might talk with them, or pray for them at least.

    Mr. TINDALL. You mean, do I know a cardinal?

    Mr. REGULA. I think it is super cardinal. [Laughter.]

    It is a problem that every committee, every subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee has.

    Mr. TINDALL. This committee probably has the most diverse collection of things.

    Mr. REGULA. It does.

    Mr. TINDALL. It is a highly discretionary budget.

    Mr. REGULA. That is very true.

    Mr. TINDALL. And it is very easy to take short term—make decisions that are in fact today or tomorrow decisions. The demographers, as you suggested at the outset, they are looking to the year 2050, and that is where we need to look in parks and recreation.

    Mr. REGULA. We are trying to do the things for our heritage—long after I am gone, in terms of preservation of open space and enhancing the quality of life. That is the reason I pushed the fee program so hard, to give these parks and forests a little extra money to use.
 Page 296       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. TINDALL. We would encourage you again to look at the State and local things to create partners that might soften some of those costs on the other side that you are dealing with.

    Mr. REGULA. Okay, thank you.

    Mr. TINDALL. We appreciate your attention.

    Mr. REGULA. The committee is adjourned.

    [The statement of Barry Tindall and additional testimony follows:]

    Offset folios 657 to 661, 663 to 828/1300 insert here

Next Hearing Segment(2)