SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
HEARINGS ON H.R. 701 AND H.R. 798
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 701, TO PROVIDE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF IMPACT ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, TO AMEND THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT OF 1965, THE URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY ACT OF 1978, AND THE FEDERAL AID IN WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACT TO ESTABLISH A FUND TO MEET THE OUTDOOR CONSERVATION AND RECREATION NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ''CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999''
H.R. 798, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PERMANENT PROTECTION OF THE RESOURCES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE YEAR 2000 AND BEYOND
MARCH 9 AND 10, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Serial No. 106–14
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
HEARINGS ON H.R. 701 AND H.R. 798
56–081 CC l
1999
HEARINGS ON H.R. 701 AND H.R. 798
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
H.R. 701, TO PROVIDE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF IMPACT ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, TO AMEND THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT OF 1965, THE URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY ACT OF 1978, AND THE FEDERAL AID IN WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACT TO ESTABLISH A FUND TO MEET THE OUTDOOR CONSERVATION AND RECREATION NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ''CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999''
H.R. 798, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PERMANENT PROTECTION OF THE RESOURCES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE YEAR 2000 AND BEYOND
MARCH 9 AND 10, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC
Serial No. 106–14
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
GEORGE MILLER, California
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
JAY INSLEE, Washington
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held March 9, 1999
Statement of Members:
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Idaho, prepared statment of
Dingell, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan
John, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, prepared statement of
Maloney, Hon. James, a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut
Prepared statement of
Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Press releases and background information on H.R. 798
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska
Statement of Witnesses:
Caldwell, Jack, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Prepared statement of
Campana, Sam Kathryn, Mayor, Scottsdale, Arizona, Representing U.S. Conference of Mayors, Washington, DC
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement of
Castro, Bernadette, Commissioner, New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Albany, New York
Prepared statement of
Written answer to questions from the Committee
Chasis, Sarah, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, prepared statement of
Coleman, Hurley, Jr., Director, Wayne County Division of Parks, Westland, Michigan
Prepared statement of
Hansen, Paul, Executive Director, Izaak Walton League of America, Gaithersburg, Maryland
Prepared statement of
Additional material submitted by
Norquist, Grover, President, Americans for Tax Reform, Washington, DC
Prepared statement of
Norton, Edward, Vice President of Public Policy, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, DC
Prepared statement of
Waller, David, Director, Georgia Wildlife Resources Division, Social Circle, Georgia
Prepared statement of
Communications submitted:
National OCS Coalition, prepared statement of
Hearing held March 10, 1999
Statement of Members:
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Christian-Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the Territory of Virgin Islands, prepared statement of
Cubin, Hon. Barbara, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wyoming, prepared statement of
Statement of Witnesses:
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, a United States Senator from the State of California
Prepared statement of
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., Governor, State of Delaware
Prepared statement of
Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia
Prepared statement of
Chasis, Sarah, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, New York, New York
Prepared statement of
Cobb, Hon. David, Mayor, City of Valdez, Alaska
Prepared statement of
Cove, Thomas, Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC
Prepared statement of
Front, Alan, Senior Vice President, The Trust for Public Land, San Francisco, California
Prepared statement of
Gonzales, Hon. Javier M., Commissioner, Santa Fe County, representing the National Association of Counties, Washington, DC
Prepared statement of
Grossi, Ralph, President, American Farmland Trust, Washington, DC
Prepared statement of
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Marlenee, Hon. Ron, Safari Club International, Bozeman, Montana
Prepared statement of
McGovern, Hon. James, a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts
Prepared statement of
Paap, Kevin, Vice President, Minnesota Farm Bureau, representing the American Farm Bureau Federation, Washington, DC
Prepared statement of
Parravano, Pietro, President, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, San Francisco, California
Prepared statement of
Shaffer, Mark L., Vice President, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC
Prepared statement of
Van Putten, Mark, President/CEO, National Wildlife Federation, Vienna, Virginia
Prepared statement of
Wallop, Senator Malcolm, (ret.), Chairman, Frontiers of Freedom, prepared statement of
Additional material supplied:
Private Property Congressional Vote Index submitted by Safari Club International
Summary of H.R. 701 and H.R. 798, submitted by Mr. Young
Text of H.R. 701, submitted by Mr. Young
Text of H.R. 798, submitted by Mr. Young
Communications submitted:
Report to the OCS Policy Committee from the Coastal Impact Assistance Working Group, Coastal Impact Assistance,
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Davis, Mark, Executive Director, Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, prepared statement of
Hove, Hank, Mayor, Fairbanks North Star Borough, letter to Mr. Young, submitted by
Letter from miscellaneous coastal and ocean protection groups and fishing industry
Letter to environmental groups by Congressmen Young, Dingell, Tauzin, and John
Moore, Rod, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association, letter to Mr. Young, submitted by
Paxton, Gary L., Administrator, City and Borough of Sitka, letter submitted by
H.R. 701, TO PROVIDE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF IMPACT ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, TO AMEND THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT OF 1965, THE URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY ACT OF 1978, AND THE FEDERAL AID IN WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACT TO ESTABLISH A FUND TO MEET THE OUTDOOR CONSERVATION AND RECREATION NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ''CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999''
H.R. 798, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PERMANENT PROTECTION OF THE RESOURCES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE YEAR 2000 AND BEYOND
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:03 a.m., in Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Don Young [chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Mr. YOUNG. The Committee will come to order.
I have an opening statement. I am sure Mr. Miller and Mr. John will have opening statements and then, hopefully, we will get to our witnesses. We have, actually, three panels today. Unfortunately, some of the people to testify today, because of this outstanding large snowfall we have, won't be able to be here. God, I wish they lived in Alaska, they really would experience something. But those that cannot be here, we will give them an opportunity a little later on.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The hearing today will be on H.R. 701 and H.R. 798, my bill and, of course, Mr. Miller's bill. I want to thank you for coming today for the hearings on the Conservation and Reinvestment Act and the Permanent Protection of American Resources known as Resources 2000. I am going to use most of my time to discuss my bill, CARA, with the anticipation Mr. Miller plans to do the same with his legislation.
STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA
Mr. YOUNG. Last summer, Billy Tauzin, John Dingell, Richard Baker, Chris John—who is with us—Saxby Chambliss, and I circulated a discussion draft of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. After receiving many comments and making appropriate changes, we introduced the bipartisan CARA bill in the 105th Congress as H.R. 4717. We continued to work with that draft as the baseline for a reintroduction in this Congress.
On February 10, 1999, we reintroduced CARA with the 106th Congress as H.R. 701. You may ask, why H.R. 701? Mr. Shuster, who is the chairman of another committee, had a bill named H.R. 700 after a flight. It was delayed so, being discretion is the better part of valor, it was a Northwest flight, so I gave him the H.R. 700 number. We are joined by more than 30 original cosponsors and they have now grown to nearly 60 cosponsors. What is particularly rewarding is that this bill is bipartisan. Our nearly 60 sponsors are evenly distributed between Republicans and Democrats and this is a sign of the bipartisanship in this legislation and the intent of this legislation.
Not only do the supporters range in ideology, but we are widely dispersed in geography. CARA has congressional supporters from Alaska to Rhode Island, and from California to Florida. Cosponsors range from urban members like Congressman Charlie Rangel of Manhattan and Congressman Towns of Brooklyn to members from very rural districts, like Congressman Collin Peterson of northern Minnesota and Congressman Watkins of southeastern Oklahoma.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What brings us together? I believe the answer is twofold. First, this bill proposes to take revenue from Federal offshore oil and gas production and reinvest in our coastal communities while also funding valuable conservation programs in all 50 States and territories. This revenue comes from our Nation's nonrenewable resources and should be responsibly reinvested into renewable resources which benefit all Americans. Onshore host States share in revenue derived from Federal production within their States. However, there is no direct revenue sharing for offshore Federal production. This bill corrects this inequity, while providing for conservation programs in all States and territories.
Second, we provide for conservation and recreation opportunities in all 50 States and territories. Whether you are an urban or rural resident, this bill will benefit you. CARA provides for inner-city students to play basketball after school or a park to study in. CARA also allows rural sportsmen the opportunity to commune with wildlife in their natural settings. No matter where you live, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act will provide you with recreational opportunities. Too often these needs go unmet because of a lack of funding. Our bill works to correct that problem by utilizing funding which ought to be reinvested for these purposes.
I have mentioned before that this bill is a work-in-progress. And I want to stress that. The gentleman from California, Mr. Miller, and I discussed this. We will be discussing his bill as well as my bill. This is a two-day hearing, certainly an aggressive endeavor which will look at both bills comprehensively. It is only the first hearing. We do not have a mark-up scheduled and do not anticipate holding one until late spring. In the meantime, I hope to continue to work with all interested members and groups while continuing our centrist approach to pass this important initiative.
I would like to take a moment to clarify two areas of the legislation which seem to be the focus of much attention. These areas are incentives for additional oil and gas development and private property concerns. While we have made changes to address each of these concerns, groups on each side continue to withhold their support. That is fine, as we do not need a quid pro quo from these groups to validate our efforts. However, we hope that they will work with us in a manner to help provide funding for national conservation programs and our coastal communities.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The allegation that this bill contains incentives for new oil and gas production is simply false. Throughout our lengthy process, we have asked for comments, specifically to address the perception that this bill contains drilling incentives. When we began this process, the environmental community asked that we include all Federal offshore revenue, even though the MMS Policy Committee report, which we based Title I upon, included revenues only from new production. The advantage of including only new revenue was to lessen many of the budgetary implications. However, our friends in the environmental community thought this would prescribe an incentive for coastal States and communities to increase OCS development. To remove this perception, our bill always included all OCS revenues, no new incentives.
On a parallel note, there has also been a fear that the Conservation and Reinvestment Act will unravel moratoria in some areas of the Federal OCS. For me, this bill is a revenue reinvestment measure, not legislation to provide incentives or disturb current moratoria. So, again, at the request of the environmental community, we happily included language which would preclude areas in current moratoria from both revenue sharing and as a factor in the distribution formula.
Also, many thought that our eligible uses for funding coastal impact assistance was too broad. To address that concern, we have limited the eligible uses, within Title I, to five specifically contained within the bill.
The other area of controversy associated with this bill has been with the property rights groups. To be the focus of such criticism from individuals I have worked with for decades has been troubling me personally and somewhat confusing. Let me explain exactly what CARA does regarding property rights. CARA provides annual and dedicated funding for payment in lieu of taxes, PILT, and Refuge Revenue Sharing. CARA provides funding for conservation in all 50 States and 5 territories. CARA also allows for Federal acquisition within boundaries of areas established by an Act of Congress. CARA only allows for Federal acquisition with willing sellers. Condemnation authority is removed for the purposes within this bill. CARA does not provide a $1.5 billion for land acquisition. Our bill provides near the historical average of the Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriation, $300 million. Frankly, other proposals do not have these protections. And we continue to ask for constructive comments from members and groups interested in private property rights.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again, this hearing is only the beginning of these bills' legislative lives. We continue to solicit comments from all interested individuals and groups. A very real issue with this legislation is the budgetary implications. Regardless of our ideology, that fight needs to be our unifying force. Should we make this lasting investment in our coastal communities and for national conservation? I personally think we should make that investment.
We currently face a unique budgetary climate here in Congress and we are looking reinvest funds which should have been going to the purposes within the CARA for decades. Recreation and livability are going to be buzzwords of the future. CARA is our opportunity for action. I hope this hearing provides a catalyst to continue this progress to pass conservation legislation and create a lasting heritage for American conservation.
And I yield to the gentleman from California.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. MILLER. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding and, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing. In fact, for holding both days of this hearing, to give a very diverse group of witnesses an opportunity to be heard on these two bills. I believe that today's hearing is an historic step toward reasserting a legacy of resource protection and improvement that has been largely ignored on a bipartisan basis for too many years. Restoring that commitment to use the exhaustible resources of this country to provide permanent protection to public lands, marine and coastal resources, wildlife, historic preservation, and urban recreation is a gift this Committee and this Congress can truly provide to the Nation on the eve of the new century.
It is with that goal that I introduce H.R. 798, the Resources 2000 bill. Last month, together with 50 cosponsors and the support of several dozen major organizations, we introduced that legislation. You and Congressman Tauzin and Congressman John and others share a similar objective with your legislation. There are different approaches in our bills, but the major purpose is quite similar. While these hearings, naturally, will help clarify the differences between our two bills, I hope the hearings serve a more important purpose, to build a national constituency for the passage of a negotiated package that achieves our common and urgent goals.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let us not allow this debate to descend into sniping on one another's bills or motives. We can either have a partisan debate for a few months or permanent protection of these public lands and wildlife resources forever. If we succeed, there will be plenty of credit to go around.
I would note that perhaps, contrary to popular thought, we have proven that this Committee can enact major legislation when working in a bipartisan and reasonable fashion, as we did in the last Congress with the refuges and the parks bills. The great national parks and the public lands system is, for many Americans, the greatest achievement of the Federal Government, was born at the beginning of the current century under Republican President Theodore Roosevelt. The environmental movement was born in mid-century by both Democratic and Republican administrations and Congresses that passed legislation ranging from the Endangered Species Act to the Coastal Zone Management Act to the National Environmental Policy Act.
Now, at the end of this century, Congress has an opportunity to address other urgent needs. All across America, we see parks closing, recreational facilities deteriorating, open space disappearing, historic structures crumbling, and fisheries vanishing. These losses have a tangible impact on every American. We need to invest in the future of America's public resources.
We have taken the first step with the introduction of these two bills. The President has proposed his own public lands initiative. We take another important step with these hearings. We can and we must continue to move forward together if we are to succeed in enacting this sweeping but overdue commitment during the 106th Congress. I have pledged my full cooperation to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the cosponsors of your legislation and to the many organizations that have taken the time, the trouble, and the expenditure of resources to be with us today and tomorrow.
I must say that many people never believed that this kind of hearing would come to pass in this Committee with you and I sitting alongside of one another, talking about a common goal and a common interest. I would tell them not to fret. We still bring very diverse views and ideologies about this subject matter.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Laughter.]
And you bring the gavel, of course, Mr. Chairman, which we all recognize.
[Laughter.]
But in some ways, maybe, the fact that this hearing is taking place in the manner in which it is is a welcome sign in terms of the opportunities for the passage of comprehensive and historic legislation to deal with the most urgent problem in every region of this country. And, again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very, very much for calling these hearings.
Mr. YOUNG. Are there any other opening statements? If not, I would like to have my first panel take Chair. I see my good friend John Dingell, the chairman. I still call him my chairman. We did more legislation in this arena than many times in the past and we hoped to do in the future. Mr. John Dingell. And Saxby Chambliss unfortunately is stuck in the snow somewhere. And is James Maloney here? Is Jim here? Mr. John?
Mr. JOHN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind. If you would yield. I have a statement that I would like to enter into the record as to my support of this hearing and about the two bills.
Mr. YOUNG. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. John follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS JOHN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for demonstrating your commitment to move forward with legislation aimed at conserving, enhancing and restoring America's precious natural resources by holding two days of hearings on H.R. 701, ''The Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999,'' and H.R. 798, the ''Resources 2000 Act.'' In particular, I want to commend your decision to make these hearings bipartisan by including witnesses requested by our Ranking Member, Mr. Miller, for I believe that Democrats and Republicans alike share the core objective of both bills: reinvesting revenues from non-renewable resources into assets of lasting value to our nation.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As one of the principle sponsors of H.R. 701, I am eager to hear testimony from the many witnesses who have taken time out of their schedules to appear before the House Resources Committee. I believe the diversity of the participants and the contrasting viewpoints they represent will provide this Committee with valuable insight into the needs, concerns and objectives that must be met to ensure that the 106th Congress passes legislation guaranteeing future generations of Americans the opportunity to enjoy the commercial, social, recreational and aesthetic benefits of our lands, waters and wildlife in the 21st century.
For the past year, Mr. Chairman, you and I have worked with Congressman Billy Tauzin and Congressman John Dingell to craft a bipartisan bill that will create a lasting legacy of stewardship and conservation of our natural resources. I am proud of the effort that has brought us to this point in the process since few people a year ago put this issue on the top of their agenda for 1999. Remarkably, today we find legislative proposals with bipartisan support in the House and Senate, and the ''Lands Legacy Initiative'' from the Administration. I hope we can build upon this momentum today and tomorrow with these hearings, so that outstanding areas of disagreement can be resolved and consensus reached on a proposal that we can expeditiously move towards mark-up in the coming months.
My primary interest and involvement in H.R. 701 stems from a great need within my home state of Louisiana to reverse the alarming rate of coastal erosion and wetlands loss that now jeopardizes communities, our economy, wildlife and fisheries habitat, and a unique way of life that is supported by south Louisiana's coastal ecosystem. Having witnessed first-hand the catastrophic loss of barrier islands and the degradation of fresh water marshes due to saltwater intrusion, I know the needs within my District alone are great.
However, while the impacts of Louisiana's disappearing coast are being felt the hardest by the residents of Louisiana's coastal zone, the value of coastal Louisiana is not limited to my constituents. Over 25 percent of the nation's coastal wetlands and 40 percent of all salt marshes in the lower 48 states are in Louisiana. Moreover, Louisiana's commercial fisheries provide 25-35 percent of the seafood catch in the lower 48 states. Louisiana's ecosystem is a national treasure that provides economic, environmental and recreational benefits to our entire nation, but it requires immediate and substantial Federal assistance if future generations of Americans are going to enjoy these benefits.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Louisiana is not alone in its coastal needs. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently estimated that, nationwide during the next 20 years, coastal counties' cumulative populations will soar from 80 million to 127 million. I strongly support establishing a coastal impact assistance fund that provides resources to all coastal states and territories so that current strains on our coastline such as offshore oil and gas development and future strains caused by population demographics are accounted for in our Federal budget priorities. History has often shown that the cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of action.
From this perspective, I joined with my fellow sponsors of H.R. 701 to create a legislative proposal that would provide a comprehensive game plan for meeting our conservation objectives into the next century. ''The Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999'' (CARA '99) will ensure that all 50 states and territories—be they coastal, inland, upland, island or arctic—have permanent access to Federal resources for meeting their long-term environmental goals. I truly believe that this Congress will have fallen short of its responsibility if we do not pass legislation that encompasses the objectives set-forth in the three titles of H.R. 701: (1) coastal protection, restoration and impact assistance; (2) Federal and state parks and recreation funding; and (3) wildlife conservation and education.
If there is one misconception that I hope will be cleared up over the next two days, it is that using revenues derived from Federal OCS production constitutes an incentive for new oil and gas drilling. The sponsors of H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 have gone to great lengths to assure people that these bills are about revenue sharing, not oil and gas incentives. The Federal Government has used the proceeds from oil and gas royalties to fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for over 30 years and I have yet to meet an oil executive or Federal Government official who suggested that the LWCF had any bearing on their decision to authorize or drill new leases. The fact is, revenues from Federal OCS leases will continue to come into the Federal Treasury with or without H.R. 701 and H.R. 798—the only difference is that without congressional legislation, these funds will not be dedicated to meet our nation's conservation needs.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I realize that H.R. 701 and H.R. 798 take somewhat different approaches in identifying and prioritizing conservation initiatives, but I am convinced that our Chairman and Ranking Member can use the Committee process to forge consensus. Both bills deserve the scrutiny, commentary and constructive criticism that will arise from these hearings and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today and tomorrow. In particular, I want to acknowledge and thank two of the witnesses who have agreed to appear before us.
First, I want to welcome the Louisiana Secretary of Natural Resources, Mr. Jack C. Caldwell. Secretary Caldwell has been a champion of coastal impact assistance for Louisiana and all coastal states and I know that he can share with the Committee a wealth of knowledge about this issue. In addition, as a member of the Outer Continental Shelf Policy Committee which provides advice to the Secretary of the Interior through the Minerals Management Service, I particularly look forward to his discussion of the report prepared by the Coastal Impact Assistance Working Group on October 29, 1997 which forms the basis of Title I of H.R. 701. I have been asked many times by Members of Congress about the allocation levels and distribution formula for H.R. 701 and I believe Secretary Caldwell's testimony will provide Committee members with critical insight into these matters.
I would also like to acknowledge Mr. Mark S. Davis, the Executive Director of the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana. Mr. Davis will be testifying tomorrow about the magnitude of coastal loss in Louisiana and will share with the Committee his expertise on coastal restoration efforts and the significance of Federal intervention to combat the challenges facing coastal states. I have known Mr. Davis since my days as a State Representative in the Louisiana Legislature and I greatly appreciate him making the journey to Washington to testify before the House Resources Committee.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for calling these important hearings. It is my intention to work with you and Ranking Member Miller to move legislation through this Committee so that the full House of Representatives can consider a bill by the August recess. An investment in America's natural resources today will yield unquantifiable benefits in the future and I believe today's hearings are right beginning for attaining this worthwhile goal.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. YOUNG. And that goes for any member that would like to submit a written statement.
Mr. MILLER. Yes. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I have some letters of support that I would like to put into the record.
Mr. YOUNG. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Dingell, you are the first one up. I am sorry. The other members apparently got hung up in these snowstorms and I am glad to see you made it here. So you have got the floor for as long as you want it.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I learned a long time ago, when I was a young lawyer, I should curtail my talking when I am in a friendly forum and I don't intend to breach that very desirable rule.
First, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and I want to thank Mr. Miller and Mr. John and the others who have worked so hard on this. And I want to remind all and sundry that you and I have a long friendship which goes back through the enactment of an awful lot of legislation, which you now guard in this Committee and which, very frankly, Mr. Chairman, makes me feel good. And I want to tell you how grateful I am for a chance to work with you again on this and also with my good friend Congressman Miller and Mr. John and the others who were interested in this legislation.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This is a piece of legislation which is a part of a process in which, if we all do our jobs right, is going to result in some landmark legislation which will protect the natural heritage of this country. The Committee has invited many witnesses to speak on a number of issues and needs which arise from H.R. 701, your bill and mine, and H.R. 798, the Miller bill. And I will, therefore, keep my remarks brief and address as much as I can the issues that I find in these two pieces of legislation.
Thirty-five years ago, as you recall, Mr. Chairman, in good part with your leadership, the Congress created a land and water conservation fund. That has created an astonishing record of accomplishment. Better than $10 billion has been spent to help conserve 7 million acres of land in 40,000 projects. The country has reason to be grateful to you and to us for what we did on that. We preserved many areas within our Federal land systems and provided crucial funding to States to ensure that State acquisitions continued to meet our resource conservation needs.
More than 60 years ago, the Congress started the Pittman Robertson program, which contributed mightily to the States wildlife conservation programs. It was under this model that my old dad worked to establish the Dingell-Johnson program nearly 50 years ago, later to be amended for additional conservation purposes by two good friends of yours and mine, Senators Wallop and Breaux, both of whom, incidentally, are playing a significant role in the development of this legislation. H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, is based on the legacy of accomplishment the Federal Government has achieved in finding workable partnerships with the States and with local governments to solve tough problems related to wildlife diversity, sustainable growth, environmental protect, and, very frankly, the enjoyment of our natural resources by the people of this country.
During the past few years, there have been a number of worthy efforts by a coalition of organizations which call themselves Teaming with Wildlife. These outstanding people are dedicated to the idea that Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson programs need to be expanded so that the fish and wildlife species not currently receiving biological attention may begin to receive it. It was their push for a dedicated funding source that intrigued me and I believe you also, Mr. Chairman, to try and find a funding mechanism by which this could pass the Congress. By dedicating 10 percent of all the Outer Continental Shelf revenues to meet unmet wildlife needs, State fish and wildlife agencies would begin to be able to count on about $300 million a year to protect more species and more habitat not currently receiving the protection that they need under the traditional approach of managing and protecting game resources.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For land and water needs, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been enormously successful. During the life of the program, close to $13 billion in authorized funds have remained unappropriated. This is a serious problem and it has significantly impaired the success of that program. So by dedicating 23 percent of all Outer Continental Shelf revenues for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, State and Federal side, Congress can take the lead in closing that gap and ensuring that we really move forward in this area.
Mr. Chairman, I note that H.R. 701 is a fine piece of legislation and that any member of this body should be proud to support it. There are other good ideas, however, that have been brought to the table, by our friend and colleague Mr. Miller and by the President and by the Vice President in the administration. There has been and will be much debate concerning the use of Outer Continental Shelf funds for impact aid to coastal States. The Committee is going to hear testimony today and tomorrow and at other times which will make a strong case for renewed Federal commitment to coastal areas. Likewise, Mr. Miller has offered competing ideas for assured funding for coastal and marine resource conservation; farm, ranch, and open space protection; Federal and Indian land restoration; and, quite frankly, for historical preservation.
I likewise wish to offer a word of praise to the administration, both for what it has done and what it hasn't done during the legislative process. First, the President and the Vice President came forward with a series of credible proposals. Second, and most important, the President has dedicated himself to working with the Congress to achieve permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Just as important, however, to this legislative process is the fact that the administration has not laid out a series of demands. Perhaps they are on the way, but for now it has given the Congress a set of principles to give us room to craft good legislation.
Why is this legislation important? First of all, Mr. Chairman, I don't have to tell you. I think everybody is going to get plenty of answers today, including testimony from my good friend, the director of parks for Wayne County Michigan, Mr. Hurley Coleman. A few weeks ago in my office, I spent about an hour with Hurley as well as with Barry Tindall from the National Recreation and Park Association and from others who understand the tremendous benefits to our urban, suburban, exurban and rural residents that they would receive under this legislation. We concluded that, in order to make this happen, two things are necessary: a lot of cooperation in the Congress, a high volume of grassroots support from as many organizations as possible throughout the Nation. Working together, I know we can make this happen.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Miller, for bringing us to this point. This is a fine example of the kind of cooperation that the Congress can show. And, Mr. Chairman, and, Mr. Miller, I want you to know that your leadership in this matter is going to make it possible for us to work together, to come together on a bill which will be in the broad, general, and overall public interest of this country. It is not hard to do it and I am satisfied that you are the two who can bring this about. I look forward to working with you and being helpful in whatever way I can.
And I just want to say as a personal matter, I am so pleased to work again with my old friend Mr. Young who used to work with me a long time ago in the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation over in Merchant Marine Fisheries in the old days when we used to write good legislation. As a matter of fact, right in this very room, as you will remember, Mr. Chairman, and the consequences were always good from the standpoint of the public. And a lot of that stands as a monument to what you and I and a lot of other good people did. I am satisfied we have the same opportunity here and I am satisfied we have the people on this Committee who will do it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, John, and thanks for those kind words that we go back a long ways and we have accomplished a great deal. I hope we can accomplish more. Mr. Maloney, you are now at the table so if you would like to make your presentation, then we will have questions from any of the people who would like to ask questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES MALONEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Mr. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Young and Ranking Member Miller, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you this morning. I have written testimony for the record, which I would like to submit. And, Mr. Chairman, if I might, I would like to summarize.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. YOUNG. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. MALONEY. Very good. Thank you.
I represent a 27-town district in Connecticut, a combination of mid-sized cities and many suburban communities. It is, in fact, the battlefront on the open space war. Every single town that I represent currently is engaged in an open space issue of major concern. Part of that is because Connecticut ranks dead last in Federal open space. The State of Connecticut has one national park, consisting of 53 acres and has a total of 12,000 of federally owned land. That includes everything, including the Federal prison. All of that Federal land totals less than one-quarter of 1 percent of all of the land in the State of Connecticut.
The open space issue is one that is of great concern. For years and years, all of the cities and towns along the coastline outside of the New York area were known as the Gold Coast. People lived there, prospered well, commuted to the city. The Gold Coast has now become the congested coast and it is having a very adverse affect, both on people's quality of life and on the environment. A little further to the north, which is my district, we see a huge boom in house construction. We are happy with that. We are delighted that the economy is doing well. But the people who live in those towns now and the new people who will be living there want to make sure that they maintain a quality of life. Central to that is the preservation of open space.
Congressman Miller has submitted H.R. 798, which I think is an excellent piece of legislation and I know that there are other proposals that are on the table for consideration. The common goal is to address this issue.
In Connecticut and, perhaps, in other communities, we face another pressure which is the deregulation of many of the utility services means that utility companies are putting on the market large tracts of open space. In my home town, the city of Danbury has the largest lake in the State of Connecticut. And in Connecticut everything is to scale, so it is 14 miles by 1 mile, but it is the largest lake in the State of Connecticut. And all of that lake, that entire lake, is going to be sold as part of electrical deregulation. Well, if it is going to be sold, fine, but we need to make sure that that largest lake is preserved and that we continue to enjoy the environmental benefits that that lake has given to us.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So let me just conclude by saying that this open space legislation is critically important to my communities. It is critically important to the State in which I reside and to, I know, many, many States all around the country. The central thought I would leave you with is last year we preserved the Highway Trust Fund. We did the right thing in my opinion by preserving the Highway Trust Fund. We made the Highway Trust Fund do what it was supposed to do. This year we are working in a similar direction on social security. We are trying to make sure that social security is preserved for its purpose. The Land and Water Conservation Fund deserves equal treatment.
For 25 years, there has been a commitment of the Federal Government that the resources that go into the Land and Water Conservation Fund get used for Land and Water Conservation purposes. That has not been happening. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a great opportunity in this session of the Congress to make sure that that happens. I encourage you in doing so. I pledge you my support any way I can be of help to do that. And I commend the Committee's attention to this very, very important issue.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Maloney follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES H. MALONEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Thank you Chairman Young, Ranking Member Miller and Committee members for allowing me to offer testimony on the issue of open space.
The two bills we have come to discuss today, H.R. 798 and H.R. 701 are important steps towards preserving our environment for future generations. Both bills take the important step of restoring the Land and Water Conservation fund. I commend both Congressman Young and Congressman Miller for taking this step.
Resources 2000 (H.R. 798), the bill proposed by Congressman Miller, includes provisions for preserving our nation's open spaces. These provisions are essential to protecting the nature and heritage of our country, and ensuring a healthy environment to host future economic growth.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My state of Connecticut is a perfect example of the need for funding directed at open space preservation.
Connecticut ranks LAST in federally owned open spaces. We have only 1 national park, Weir Farm, which covers a mere 53 acres, about one thousandth of a percent of Connecticut's total 3 million acres. In total, Federal land holdings in Connecticut total around 12,000 acres, one quarter of one percent of our state's total acreage.
Opportunities abound for Open space preservation. In my district alone there are six possible projects that would utilize the open space funds suggested in Congressman Miller's Resources 2000 bill.
Candlewood Lake: The future of this resource is brought into question by the divestiture by Connecticut Power and Light. The possibility exists that the lake will be sold. Open space funding could be used to purchase the lake and surrounding land or acquire appropriate conservation easements and ensure its accessibility and use for future generations.
Ansonia/Birmingham Utilities Property: Some of the last 80 acres of open space in Ansonia will, like Candlewood lake, be for sale as a result of utility company divestiture.
Trout Brook/Bridgeport Hydraulic property: This resource was rescued from becoming a housing development and purchased by the state of Connecticut, Nature Conservancy, and other groups interested in protecting the environment. However, they still need around $3 million to complete the project, a perfect example of an under-funded, local effort to preserve open spaces.
Naugatuck River: As the State updates 7 sewage treatment plants along the Naugatuck, the once polluted river becomes a valuable natural resource, and a prime piece of real estate. River authorities are working with localities to purchase land along the Naugatuck, creating a new greenway. Time is of the essence as the land grows more valuable once the river is clean. Open space money could be used in this situation to help localities along the Naugatuck coordinate and fund parks and recreational areas alongside the river.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Meriden Flood Control: The Army Corps of Engineers project to create flood relief for the residents of Meriden also presents an opportunity to preserve urban open space. Part of the draft plan includes ''daylighting'' the Harbor brook, an environmentally preferable arrangement to the current underground path the brook now takes. ''Daylighting'' the brook will also create a scenic urban park in Meriden, a win-win situation.
Ridgefield/Bennett's Farm: Over 600 acres including wetlands could become open space using Federal funding. Right now the price of this property is set at around $13 million, as the owners are currently planning a housing community and conference center. Only a few years back the same property was purchased for around $8 million, an example of the time sensitive nature of our dwindling supply of open space.
Each of these examples in my district highlights the many aspects of Open Space needs in this country. There are so many communities taking the initiative to preserve their open space, but they lack the resources to take such progressive actions.
In conclusion, I think it is evident from the examples in my district that Americans across the nation desire and need funding for open spaces in their communities. This issue requires Federal participation so that our country as a whole has environmental resources to offer future generations.
As the Committee prepares to act on these bills, I hope you will take into consideration the vast number of needs for open spaces in our country. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Mr. YOUNG. Thank you for your testimony. John, I just have one question for you. This is the beginning and I am going to ask you—and I hope, because you are the sponsor of H.R. 701 that, as we go through this process, you not only just testify today, that we continue to have your oar in the water. Because without it, it is going to be very difficult to achieve the goal which I am seeking to do. So that is the only thing, are you willing to go to bat and to work on legislation? I am not locking you in, necessarily, to a fixed bill, but the goal here is, I think, what all of are seeking is going to take a lot of heavy lifting. Because, otherwise this is not going anywhere.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We had a hearing in a meeting the other day with one of the appropriators. And you would think I had him by the I don't know what, but he was sure squealing.
[Laughter.]
And, you know, because he is losing part of his authority to appropriate money. But they haven't done what they should have done to begin with, so it is going to take a lot of heavy lifting. I just want to make sure you are on board with me on this one.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I know that you and this Committee have the ability to do that. I am, as you know very well, sponsor of that legislation, very proud of it. I think we have done an outstanding job in terms of meeting the concerns of everybody and I think, as far I am concerned, we could pass that bill just as it is and wouldn't complain. But the legislative process is going to require a certain amount of give-and-take.
I have got to say, in your leadership in this matter, Mr. Chairman, you have demonstrated some extraordinary bipartisanship and it is a great example. I know you and I are not known as bipartisans, but when we get right down to it, sometimes we have done some extraordinary work in that area and I want to say Mr. Miller has come a good way in working with us. And we did a few things like this last year and in the previous Congress, as you will remember, and they were good for the country and they were good for the people and I think all three of us are proud of what we did there. So I see no reason that the process, with you two working on it, is not going to move forward. And I certainly look forward in my small way, outside this Committee, trying to be as helpful as I can in what it is you are doing.
Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, John. The gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER. Thank you. And I have no question. Again, I want to echo what you said, Mr. Chairman and Chairman Dingell, to thank you for your pledge of involvement.
Chairman Young and I met some weeks ago, quite a while ago, and talked about this and I think we fully appreciate that this is going to be about legislating, which means an awful lot of people are going to have to be involved and Congressman Maloney has been involved in this before the bill was written. And we need that kind of involvement. It is very clear that there is very diverse views on this. The devil is in the detail, because people do have different approaches and different views about what should and should not be done. But that is the art of legislation is to try to sort those things out and I think the track record of the parties involved here is pretty good, but, clearly, your sustained interest and involvement is important to this. And I thank both of you for your testimony.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. YOUNG. Any other questions from any of the members? Any comments? Helen.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do want to say for the record that I believe that this chairman has gone all out for his sportsmen. He has really worked very, very hard for them and it is obvious in this bill. But I do have to say that rarely would I oppose anything my chairman would do. But this bill is one that I have to oppose because I believe that we are moving away from the legacy of Ronald Reagan and all of those who have gone before us in the fight for private property and the fight for the rights of States and local units of government to sovereignly manage their own units and to carry out the people's trust, who elected them.
I do want to say that, in looking over the witness list, I am disappointed that it is not more balanced. And while we are holding two days of hearings, I would like to officially ask for another day of hearings to be held to at least include those witnesses who were able to be heard in 1988 when this bill came up and was soundly defeated. I do want to say that I think everyone should be heard and I understand that there is going to be a hearing in Louisiana on this. I would also like to ask if we could have a hearing in the West on this particular bill, maybe in California or in Idaho.
As I look this bill over, I find that the PILT money, while PILT provisions are in the bill, nevertheless there is already PILT authority and we are only funding PILT at 50 percent. This bill does nothing to mandate the appropriators to fund PILT, nor could it do that. And the condemnation authority certainly is in the bill, condemnation of private property. The only thing that isn't in the bill is, under this bill, monies generated would not go to pay for private property that has been condemned; it would only go to pay for private property that has been transferred by a willing buyer or a willing seller.
And I have to ask the chairman that, if a private landowner is faced with the choice of suffering with regulations enacted by the Federal agencies under congressionally approved statutes like this one, does this really constitute a willing seller? I don't think so, Mr. Chairman. And I think that this bill that was soundly defeated and you worked to help defeat it in 1988 is one that we should take a long and careful look at.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the name of the sportsmen, I think there are many ways that we can help the sportsmen. One would be weighing in on legislation to correct the decision out of New Jersey that enforces or implements product liability on gun manufacturers, because that ultimately will affect our hunters.
But I would like to ask Mr. Dingell, who I have great respect for, you know, Michigan will receive about $45,477,000 in one year from this, but I have to ask you, sir, how much oil and gas leasing really takes place in the Great Lakes?
Mr. DINGELL. We won't allow any gas leasing in the Great Lakes because of the unique and precious character of them, but there will be very large gas leasing and oil leasing in Michigan. Michigan is a rather large producer of both natural gas and oil.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. But right now there is virtually none, right?
Mr. DINGELL. We don't do it out in the lakes, themselves.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Or is there any offshore drilling or oil or gas production off of——
Mr. DINGELL. Not in the lakes. Remember the lakes, although there are the largest reservoir of fresh water and one of the most precious in the world, are still rather small. They are confined. And the interchange in water in the Great Lakes occurs very, very slowly. The two lakes that have the greatest interchange are Erie and Ontario and I think the water changes in them in about 20 years. So if we had a major oil spill in the Great Lakes, we would have big problems. The clean up of it would not be anything that could be done in any acceptable fashion.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. So if there are proposals for directional drilling, would you support that?
Mr. DINGELL. I don't have any problems with directional drilling if you are going to drill from offshore out under the lake, that is not something that causes me any particular difficulty. It is setting up the rig and having a spill that goes into the lakes.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have just achieved, after years and years of massive problems, a clean up of Erie, which was going to be a dead sea. We have got it now to the point where Erie is one of the finest walleye and muskie fishing lakes in the world. We have salmon in there. And they are enormous national treasures. Every one of those salmon brings to the State of Michigan $70 in tourist revenues. So, I mean, these are great things and our people want to protect them.
And I have supported offshore drilling and have usually opposed constraints on offshore drilling because I view that as being an unwise energy policy in the United States. That tends to differ me from some of my colleagues and some of the environmental organizations, but I think those things can be done safely. And I think the risk is unacceptable inside the Great Lakes and our people think so. You can't find anybody in the Great Lakes, in the United States or Canada, that wants drilling inside the Great Lakes by offshore platforms.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I see that my time is up and I thank Mr. Dingell for his comments. I just simply want to say that if there was offshore drilling and revenue generated, well then that would justify Michigan receiving the $45.5 million per year. And I also want to say that the salmon that is now in Lake Michigan actually came from the Pacific Northwest.
Mr. DINGELL. That is true, but we do have Atlantic salmon in there.
Mr. YOUNG. Specifically, from Alaska if you really want to know where I think it is.
[Laughter.]
And it is an irritation to me that they hold the world's record now for the largest silver salmon caught. It is not in Alaska, but it is Alaska DNA.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DINGELL. I can't quarrel with anybody from Alaska about what a great place that is and what great fishing the salmon are out there.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. YOUNG. Yes. I would just like to respond for a moment. This is a hearing and the condemnation of the bill I can understand. But we hopefully will work together and can relieve some of the anxiety of the lady's concern about this legislation. If we cannot, then we will still go forth, because I do believe that there is an opportunity to reinvest. This is not about who gets what or where it goes, but reinvest in the fish and wildlife of this great Nation of ours.
And I don't do that just for our sportsmen. I will just digress little bit. Now you have heard me say this, the gentlelady has before, if you want to retain our freedoms, if you want to retain a society that has some sanity, you have to have the availability to hunt and to fish. If you lose that availability, then you lose what remaining sanity is left in this great Nation. Because we face urban tyranny. I listen to Maloney talk about his urban sprawl. That creates urban tyranny.
Now how we solve that problem is really what these hearings are all about because we cannot continue to have this lack of access to those lands and access to fish and wildlife. If we lose that, we lose the freedoms which I think are so crucial to this Nation. This is what my interest is about. This is why I am pushing this bill. This is a chance to go into the year 2000 with an opportunity to provide every man, woman, and child the chance to participate in what I think is our legacy, and that is the ability to hunt and fish.
Now, with that, anybody else? Mr. John.
Mr. JOHN. Yes. I don't necessarily have a question, Mr. Chairman, but I do have a couple of comments. First let me pile on to the accolades of the chairman for holding this meeting, this hearing, for the next two days in a true spirit of bipartisanship. We sit here with two bills that ultimately go after the same goal in somewhat different directions, but the willingness of the chairman and the Ranking Member, Mr. Miller, to sit down and have both bills put on the table and talked about is a great tribute to their willingness to put together a piece of legislation.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This bill is going to become, in reality, one of the most comprehensive, wide-sweeping, environmental pieces of legislation in many, many years. It has been said so many times. This piece of legislation is all about finding a revenue source for reinvestment and conservation. This bill is not about oil and gas drilling. It simply is not. If you think about it in its purest form, what does this bill do? It takes a revenue stream that is presently collected from activities off coastline and reinvests it back into our coastal marshes and into our estuaries; back into conservation, wildlife and other important programs.
So, as we move through these hearings, I want to reiterate that this bill is about making a commitment to reinvest some portion of revenues—from a non-renewable natural resource—back into our estuaries and our environment; the kind of thing that all of us on this Committee wants to do.
Why am I involved? I mean, I think it is pretty obvious. Thirty-five miles a year of my district get washed away in the Gulf of Mexico. So that is why I am involved. As a young boy, I used to hunt a lot in the marshes of Louisiana and where I used to fish is now two or three miles out in the Gulf of Mexico. So that is why I am involved. We have been trying to deal with this issue for many, many years. I know that Senator Johnston—former Senator Johnston of Louisiana—and other people had tried to put together legislation to come up with a funding stream to not only protect our coastline, but also to preserve and protect our wildlife and our fisheries of this great Nation. And this issue, I think, is so much more broad than a lot of the issues that we are dealing with. I think it is going to become a paramount piece of legislation.
As we look at H.R. 701 and H.R. 798, there are some good ideas in both of the bills. For example, H.R. 798 includes funding for the operation and maintenance of our national parks; this is a good idea and we ought to explore this idea further. That is what this hearing is all about.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am honored to be sitting at the table with the chairman, the Ranking Member, and also the dean of the delegation, Mr. Dingell, who has offered his staff and has worked very, very hard to try to put this together and make it a reality. So I am looking forward to the next couple of days and I appreciate the chairman putting these hearings together.
Mr. YOUNG. If there are no other comments, I would like to thank the two gentlemen for being with us today. And we have open eyes and open ears and most of the time open hearts. I have to check that out, but we will see what happens. So thank you very much, John. Thank you, Mr. Maloney.
The next panel will be Mr. Jack Caldwell, secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Ms. Bernadette Castro, Commissioner, New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Albany, New York; Mr. David Waller, Director, Georgia Wildlife Resources Division, Social Circle, Georgia—social circle?. Ms. Sarah Chasis is stuck in snow. So we will try to fit her in sometime tomorrow if possible, if we can.
Mr. Caldwell, you are up first. And I do thank you. And if we can—just a moment. You are up first and have at it.
STATEMENT OF JACK CALDWELL, SECRETARY, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA
Mr. CALDWELL. Mister Chairman, honorable members of the Committee, I very much appreciate this opportunity to testify on the greatest conservation bills of this century. Not since Theodore Roosevelt has the conservation effort moved so strongly onto the national stage.
As secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, I serve on the Outer Continental Shelf Policy Advisory Committee, comprised of Federal and State officials, industry representatives, and other interested OCS parties. And our function is to give advice to the Secretary of the Interior through the Mineral Management Service. And my testimony this morning will cover the background leading up the concepts that are today incorporated into Title I of H.R. 701.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you know, for many years, as Congressman John pointed out, the issue of assistance to coastal impact States has been debated in Congress and, so far, the only legislation that has been adopted was the 8(g) amendment to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act in 1986. And, under this bill, Louisiana's share has, through the years, been about $1 billion out of the $80 billion that has been produced through the years.
And, by 1993, the Outer Continental Shelf Policy Committee developed a position paper which called for a sharing of a portion of revenues among all the coastal States, the Great Lakes, and the territories. It was based on a finding that, although the benefits of the OCS program was shared nationally, a disproportionate share of the environmental, economic, and social costs were local. So, consequently, the committee appointed a working group on which I had the honor to serve, along with representatives from Alaska, Oregon, California, Texas, and North Carolina, to come up with a specific plan.
This group worked diligently for almost a year and the fundamental principle that the group worked on was the one just mentioned by you this morning and that is the idea of reinvestment of nonrenewable oil and gas resources into renewable and sustainable resources in the coastal region. Now, because the impacts of OCS operations on coastal States is difficult to separate out and quantify and because all of the coastal States are subject to similar stresses from storms, sea level rise, overdevelopment, and pollution, we included all of the coastal States and the Great Lakes, but came up with a formula that weighted the fund distribution toward the impact States which were sustaining the larger share of the adverse impacts of OCS operations.
So acting on this principle, the Committee came up with the basic concepts—this was back in 1997—that are presently incorporated in the bill. And that is that 27 percent of the revenues should be shared. That it should be weighted on a 50 percent proximity, 25 percent population, and 25 percent coastal. That the funds should be stable and not subject to annual appropriation. And that it should be administered by the States under oversight from the Secretary of the Interior, relying on the audit system for enforcement.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now this is my testimony this morning regarding this background and I welcome any questions from the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Caldwell may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Caldwell, you just did a remarkable thing. You stayed within your time and you never read anything. So I want to congratulate you.
[Laughter.]
That is remarkably well-done and well-presented. I just want to congratulate you.
Mr. CALDWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. YOUNG. Ms. Castro, you are next.
STATEMENT OF BERNADETTE CASTRO, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION, ALBANY, NEW YORK
Ms. CASTRO. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I am Bernadette Castro, commissioner of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. I also serve on the legislative committee for the National Association of State Park Directors and I am a board member of NASORLO, which is the national group that actually administered this program for the 30 years when it was active with the States from 1965 to 1995.
I want to thank you Chairman Young for your leadership on this issue. It is a vital issue. It one that we feel has to reinstate the promise that was made in 1964, the promise that all States would benefit, the promise that States would share equally with the Federal needs. And, indeed, that promise was completely broken in 1995. From 1995 to present, the States have received zero funding from the stateside portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is a wonderful, wonderful fund, if it really was a fund. It is a word that was used in 1964 and it leads people to believe that don't understand the issue that there is this money, this $900 million a year, that is deposited somewhere for use in land and water. And, indeed, that is not the case. So there is a lot of misknowledge by the public at large, misunderstanding, and lack of knowledge. So I am going to sort of sidestep my official testimony and I ask that my written testimony be accepted as part of the record, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. YOUNG. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. CASTRO. Thank you very much.
You have heard about all of the wonderful things that this has done at the national level, the figures on acreage and parks. I guess what I need to do is to just focus on my State, if you will, as stateside part of this funding is critical. And I think the States, indeed, know best how to spend this money. If you look at the diversion just here, Mr. Chairman, Alaska, California, New York, Louisiana, Connecticut. It would be impossible for any of us to know how the other States should be spending the stateside money. It would be less likely that the Federal Government, with all due respect, even the National Park Service, would know best how to administer this money.
It is critical, of course, that it remain, as we would call, a block grant. It is critical that when this programming goes through, that the States, each of us, with our very different needs, have the capability to direct this funding.
In New York State, we have two what we call flagship parks under my jurisdiction. The Adirondacks and the Catskills are not under my jurisdiction. They are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Conservation.
But Commissioner Cahill, indeed, wishes he could be here today, as does Secretary of State Treadwell who runs the Coastal Management Program, as does Theodore Roosevelt IV, great-grandson of Teddy Roosevelt, who was here in Washington and who is out of the country or would be here today. He fully, fully supports this effort.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But in New York State, I had two flagship parks that are worldwide famous. One, Niagara Falls, one of the great wonders of the world. The other, Jones Beach State Park, the largest public bathing facility in the world. Millions of dollars have come to both of these flagship parks over the years, to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. From everything from serious infrastructure work to things such as boardwalks and recreational facilities.
It would be impossible for New York State over the years to have brought those projects along, both Robert Moses projects, along without the help of this Federal matching grant program. And I think that is very important for everyone to remember. We are leveraging funds here. Not just local funds, indeed about 60 percent of everything New York got in that 30-year period went to municipalities, through a matching grant program.
But we are also leading the way, in New York, by leveraging private money. There are private corporations that would love to invest in parks, but they want to do it where they know they are not the only game in town. So when a municipality or the city of Syracuse or the city of Buffalo goes for funding under this Federal program, part of their match could be a giant corporation. It could be a Pepsicola or a Coca-Cola.
Saturn retailers have put in parks, have put in playgrounds within my parks. Ford Motor Company is giving us $100,000 for a nature center at Jones Beach. And the list goes on and on. But municipalities could approach their local banks and say, wait a minute, there is Federal match money out there.
In New York State, we are very lucky to have Governor George E. Pataki who is such a champion of this cause. He has given us environmental protection fund money in his budget every year. That is a matching program. He saw to it and worked hard to pass our Clean Air, Clean Water Bond Act, again, a matching program. But I can tell you that there are 800 projects in New York State—am I out of time already? Is that what that means? We are in trouble. Okay. Eight hundred projects that we couldn't fund. Eight hundred projects on the shelf, ready to go, if you give us back this program. Thank you very much and I would be happy to take any questions.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Ms. Castro may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. TAUZIN. [presiding] Ms. Castro, we appreciate very much your testimony as well as the testimony of my dear friend from Louisiana. Louisiana is not used to snow, Jack. I just had a real tough time getting in to hear you this morning.
[Laughter.]
We are now pleased to welcome Mr. David Waller, the director of Georgia Wildlife Resources Division, Social Circle in Georgia. Mr. Waller, welcome and we will appreciate your testimony. Again, recognize the time limits. We apologize for that.
STATEMENT OF DAVID WALLER, DIRECTOR, GEORGIA WILDLIFE RESOURCES DIVISION, SOCIAL CIRCLE, GEORGIA
Mr. WALLER. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have submitted testimony and so I will just hit the high points from that. My name is David Waller and I am director of the Georgia Wildlife Resources Division and vice president of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. I really appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and would like to use this opportunity to convey the International's strong support of H.R. 701.
We believe this bill is the most sweeping wildlife funding bill in this half of the century and will go a long way towards conserving our Nation's fish and wildlife and providing much-in-demand conservation education and wildlife-associated recreation. We appreciate Mr. Young's leadership and that of Congressmen Dingell, Tauzin, and John in sponsoring this landmark legislation. The International would also like to recognize Congressman Miller for addressing some of the same needs in H.R. 798.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There is a compelling need to fully fund State wildlife conservation efforts in time to prevent species from becoming endangered. Many species in this country are declining and heading rapidly towards endangered species lists. And we have the opportunity now to act in a non-regulatory, incentive-based manner while there is still time and at much less cost to conserve our Nation's wildlife legacy. Dedicated, reliable, and adequate funding would not only allow States to conserve species and preclude the social and economic impacts associated with listing species, it would also generate significant new economic opportunities for local communities.
A wildlife-rich outdoor experience is vital to communities; it is vital to States' nature-based tourism; and vital to related outdoor industries. Wildlife watchers spent over $29 billion in State and local economies, generating more than one million jobs. This bill provides funding for State conservation, recreation, and education efforts which makes good economic sense.
States are the front-line managers of fish and wildlife in this country and have broad authority for fish and wildlife within their borders, including most Federal lands. Because of a consistent, dedicated source of funds, we have successfully restored many game species like the white-tailed deer and the wild turkey, the
striped bass, pronghorn antelope, and on and on. All of these are wonderful success stories. We are ready to do the same thing now for some of the non-game species such as the Baltimore oriole, the American goldfinch, box turtles, and many other declining species that are not yet endangered. The needs of State wildlife agencies to attend to these declining species exceeds $1 billion, but even half that amount would go a long way toward producing significant, on-the-ground results.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, for the past seven years, we have built up a national coalition of over 3,000 organizations and businesses that we call the Teaming with Wildlife Coalition. We believe Title III of H.R. 701 fulfills the basic goals of Teaming with Wildlife, but with a different funding source.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We strongly support H.R. 701 for the following reasons. It provides permanent and consistent funding, which is important. It is administered through the Pittman-Robertson Act, which is tried and proven. It allows States to determine their priorities, their conservation priorities. And it brings equity to wildlife conservation funding, giving all Americans the opportunity to join sportsmen in paying for conservation.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to these comments, the International respectfully urges you to raise the minimum level for a State from one-half of 1 percent to 1 percent to address the needs of some of the smaller States that have some of the greatest needs, including Hawaii and some Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic States.
Let me now briefly mention some things on H.R. 798, the Resources 2000 Act. Again, the International is pleased that Title VII of H.R. 798 provides funding for State-level wildlife conservation. We are also encouraged by the spirit of the cooperation between Chairman Young and Congressman Miller, that they have pledged to moving forward together toward a strong bipartisan solution that can pass Congress this year. We are very pleased with that.
Some of the concerns are, in H.R. 798, are the elaborate planning requirements; the term ''native fish and wildlife,'' which could be problematic; the fact that conservation, education, and wildlife-associated recreation needs are not addressed; and a six-year phase-in from $100 million to $350 million. Let us not wait six more years to address these critical conservation needs.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, State wildlife agencies across the country stand ready to work hand-in-hand to assure a future for America's wildlife and help millions of people enjoy and appreciate wildlife from their backyards to the back woods. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waller may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Waller. And we regret that Ms. Sarah Chasis, senior attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, could not be with us today, I believe.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Chasis may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. TAUZIN. So this completes the panel. The Chair recognizes himself briefly for a round of questions and we will ask all members to abide by the five-minute rule.
First of all, Mr. Caldwell, in your statement, you cite, of course, the 1993 policy committee report which, by the way, I have in my hand and I would ask unanimous consent be made a part of the record today.
Without objection, then, it will be so ordered.
[The information follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 244 TO 260 HERE
Mr. TAUZIN. And you decided to explain why we should share OCS revenue with all 30 coastal States and the 5 territories, rather than the 6 producing States. Can you summarize for us the good reasons why the committee came up with this idea?
Mr. CALDWELL. The primary reason is that all coastal States, producing and non-producing, are under severe stress today. Half of the population of the country lives in the coastal regions today and all coastal regions have been suffering severe storm damage in recent years, pollution damage, have been destroying and harming the estuaries, fisheries are under stress, everywhere. And we felt that to attempt to separate out and separately quantify the adverse impacts from offshore drilling would generate more controversy and would be basically impracticable. So we felt it was better to include all the coastal States and adopt a weighting formula in order to take care of the impact States.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TAUZIN. Also, Mr. Caldwell, you mentioned, and I want to refer to it too, that the policy committee was interestingly made up of industry representatives and environmental community representatives, State government representatives, pretty broad ranging. Would you comment on the importance of that and the meaning in terms of their recommendations to us?
Mr. CALDWELL. Yes, from Alaska, the chairman was from Alaska, Mr. Jerome Selby, the mayor of Kodiak, served as chairman. From Oregon, we had Mr. Eldon Hout, who works for the State government in the Environmental Department of Oregon. From California, we had Mr. Chabot, who is very active in environmental matters in San Francisco. From Texas, we had Mr. Paul Kelly, who represented the oil industry. And you had myself. I am secretary of natural resources. And from North Carolina, we also had a State official in that State's environmental department.
Mr. TAUZIN. So we had a pretty range of contributors.
Mr. CALDWELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAUZIN. Let me ask you the question that keeps coming to us all the time. Is this bill likely to incentivize oil and gas development where it otherwise would not occur? Has that happened in Louisiana with OCS coming in?
Mr. CALDWELL. No, sir. Louisiana has had 8,000 wells drilled offshore in the last 50 years and I don't think that there is any chance at all that Louisiana would change its views no matter what happened.
Mr. TAUZIN. Ms. Castro, you also commented about the importance of this bill for all the good things that it does. Are you concerned that it is going to incentivize drilling that might not otherwise occur?
Ms. CASTRO. No, I am not. Not with the language that I think that Chairman Young has put in there. And I think that the no new incentives is very critical to the success of this legislation and I am confident that the language will take care of that.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Waller, you mentioned the importance of this Act, particularly as the States struggle to preserve species and wildlife habitats and what have you. One of the visions of Title III is, indeed, to conserve species and to help generate numbers of species before they ever reach a status that they might have to be listed under ESA as threatened or endangered. Do you see this Act contributing to that vision? And how?
Mr. WALLER. Well, there is no question we want a preventive maintenance program to keep species from becoming endangered. And this certainly provides the funding that would allow that to happen. The States' biggest need right now is funding for our non-game programs. And when I say non-game, anything we do for wildlife conservation in the field affects game and non-game. So I don't want to get hung up with this non-game and game scenario. But we have the expertise on staff, we know what needs to be done, we just need the resources to make it happen with.
Mr. TAUZIN. All of you commented about the importance of permanent funding in this effort. Why is that so critical?
Mr. WALLER. We have very successful wildlife programs. The most successful wildlife program in the world, all the States do. And it is simply because we had a dedicated funding source in the form of the Pittman-Robertson Act. It has been in place for six years. It is a wonderful model. And we have done great things restoring game species. And we need additional funds to broaden our agencies to manage these other species that aren't being addressed.
Mr. TAUZIN. My time has expired. The Chair will now not only recognize the chairman back to the Chair, but also recognize the Ranking Minority Member Mr. Miller with, again, you have already mentioned, Mr. Waller, our sincere thanks for his efforts in his own version of this legislation. Mr. Miller.
Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Tauzin.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Just a couple of questions because we have quite a few members here. I don't see it in your testimony and I don't know if you know it off the top of your head, Ms. Castro, here. You said you had about 700 projects off the shelf that are ready to go because you would be able to put together the funding source for those. Do you know what part of that is attributable to historic preservation or not? How that breaks down? Or, if you don't, if you could supply it for the Committee, I would appreciate it.
Ms. CASTRO. I will definitely supply it for you. And I must say, as you have brought up historic preservation, I ran out of time. I am the State historic preservation officer and I think it is really an important element that we not forget to fund historic preservation. When the Historic Preservation Fund was created, it was created with a funding stream of $150 million that, indeed, was coming from Land and Water. So, certainly, in the Governor's program, the Environmental Protection Fund, there is a percentage which goes to historic preservation. And the 800 projects that are out there, I don't want to give you an inaccurate percentage, but I will get it to you.
Mr. MILLER. That would be helpful. And Mr. Tauzin asked and Mr. Waller answered the question on one of the things both bills do is try to provide permanent funding. I assume that, one, that allows you to develop a schedule in terms of priorities, because, obviously, some things are more urgent than others. And also the question of scheduling the ability to raise matching funds and private funds and the rest of that if you know kind of what is coming on line over the next five years or what have you, as opposed to the sort of hit-and-miss, you know, annual decision either sometimes we provide money and sometimes we don't.
And I know, in our area in California, that very often, you know, we have raised a substantial effort in the private sector, but there are those gaps and those gaps just remain because, like you say, people want to make sure that other people have the same interest and involvement in these projects, but you don't have any ability to close them and get on with the next one.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. CASTRO. That is right. That is exactly right. And I was handed a correction by one of our senior staff members from Albany. The 800 projects, that 800 number, does not include historic preservation projects.
Mr. MILLER. Does not include. Okay.
Ms. CASTRO. We have additional historic preservation projects ready to roll that are also on the shelf and I will get that number to you.
[The information follows:]
| Bernadette Castro, |
| New York State Office of Parks, |
| Recreation and Historic Preservation, |
| April 19, 1999. |
Hon. DON YOUNG,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Chairman Young.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the House Resources Committee on March 9, 1999. I very much appreciate the leadership that you and the other members of the Committee have demonstrated to re-establishing the Land and Water Conservation Fund state side program, As you know this program is extremely important to all Americans interested in outdoor recreation that is close to home and can be accessed on a daily basis.
During my testimony questions were raised relative to our New York Historic Preservation and Heritage Areas System grant programs. Mr. Miller specifically asked that I provide some additional information on this subject and this I am delighted to do.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For Outer Continental Shelf revenues to be authorized for use in State-administered historic preservation projects within the context of legislation that would permanently fund the program, is a commendable suggestion. As the Historic Preservation Officer for New York State I have been frustrated by our inability to fund all the worthwhile historic preservation projects for which application is made annually in New York State. To this end, I strongly recommend that a provision be added to the Conservation and Reinvestment Act for Outer Continental Shelf revenues to be used for State-administered historic preservation projects. This additional funding source would help us conserve those projects listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Since 1995, the Environmental Protection Fund, and more recently, the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act have provided state funding for historic preservation with heritage area projects. In that time, we have received a total of 691 applications for such projects, requesting almost $101 million; that figure represents $319 million worth of total projects cost. Unfortunately, we were able to fund only 200 of these projects. This means, despite a vigorous, fully-funded and highly-regarded state grants program, approximately 60 percent of these worthy projects remain unfunded.
Historic preservation projects are important in preserving our heritage and provide a key to securing both economic resurgence and quality of life for our communities. The tourism industry, the revival of neighborhoods and an enhanced, distinctive sense of place all stand to benefit from permanent funding to the Historic Preservation Fund. Historic preservation is an economic development program that strengthens communities. The tourism industry is New York's second largest sector of our state's economy and heritage tourism is its fastest growing segment. This is very good news indeed for increased employment and environmentally-friendly economic growth throughout New York. Essential to the success of this trend, however, is continued encouragement and support for investment by State and local governments and the not-for-profit sector in new or improved attractions, be they parks or historic sites and structures, and in protecting what we already have. This is the public purpose that vitalizes New York's historic preservation grants, historic sites and heritage areas programs, and we need all the help we can get.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My colleague, the Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer, has detailed this tellingly:
States and localities leverage the Federal program with added incentives to increase public benefit. Each $1 appropriated to the States generates an investment of $55 by State and local governments and the private sector, States and localities know that:
• every million dollars spent on rehabilitating historic sites creates 29.8 new jobs (15.6 in construction and 14.2 in the professions and ancillary fields) and generates $779,800 in household income;
• that same million dollars creates 3.4 more jobs and adds $53,000 more to household incomes that a million dollars spent on new construction;
• many companies, especially those employing high paid knowledge workers, prefer to locate in communities with historic character and interest;
• preservation pays dividends to homeowners, since property values rise faster in historic districts than elsewhere; and
• historic attractions form the basis of America's burgeoning heritage tourism industry.
Here in New York we continue to make it known that full state-side funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund is essential to preserve our important and valuable natural resources. What an added benefit it would be if permanent funding could benefit our rich cultural heritage as well!
Most sincerely,
| Bernadette Castro, |
| Commissioner |
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MILLER. Thank you, that would be helpful.
Ms. CASTRO. Right.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Waller, thank you for your testimony and I have read and will continue to read the concerns you raise, because I think they are very legitimate. Let me just ask you on this question of game, non-game, native, wildlife and all that. If I read your concerns correctly, you have concerns with how we do it in our legislation. But you do agree with the general theory that it can't just be concentrated on what people historically think is a game species. That really, as you said, when you do one thing out there in the habitat, it affects both. But there is this need for broader protection of species or creation of habitat for those species. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. WALLER. Yes, sir, there is a huge need for that. And that is what we are all about. We want to be comprehensive wildlife managers where we can address all the wildlife needs out there. And that is where we fall way short on our funding. And these proposals provide that for us.
Mr. MILLER. So you see that as a resource problem.
Mr. WALLER. Yes, sir.
Mr. MILLER. All right. Well, we will work on those concerns. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Caldwell, also, thank you.
Mr. YOUNG. [presiding] The gentlelady, I believe.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. How do you mean that, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. YOUNG. From Idaho. Yes. I mean, Barbara—Helen's going first. Yes. Okay.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to associate myself in large part with the comments from Ms. Castro. They are very, very well-taken. And the fact is that we promised States money out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and then we whacked it off. And we broke a promise there. I really feel the resolution should come in refunding and keeping our promise to the American people. I have been working with Yvonne Farrell who is our director of the Idaho Parks and Recreation Department, a very, very capable lady. Looks very much like you and you sound like her.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. CASTRO. Yes, she is. I know her quite well. Thank you for the compliment.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. So I really do identify with your problems and the concerns that you have. But I do believe that this bill is totally, totally overreaching in terms of allowing a partnership or mandating a partnership by Federal statute with the States and the local units of government.
And, you know, a very recent study by Dr. Samuel Sailey of the Reason and Public Policy Institute helps put this whole issue into perspective. He stated that less than 5 percent of the United States land base has actually been developed. And it is developed in terms of urbanization. Niney-five percent of our land base is still open spaces. And so my concern is, in the name of fish and wildlife and saving the species, what are we doing to our land base and our productive basis in this country?
I think we need to keep our promises, but we need to do it in a way that will assure the States that they still have their sovereignty. The parks departments can operate in as sovereign a manner as humanly possible and take care of their own States.
I do want to ask Mr. Caldwell, doesn't the State of Louisiana, won't they be receiving about $361,874,000 a year from this? The highest amount of money that will be coming into any State will be coming into Louisiana?
Mr. CALDWELL. Yes and I would be delighted to address that.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. CHENOWETH. And were there—to receive it. I am too. And were there any members on your commission from Texas? You mentioned one from Alaska, because——
Mr. CALDWELL. Yes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. [continuing] Texas has—you know, I thought so, because Texas comes in with $204 million.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CALDWELL. Yes.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. And you already mentioned Alaska. One of the interesting things, Mr. Caldwell, is that your State, Louisiana, has about 1.6 percent Federal ownership. And Georgia has about 4.4, 4.5 percent Federal ownership. New York has 1.3 percent Federal ownership. Which means everything in addition to that is a productive base for you to generate income. Idaho has 62 percent in Federal ownership.
So I hope you understand why I am fighting this, because, first of all, I didn't come to Congress to see more land taken over and private property rights abused, which I think could happen in this bill. And, secondly, the federalization of our land base really does affect our sovereign ability to govern as a State and to produce. America grew to be the Nation that we did because of our ability to produce from our land base. And I think that, with just 5 percent of our land being involved in urbanization, I think this bill is a huge solution looking for a problem.
I do want to say, with regards to Mr. Waller's comments about non-game species, I tried in Boise, Idaho, to sell a house one time that some little squirrels had moved into the eaves and I had to go through—I shouldn't say it on the record—but it was literal hell trying to get my home sold because a non-game species had taken up homemaking in my eaves in my house.
Once this bill is passed and we give the status to non-game species, we are virtually increasing the Endangered Species Act that will affect real estate development, it will affect the ability of willing buyers, willing sellers to sell and to really utilize the marketplace freely. And it will, ultimately, affect States and local units of government and their tax base.
I want us to think really carefully about this. When we look at the definitions of what wildlife is in the bill on page 40 and wildlife-associated recreation, my gosh, you know, we are asking to have duck blinds and trails and all kinds of things mandated by the Federal Government. We are entirely overreaching in this. I hope you will take a look at this again. Thank you very much.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. YOUNG. Any of the panel like to respond? David.
Mr. WALLER. I would, Mr. Chairman. The neat thing about this bill, it gives the States the prerogative to make the decisions on how the funds are spent. For instance, western States most likely wouldn't spend any money for land acquisition, but some of the eastern States, like Georgia, might. We have less than 8 percent of the land in Georgia under any kind of government ownership, including Federal Government, state government, and all government ownership. So that could be a priority in Georgia, to acquire some much-needed lands for hunting and fishing and other outdoor-related, wildlife-related activity.
But, in the West, that is totally their choice and that is the nice thing about this bill. And, again, some of our non-game species are declining in numbers. And what we would want to do is to go out and census those species and find out what the problems are and to solve those problems before they reach the Endangered Species list. Because when they reach the Endangered Species list, it kicks in all kinds of negative implications to landowners, to us in government that works with wildlife conservation. So we want to avoid that. And that is our whole emphasis is managing wildlife to keep them off that list.
And right now, we have good funding for a State wildlife agency to work on game species and I think we have done a very good job. There are huge numbers of success stories across the country where we have restored in Georgia the wild turkey and deer and out West antelope and elk and those kinds of things. And what we want to do, what we need, is additional funds to manage some of the species that we haven't had funding for in the past. And that is what this is all about.
Ms. CASTRO. Yes, I would like to respond. Over the 30-year period, Congressman, when New York received its money, three-quarters of the money received over the 30-year period, went to recreation projects. And I just wanted to speak on behalf, just for one second, the need for development money for parks and rehabilitation money. That is critical. I mean, an urban swimming pool. I can tell you, to rehab one urban swimming pool, you are looking at a minimum of $1 million, just for new filters. This is not just a coat of paint. So I want to just remind all of us that a great deal of this money will go for other than acquisition and money that is sorely needed and, again, matching funds. It is a partnership, but for a very good reason.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. YOUNG. The gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. JOHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it and Mr. Secretary, I am going to definitely give you an opportunity to answer the gentlelady from Idaho's question.
But let me quickly begin—I have got a host of questions. I want to get through them very rapidly. We only have five minutes. I know that you have given that presentation often as a member of the MMS's OCS Policy Committee. You had some visuals that showed the need and the impact in Louisiana. Have you brought those here today.
Mr. CALDWELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. JOHN. Okay. I would like for you, if you have just one minute, to share them with the Committee and discuss what has happened in our State. This will be somewhat unique to Louisiana, however, it is also prevalent in a lot of the other coastal States for somewhat different reasons. But these are the kinds of issues that we are tackling. If you could just spend a little time to explain your charts to the Committee.
Mr. CALDWELL. I want to show you what I call my poster child. The town itself is 24 miles from the Gulf Canal, runs from the town to the Gulf. You see the land that has eroded in that short period of time. It amounts to 10 square miles. This is one we can quantify that is a direct result of OCS operations. This is just a portion. The total impact on Louisiana is shown by this other map in which we have lost, in the last 50 years, 1,000 square miles, which is marked in red, shown in red on the map. We anticipate that, in the next 50 years, we are going to lose another 1,000 square miles, as shown in yellow. That is an area the size of the State of Delaware. We believe that, with the funding provided by this bill, we can prevent 90 percent of that projected loss.
Mr. TAUZIN. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. JOHN. One question and then I will yield. Although the magnitude is quite evident in Louisiana, is this a unique situation to Louisiana or does it apply to other States on the East Coast, West Coast?
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CALDWELL. No, sir, on the East Coast, there is substantial loss occurring in the estuaries. There is degradation in the Chesapeake Bay program, for example, the Florida Everglades, in California, in the bays around San Francisco, deterioration is going on all over the country and this bill will address that.
Mr. JOHN. I will yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. TAUZIN. Just so that I might ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record, in connection with this testimony, a video entitled The Sounds of Silence which we have produced regarding the 35-square-mile annual loss of land in Louisiana and a letter from one of the broadcasters in Louisiana who saw it, saying, I had no idea of the magnitude of the problem. We don't realize it even in Louisiana, it is so enormous.
Mr. JOHN. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman asked unanimous consent.
Mr. YOUNG. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information will be kept on file at the Committee office in the Longworth House Office Building.]
Mr. JOHN. Thank you. Next question. There has been a lot of concern raised about the distribution formula in H.R. 701. Mr. Secretary, where did the formula come from? As a member of the OCS policy committee, and this kind of talks right into the gentlelady from Idaho's question and concern about the amount of money that Louisiana is getting, I have a twofold question; first of all, where did the formula come from? And, secondly, why was it tied to the proximity of the production of a platform?
Mr. CALDWELL. Well, let me answer the last question first.
Mr. JOHN. Okay.
Mr. CALDWELL. The reason it is tied to proximity is because the closer you are to the well, the more onshore impact that there is. Ninety percent of the production is offshore of Louisiana, but, under this provision, we are only getting 8 percent. But we think that is enough——
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. JOHN. Would you restate the percentage again?
Mr. CALDWELL. Eight percent of the 90 percent goes to Louisiana.
Mr. JOHN. Ninety percent of the production takes place off Louisiana?
Mr. CALDWELL. Yes. Ninety percent of offshore production is off of the Louisiana coast.
Mr. JOHN. Okay.
Mr. CALDWELL. So we think that is fair enough.
Mr. JOHN. Okay. I have a couple of other real quick questions. We are running out of time. Does Louisiana plan on using Title I money to buy up private property?
Mr. CALDWELL. No.
Mr. JOHN. That is a concern that I hear often from private property groups.
Mr. CALDWELL. No. My department has no expropriation rights. In fact, we don't even buy property from willing sellers. We don't have the money. If they don't donate land rights to us, we don't do a restoration project. So, you know, property rights are not an issue at all in Louisiana.
Mr. JOHN. Okay. That is all I have. Thank you Secretary Caldwell.
Mr. YOUNG. Gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be able to work with you and the Committee on a bill that will reinvest the funding stream generated by the depletion of a non-renewable resource into our habitat and fish and wildlife. I understand very well that fish and wildlife habitat in wild and semi-wild areas, how important they are to our future and our national well-being.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But you have got to remember that I represent Pennsylvania. And, while we have the largest population designated as rural in the country and that we have our most forested acres at any time since 1840, we have great problems that came as a result of an industrial heritage. While we are talking about the money now that comes from our present use of oil, I have to live with the problems every day that were generated by the scarring of the land from the mining of coal to supply the energy needs of the Northeast in years past, when there weren't any panels like this that were interested in what happened with the land after we raped it.
And so I am very interested in this, but I would like to say that my district represents a whole lot of the watershed of the Chesapeake. And I appreciate you mentioning, Mr. Caldwell, that estuary and how important it is. And we are spending money every day in the State of Pennsylvania to try and keep the water quality of the Chesapeake up and the silt down and all the problems that we all face.
But this bill, it worries me a little bit, Mr. Young and members of the panel, that this bill will not address Pennsylvania's problems very well and it may make it harder for us to access our Federal mine reclamation money. So, while I want to work very enthusiastically with it, those things are on my mind.
Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman and I can assure you, as you go through the bill and see we can be helpful, we will be so because we don't want you to lose that reclamation money. You are absolutely correct. But this is not a quid pro quo; this is a new monies that were being spent outside on other programs other than the reclamation money and all the other things that we shouldn't have been doing. But I thank the gentleman.
Any—the gentlelady. I apologize, you were talking when——
Mrs. CUBIN. I know. It was my fault, Mr. Chairman. I would like to yield my time to Congresswoman Chenoweth.
Mr. YOUNG. Without objection, so ordered.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I thank the chairman and the gentlelady. As Mr. Caldwell aptly pointed out, clearly there are legitimate concerns and certainly Louisiana has legitimate concerns, as does New York and all the other States. But, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Caldwell, we should address these legitimate concerns through existing programs like many that are already in place, through the appropriations process and not through off-budget entitlements. We are taking away the power that the Congress does have to hold the purse strings in trust for the people of this country and it should be done through the appropriations process.
If we were to put a map up there of Idaho, I can tell you that thousands of square miles would be in red because of the distress of our forests and our communities dwindling. And, you know, I would be the last to go even propose a program like this because I believe that we should take our solution through existing appropriations procedures. So that is one of the main reasons why I am not supporting this bill and would like to call your attention to that.
I do want to ask Mr. Weller, also, to carefully and with a critical eye, review pages 25 through 27 of the existing bill because the States will not be free to make their own decisions. Neither will local units of government. Local units of government who wish to go around the State on various programs, can go around their own governors and form alliances with the Federal Government. That is very alarming. I would like it, sir, if you would look at those pages and I would like to talk to you about it in the future. Okay?
Mr. WALLER. I would be delighted to talk with you about it.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. I yield back that balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG. The gentleman——
Mrs. CUBIN. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. Then, Mr. Simpson.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the panel's input on this. Having served on the city council and used Land and Water Conservation Funds for golf course, swimming pool, other activities in Idaho, it is very important and I would like to make sure that we maintain that fund or reestablish that fund because recreation in all communities is very vital.
Mr. Caldwell, you mentioned that you would like to see this not subject to appropriation. That it would be a dedicated fund. It has been my experience either in a legislative body or in Congress that dedicated funds generally lose accountability. Are you concerned about that?
Mr. CALDWELL. No, sir. Not under the proposal. The reason for the dedicated fund is we know that the average coastal restoration project takes three years, so you are on a continual roll. And, particularly with respect to onshore infrastructure, there has got to a bonding source to rebuild the infrastructure. So those are the two primary reasons for the dedication. Plus the fact that Louisiana is a small State and I think if we came up here with our hat in our hand every year, we would go home pretty empty. And that is the practical answer to that. Whereas this time, we think we have built a coalition that can really get it done. That is on the dedicated funding. What was the other question?
Mr. SIMPSON. You mentioned that you have built a coalition. And I guess what I am trying to establish in my mind, are we building a coalition of coastal States—some coastal States, some non-coastal States—that are going to have access to this fund so that we can build enough support to pass it, that has actually nothing to do with mitigating the offshore drilling impacts on the coast? Just so that we can have enough funding in this to fund those States?
In other words, what I am saying is, you mentioned that all States are under great stress, just not the six that are producing the oil. All States are under great stress whether they are coastal States or non-coastal States. So why haven't we included all 50 States? Why just the coastal States?
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, I guess my question is, is this to address the unique concerns of the coastal States and we are just using this offshore drilling money as a funding source, not really having any relevance to the impact caused by the drilling?
Mr. CALDWELL. No, sir. My testimony this morning was limited to Title I, but the coalition, the three titles are built on the fundamental principle that we have advocated, which is the reinvestment of nonrenewable resources into renewable resources. That is why we have always supported designating the environmental projects into which you can make capital investments. Th