SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
56–598 CC l
1999
H.R. 701 AND H.R. 798
FIELD 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 (COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE PITTMAN-ROBERTSON ACT) TO ESTABLISH A FUND TO MEET THE OUTDOOR CONSERVATION AND RECREATION NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
H.R. 798, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PERMANENT PROTECTION OF THE RESOURCES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE YEAR 2000 AND BEYOND
MARCH 31, 1999 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA AND MAY 3, 1999, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
Serial No. 106–18
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
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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
GEORGE MILLER, California
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held March 31, 1999
Statement of Members:
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska
Prepared statement of
Statement of Witnesses:
Angapak, Nelson, Alaska Federation of Natives, Anchorage, Alaska
Bailey, Cindy, Director for Local Governmental Affairs, BP Exploration-Alaska
Prepared statement of
Borell, Steve, Alaska Miners Association, Anchorage, Alaska
Prepared statement of
Childers, Dorothy, Executive Director, Alaska Marine Conservation Council
Prepared statement of
Kreig, Ray, Anchorage, Alaska
Prepared statement of
Regelin, Wayne, Director of Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Juneau
Prepared statement of
Rosier, Carl, Board Member, Alaska Outdoor Council, Juneau, Alaska
Prepared statement of
Schoen, John, Executive Director, Alaska State Office, National Audubon Society
Prepared statement of
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Selby, Jerome, Chairman, OCS Policy Committee, Anchorage, Alaska
Shively, John, Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, Alaska
Prepared statement of
Taylor, State Senator Robin, Alaska State Legislature, Alaska for State Senate President, Robin Taylor and State Speaker
Prepared statement of
Additional material supplied:
Briefing Paper on H.R. 701 and H.R. 798
Letter to Mr. Young from Myron Ebell, National Policy Director, Frontiers for Freedom, Arlington, Virginia
Text of H.R. 701
Text of H.R. 798
Communications submitted:
Dennerlein, Chip, Director, Alaska Regional Office of the National Parks and Conservation Association, Anchorage, Alaska, prepared statement of
Further testimony will be kept on file at Committee office in Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC: H.R. 701, Testimony Submitted from March 31 through May 2, 1999 and May 3 through June 11, 1999
Hearing held May 3, 1999
Statement of Members:
DeFazio, Hon. Peter, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Jefferson, William J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana
John, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana
Prepared statement of
Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of
Tauzin, Hon. W.J. (Billy), a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana
Udall, Hon. Thomas, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Mexico
Statement of Witnesses:
Anderson, Ronald, President, Louisiana Farm Bureau, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Prepared statement of
Camardelle, Hon. David, Mayor of Grand Isle, Grand Isle, Louisiana
Davidson, Paul, Executive Director, Black Bear Conservation Committee, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Prepared statement of
Davis, Mark, Executive Director, Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Prepared statement of
Downer, Hon. Hunt, Speaker of the House of Representatives, President of State Senate, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Prepared statement of
Ewing, Hon. Randy, President of the State Senate, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Prepared statement of
Falgout, Ted M., Executive Director, Greater Lafourche Port Commission, Galliano, Louisiana
Prepared statement of
Foster, Hon. Mike, Governor, State of Louisiana
Prepared statement of
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Gay, Patricia H., Executive Director, Preservation Resource Center, New Orleans, Louisiana
Prepared statement of
Kohl, Barry, Director and Past President, Louisiana Audubon Council, New Orleans, Louisiana
Prepared statement of
Lanctot, Randy, Executive Director, Louisiana Wildlife Federation, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Prepared statement of
Morial, Hon. Marc, Mayor, City of New Orleans, Louisiana
Mount, Hon. Willie T., Mayor, City of Lake Charles, Louisiana
Prepared statement of
Rousselle, Benny, President, Plaquemines Parish, Belle Chasse, Louisiana
Prepared statement of
Sarthou, Cynthia M., Executive Director, Gulf Restoration Network, New Orleans, Louisiana
Prepared statement of
Smith, William Clifford, President, T. Baker Smith and Son, Houma, Louisiana
Prepared statement of
Snyder, Daniel, Student, (Oak Lawn) Junior High School
Prepared statement of
Wentz, Dr. Alan, Group Manager for Conservation, Ducks Unlimited, Memphis, Tennessee
Prepared statement of
Westphal, Hon. Joseph W., Assistant Secretary of the Army, Washington, DC
Prepared statement of
Additional material supplied:
Jenkins, James H., Jr., Secretary, Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, prepared statement of
Page 9 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 (COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE PITTMAN-ROBERTSON ACT) TO ESTABLISH A FUND TO MEET THE OUTDOOR CONSERVATION AND RECREATION NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 798, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PERMANENT PROTECTION OF THE RESOURCES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE YEAR 2000 AND BEYOND
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Anchorage, Alaska
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11 a.m. in Z.J. Loussac Library, Assembly Chambers, 3600 Denali Street, Anchorage, Alaska, Hon. Don Young [chairman of the Committee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA
Mr. YOUNG. The hearing will come to order. You notice I'm starting right on time, and I try to make a habit of doing that. And I do appreciate all of you for coming today and taking time from your busy workday for our first Congressional field hearing on these two conservation initiatives. Today we will be receiving testimony from a variety of witnesses covering two bills. This is not the only hearing we will have on this legislation process. We have a hearing on Congressman George Miller's Permanent Protection for Resources 2000 Act, also known as Resources 2000, and my Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999, which we call CARA.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This is an official Congressional hearing held by the House Resources Committee. Some of you may not be familiar with our procedures, so let me take a second to explain. The Committee has invited 12 witnesses, representing all areas contained within these bills, to testify on the two measures, H.R. 701 and H.R. 798. Each witness has prepared a written statement and will summarize that statement. There are lights on the witness table that will turn red when the witness' five minutes expire.
For those interested in participating in this procedure, I will keep the record open for ten days and you may submit written testimony. This written testimony will be part of the official record, and I sincerely hope many choose to submit written comments and suggestions. Your input is very important as both bills move through the committee process.
CARA was first introduced in the 105th Congress, and I along with more than 30 other Members of Congress reintroduced it on February 10, 1999 for consideration by the 106th Congress. CARA is a bipartisan bill with broad geographical support. In a few short months, we have reached 70 Congressional supporters. These members range from the very urban members, such as Charlie Rangel of Manhattan, to very rural members, such as Saxby Chambliss of southern Georgia. The bill is also supported by the Western Governors Association, Southern Governors Association, National Governors Association, National Association of Counties, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Most importantly, I have received countless letters of support from Alaskans and Alaskan groups.
The main reason we are finding such broad support for CARA is that this bill redistributes Federal reserves created from oil and gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf. Currently, these revenues go directly to the Federal treasury without any revenue sharing with states impacted by development. This is unusual as onshore Federal oil and gas revenues are shared with the host state. CARA addresses this inequity while providing revenue from offshore activity for valuable conservation programs. Quite frankly, this revenue, which is created by the development of a nonrenewable resource, should provide lasting benefit to the coastal states and provide for conservation efforts in all the states.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The first title of CARA will provide direct revenue sharing in coastal states and territories; 35 in all, including Alaska. CARA gives each state the flexibility to provide the greatest benefit to its residents. In Louisiana, the coastal wetlands are deteriorating at an alarming rate. At the Committee's Washington, DC hearing, we heard from the Secretary of Natural Resources from the state of Louisiana, Jack Caldwell. Secretary Caldwell informed the Committee that Louisiana loses 35 square miles of land every year from erosion. CARA provides funding to address what is becoming a national problem.
In Alaska, CARA funds will be used in meeting the state's water and sewer needs, education funding, and other conservation, infrastructure and public service needs. In total, the state of Alaska is projected to receive approximately $100 million or more dollars each year in direct revenue sharing. With the state's current billion dollar shortfall, CARA will provide a needed shot in the arm, especially in the conservation area.
Title II provides annual and dedicated funding to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. CARA will fund both the state and Federal components of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and also provide for urban parks and recreation. Many folks think of the LWCF as a Federal land acquisition slush fund, and that is understandable. Each year the LWCF has $900 million available for Federal land acquisition through the Congressional appropriations process. On average, our appropriators provide the administration with $300 million to acquire private land. Last year it was nearly $700 million. These sums typically have little oversight and few strings. CARA changes the nature of this practice by adding sensible restrictions to the Federal Government while limiting the total amount of funds available each year.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund was developed to reinvest nonrenewable oil and gas revenues into conservation and recreation. Congress and the administration have not followed this original intent. CARA reforms the current practice by providing annual funding and placing sensible restrictions on Federal purchases. At the same time, our bill funds the state component of the LWCF. The state of Alaska will have over $15 million available for conservation and recreation projects. These funds are available to meet the state's needs established by the priorities.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This state-based funding has not been available the past five years. Without these funds having been available in the past, we may not have been able to develop projects like Alaskaland in Fairbanks and the coastal trail in Anchorage. My legislation would guarantee that we can count on developing conservation and recreation areas for our enjoyment and for the benefit of the tourism industry in this state. However, these big projects are not good examples for the quiet winners who stand to benefit by CARA being passed into law. Under Title II, CARA will provide soccer fields, state parks for urban areas and projects like basketball courts, hockey rinks, and softball fields. Each of these small projects provides outdoor experiences that can benefit everyone, no matter where they live.
Title III is what we call the wildlife conservation component. These funds will be distributed through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Fund, known as Pittman-Robertson. Pittman-Robertson has collected and disbursed more than $3 billion for wildlife conservation and recreation projects across America. Made possible entirely through the efforts and taxes paid by sportsmen, the funds are derived from an excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment sold specifically for bowhunting.
This component will allow states the flexibility to use this new revenue for wildlife conservation through the proven mechanisms of Pittman-Robertson. Alaska is expected to receive nearly $20 million for state-based wildlife conservation each year. CARA is my counterproposal to the Teaming With Wildlife Initiative, which wanted to create a broad tax on sporting goods ranging from sport utility vehicles to hiking boots. This program was one that I could not support, but funding is necessary to provide for wildlife, and CARA accomplishes this goal without creating a new tax.
Each year scores of tourists come north to Alaska. Often they either do not have the opportunity and access to view wildlife. For tourism to remain a strong segment of our economy, we must continue to provide new opportunities to our visitors. CARA provides needed funding to do that. CARA will provide recreational projects to help ensure that our wildlife remains abundant. This is good for us as Alaskans and good for the tourists we count on.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Congressman Miller's bill, Resource 2000, is well intentioned but contains significant differences from my bill CARA. There is no direct revenue sharing component within his bill. This is absolutely vital for any legislation which ultimately must move through my Committee. While several of the programs have similar goals, they come from a federalist approach and with many Federal strings. I hope to work with Mr. Miller in passing a good state-based bill which includes a strong revenue sharing component. The Federal Government should have been sharing this offshore revenue for decades and should not place the burden of an overwhelming Federal bureaucracy while making a reinvestment in sound conservation and recreational programs.
This is only the beginning of the legislative process—and I want to stress that—for these bills. I plan to have more field hearings, as I mentioned before, from across this nation. I look forward to hearing from the diverse witnesses assembled here today. It is very important that Alaskans have an opportunity to shape this national legislation. With our abundance of resources and public lands, Alaskans should have the opportunity to voice their concerns so that they can be heard here as well as in Washington, DC.
Our legislation is not complete, and this Committee will continue to receive comments and suggestions on these bills. I look forward to the insights of my fellow Alaskans which will be brought forward today. Ultimately, we must answer the question of if we are to make this lasting investment in our coastal communities and for sound national conservation. I frankly think we should be doing that.
And I thank you for bearing with me for reading my opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA
Thank you for coming today and taking time from your busy workday for our first Congressional field hearing on these two conservation initiatives. Today, we will be receiving testimony from a variety of witnesses covering two bills: Congressman George Miller's Permanent Protection for Resources 2000 Act also known as Resources 2000 and my Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 which we call CARA.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This is an official Congressional hearing, held by the House Resources Committee. Some of you may not be familiar with our procedures, so let me take a second to explain. The Committee has invited 12 witnesses, representing all areas contained within these bills, to testify on the two measures—H.R. 701 and H.R. 798. Each witness has prepared a written statement and will summarize that statement. There are lights at the witness table that will turn red when the witness's five minutes expire.
For those interested in participating in this procedure, I will keep the record open for ten days and you may submit written testimony. This written testimony will be a part of the official record and I sincerely hope many choose to submit written comments and suggestions. Your input is very important as both bills move through our Committee process.
CARA was first introduced in the 105th Congress and I along with more than 30 other Members of Congress reintroduced it on February 10, 1999, for consideration by the 106th Congress. CARA is a bipartisan bill with broad geographical support. In a few short months, we have reached 70 Congressional supporters. These Members range from the very urban Members, such as Charlie Rangel of Manhattan, to very rural, such as Saxby Chambliss of southern Georgia. The bill is also supported by the Western Governors Association, Southern Governors Association, National Governors Association, National Association of Counties, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Most importantly, I have received countless letters of support from Alaskans and Alaskan groups.
The main reason we are finding such broad support for CARA is that this bill will redistribute Federal revenue created from oil and gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Currently, these revenues go directly to the Federal treasury without any revenue sharing with states impacted by development. This is unusual as onshore Federal oil and gas revenues are shared with the host state. CARA addresses this inequity while providing revenue from offshore activity for valuable conservation programs. Quite frankly, this revenue which is created by the development of a nonrenewable resource, should provide lasting benefit to the coastal states and provide for conservation efforts.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The first title of CARA will provide direct revenue sharing to coastal states and territories, 35 in all—including Alaska. CARA gives each state the flexibility to provide the greatest benefit to its' residents. In Louisiana, the coastal wetlands are deteriorating at an alarming rate. At the Committee's Washington, DC hearing, we heard from the Secretary of Natural Resources from the State of Louisiana—Jack Caldwell. Secretary Caldewell informed the Committee that Louisiana loses 35 square miles of land every year from erosion. CARA provides funding to address what is a national problem.
In Alaska, CARA funds will be used in meeting the State's water and sewer needs, education funding, and other conservation, infrastructure, and public service needs. In total, the State of Alaska is projected to receive approximately $100 million each year in direct revenue sharing. With the State's current billion dollar shortfall, CARA will provide a needed shot in the arm to our economy.
Title Two provides annual and dedicated funding to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). CARA will fund both the state and Federal components of the LWCF and also provide for urban parks and recreation. Many folks think of the LWCF as a Federal land acquisition slush fund, and that is understandable. Each year, the LWCF has $900 million available for Federal land acquisition through the Congressional appropriations process. On average, our appropriators provide the Administration with $300 million dollars to acquire private land—last year it was nearly $700 million dollars. These sums typically have little oversight and few strings. CARA changes the nature of this practice by adding sensible restrictions to the Federal Government—while limiting the total amount of funds available each year.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund was developed to reinvest nonrenewable oil and gas revenue into conservation and recreation—Congress and the Administration have not followed this original intent. CARA reforms the current practice by providing annual funding and placing sensible restrictions on Federal purchases. At the same time, our bill funds the state component of the LWCF. The state of Alaska will have over $15 million available for conservation and recreation projects. These funds are available to meet the State's needs established by their priorities.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This state-based funding has not been available in the past five years. Without these funds having been available in the past, we may not have been able to develop projects like Alaskaland in Fairbanks, or the Coastal Trail here in Anchorage. My legislation would guarantee that we can count on developing conservation and recreation areas for our enjoyment and to the benefit of our tourism. However, these big projects are not good examples for the quiet winners who stand to benefit by CARA being passed into law. Under Title Two, CARA will provide soccer fields, city parks for urban areas and projects like, basketball courts, hockey rinks, and softball fields. Each of these small projects provides outdoor experiences that can benefit everyone, no matter where they live.
Title Three is what we call the wildlife conservation component. These funds will be distributed through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Fund also known as Pittman-Robertson (P-R). PR has collected and disbursed more than $3 billion for wildlife conservation and recreation projects across America. Made possible entirely through the efforts and taxes paid by sportsmen, the funds are derived from an excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment sold specifically for bowhunting.
This component will allow states to have the flexibility to use this new revenue for wildlife conservation through the proven mechanisms of PR. Alaska is expected to receive nearly $20 million for state-based wildlife conservation each year. CARA is my counter proposal to the ''Teaming With Wildlife'' initiative which wanted to create a broad tax on sporting goods ranging from sport utility vehicles to hiking boots. This program was one that I could not support, but funding is necessary to provide for wildlife, and CARA accomplishes this goal without creating a tax.
Each year scores of tourists come north to Alaska. Often they either did not have the opportunity and access to view wildlife. For tourism to remain a strong segment of our economy, we must continue to provide new opportunities to our visitors. CARA provides needed funding to do just that. CARA will provide recreational projects and help ensure that our wildlife remains abundant. This is good for us as Alaskans and good for the tourism we count on.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Congressman Miller's bill, ''Resources 2000,'' is well intentioned but contains significant differences from CARA. There is no direct revenue sharing component within his bill. This is absolutely vital to any legislation which ultimately must move through my Committee. And while several of the programs are directed at similar goals, they come from a federalist approach and with many Federal strings. I hope to work with Mr. Miller in passing a good state-based bill which includes a strong revenue sharing component. The Federal Government should have been sharing this OCS revenue for decades and should not place the burden of an overwhelming Federal bureaucracy while making a reinvestment in sound conservation and recreation programs.
This is only the beginning of the legislative process for these bills. I plan to have more field hearings to hear from the public on these historic measures. I look forward to hearing from the diverse witness assembled here today, is it is very important that Alaskans have an opportunity to shape this national legislation. With our abundance of resources and public lands Alaskans should have the opportunity to voice their concerns so that they are heard in Washington, DC.
Our legislation is not complete and this Committee will continue to receive comments and suggestions on these bills. I personally look forward to the insights from my fellow Alaskans that will be brought forward today. Ultimately, we must answer the question of if we are to make this lasting investment in our coastal communities and for sound national conservation? I think we should.
Mr. YOUNG. The first panel we have is Mr. John Shively, Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, Alaska; Mr. Wayne Regelin, Director of Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Juneau; Senator Robin Taylor, Alaska State Senate, Wrangell, Alaska; and Mr. Jerome Selby, Chairman of OCS Policy Committee, Anchorage, Alaska.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For the audience, we will have three panels, and this is the first panel. And I hope you have enough room, gentlemen. With your permission, we will go right down the line with Mr. Shively, Mr. Regelin, Senator Taylor, and Mr. Selby.
STATEMENT OF JOHN SHIVELY, COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
Mr. SHIVELY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And first of all, welcome home. We got a little fresh snow for you just so you can remember what it looks like.
Mr. YOUNG. Remember to pull the mike a little closer to you, too. Go ahead.
Mr. SHIVELY. I assume my written statement will be submitted for the record, and I'm just going to highlight a couple things. We do appreciate you giving the state an opportunity to testify, and we are going to testify only on H.R. 701 today. I'm going to do Title I and Title II, and Wayne will do Title III.
We strongly support the provisions of this bill. We believe it's important that Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas revenues be shared with state and local governments. Governor Knowles firmly believes that state and local governments subjected to the risks of the impacts of OCS development should share in some of the benefits and particularly the revenue benefits.
As you know, we have already received some money as a result of section 8(g) of the OCS Lands Act. This bill would increase the amount of revenues and allow us to have that revenue outside the six mile limit.
Jerome will probably talk about the OCS policy committee. I didn't realize he was going to be on my panel. I also sit as an alternate on that panel for the governor, and I was there at the meeting where a similar proposal was adopted. It's a very broad based group to support a proposal like this, and I think that your introducing legislation is commendable, and I think that what they have to say is an important message.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me talk first a little bit about Title I. This title, of course, provides a remedy to a longstanding problem where we have not shared in major revenues—a number of states that have received impacts from OCS development have not received the kind of revenues that I think they need to address as far as impact. Alaska is a very diverse place with some particularly important social and environmental and economic needs. And I think that one of the things that we like most about this bill is that you provide the flexibility in terms of how the funds are going to come so we can address our particular problems which may be a little different than, let's say, Louisiana or Texas.
We think funds here could be used to plan for OCS development, review any proposed developments on offshore, complete research to important questions relating to development, conduct monitoring once development takes place, improve oil spill response and training and improve much needed community services and infrastructure.
I think that how funds are distributed between the stated communities is an issue that is somewhat complicated, and I think there is a variety of proposals—we don't have a specific proposal on this at this point, but I think the state later on may want to communicate something directly with you. It is important to us that the communities that are impacted receive the bulk of the funds. We need to put the funds where the impact is.
A little bit on Title II. We also support this title, although I think it has been somewhat controversial, as you mentioned in your opening statement. We don't have any major concerns with the provision of this title. The Land and Water Conservation Act funds have been useful in Alaska. We have had over $28 million of them. You mentioned a couple projects in Anchorage and Fairbanks. Forty-four different communities have received funds in the past under the provisions of this fund, places as diverse as Klawock, Nondalton and Old Harbor as well as some of our major cities. So this is an important fund, and we would like to see money go back into it for the state part of this.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We already have a granting procedure that's in place so that we could make use of these funds. And we have just completed our statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan which is a requirement to get these funds so we can prepare to use them if they are available.
I recognize some people are concerned with private property rights and what effect it might have. We think you provided some real protection here, first of all, that lands can't be taken by condemnation. And of course, we sort of like the fact that you are moving most of the funds east of the 100th meridian, which is real close to where my in-laws live, but the East Coast could use some larger parks, I'm sure. And we think that the Congressional check on major expenditures and on lands that aren't part of existing conservation system units are important checks that should remain in the legislation. We also would like to see some consideration perhaps given to funding for historic preservation projects which some people have proposed. Also, while we traditionally have not been eligible for urban parks funding, we are now big enough to do that, so if there is funding available there, that would also be of assistance to the state.
In conclusion, I would like to say that, once again, on behalf of Governor Knowles, we strongly support this legislation and we commend you for introducing it and trying to work in a bipartisan way to get this legislation passed. We look forward to working with you and providing any information you might need. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shively may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Shively. And you kept it right within the five minutes. I'm not as hard as some members are, but I do appreciate that.
Mr. SHIVELY. I wanted to behave, Mr. Chairman.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. YOUNG. Wayne, you are up next.
STATEMENT OF WAYNE REGELIN, DIRECTOR OF DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME, JUNEAU
Mr. REGELIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate the opportunity to testify before your Committee today. It's a great pleasure to express our strong support for H.R. 701 and to thank you for your foresight and leadership in introducing this landmark legislation. I commend you for addressing the needs to fund state wildlife management programs and for recognizing the critical need for wildlife education programs. It's really gratifying to see such strong bipartisan support for this bill, and the long list of co-sponsors is really impressive. And I know that it's growing every day.
Many Alaskans have long recognized the need for this bill and have worked to support its introduction. Alaska's coalition of over 400 groups includes numerous sportman's associations, business organizations, and many cities, boroughs and Native groups that supported the concepts in the old Teaming With Wildlife Initiative. And only two or three of these groups dropped their support when the funding sources changed from an excise tax to offshore drilling revenue, and several others have come on board.
I'm going to focus my comments on Title III of your bill because it provides the greatest benefits to wildlife management, but I do recognize that both Titles I and II will also benefit wildlife users.
Title III will provide funds to all 50 states plus our territories, and this funding can be used for management of all wildlife species, for wildlife education and for wildlife related outdoor recreation. In Alaska, this funding is going to provide substantial economic benefits in many ways. Knowledge about wildlife species can prevent them from becoming listed as threatened or endangered through the Federal Endangered Species Act. Often groups petition the Fish & Wildlife Service to list a species that's not hunted because its population status is not well known. And this bill will provide the funding needed to help prevent this from occurring and avoiding the tremendous economic and social disruptions that an ESA listing causes.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Over one million tourists visit Alaska each summer, and one of their top priorities is to see wildlife. This bill will provide the funding to develop a first class watchable wildlife program to meet the needs of the growing tourism industry. We will build new trails and other types of access that can be used by wildlife watchers in the summer and hunters in the fall. Wildlife viewing can be done in ways that are compatible with hunting through time and space planning and zoning.
Additionally, millions of dollars can be generated if tourists add only a single day to their Alaska vacation. And we will develop a watchable wildlife program second to none that would attract more tourists and keep them in Alaska longer. One of the things that's most important to me is it's vital to the long-term continuation of hunting, trapping and effective wildlife management that will do more to educate the public about wildlife management. This bill will provide the funds for the states to develop educational programs that have a balanced message about the benefits of wildlife management and sustainable development of all of our natural resources. In Alaska we have plans to work with local school districts to provide such plans to students.
I'm going to take just a couple minutes to talk about—address the H.R. 798 that was introduced by Congressman Miller. This bill contains some of the same elements in H.R. 701, and I'm pleased that he recognizes the need for more funding for wildlife management. However, H.R. 789 omits several elements that concern me and the other leaders of wildlife agencies throughout the United States.
H.R. 798 would require a new mechanism to administer the program and would provide far less funding for wildlife management. I see no need to create another bureaucracy to distribute funds to states when the existing Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration program can easily accomplish this job at little additional cost. In its current form, H.R. 798 would not provide any funding for wildlife education or for wildlife related recreational programs, and I think funding for both of these is very essential.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In conclusion, I want to reiterate the state of Alaska's strong support for H.R. 701. And I'd also like to express my sincere appreciation to you as chairman and to your staff for your willingness to listen to all points of view during the formative stages of this legislation and for their tireless efforts to reach consensus with an incredibly wide array of interests. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Regelin may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Wayne. Senator Taylor, before you go, can anybody hear the witnesses in the back of the room? You can hear them all right? Because I'm having a little problem hearing you up here. Maybe it's my seniorship. Senator, you are up.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, ALASKA STATE SENATE, WRANGELL, ALASKA
Mr. TAYLOR. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I'm Senator Robin Taylor, Alaska State Legislature, and I, too, want to thank you for coming home and having a chance to talk with us about this. I have prepared remarks and I have also submitted for the record testimony, or remarks, I should say, that represent the majority of the members of the Alaska State Senate. And I'm speaking on my own behalf today and submitting their testimony on their behalf.
First I'm going to try to abbreviate some of these comments because those that were prepared were a bit longer. The framers of our Constitution created three distinct branches, both on the Federal level and all 50 states. And I'm doing this for the purpose of recommending amendments to you to this legislation.
First, each of the bills, both two in the House and two in the Senate, to date provide for a direct off budget appropriation that is perpetual, and the appropriation goes directly to a politically appointed Secretary of the Interior, and through that office directly to the governor of each state. Our Alaska Constitution, just like yours, provides that our governor does not have the power to appropriate one thin dime, nor does Bill Clinton. Some of us consider that a blessing. Yet in all four of these bills, our governor would have the total authority to approve all planned expenditures, to write his own unilateral plan which would need only the approval of the Secretary of the Interior.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These bills could generate up to a maximum of well over $100 million for expenditure by Alaska's governor with, other than the matching grant aspects, no control by the legislature. And so we recommend strongly to you that the word governor in each of the bills be replaced with the word the state legislature. It's how we appropriate money up here. I can understand why the governors associations, both national and southern and western, would support this legislation because they get to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and they don't have to worry about those pesky legislators. So I would recommend that amendment strongly.
We are concerned, too, about the prioritization that occurs within this legislation by going off budget with it. I understand that the access to these funds is important, that people are anxious to have them, but isn't national defense an essential priority of our government? And if national defense is an essential priority, why is it national defense has to have an annual appropriation and be reviewed by the Congress, but these expenditures of what could be well over $1 billion will not be reviewed by Congress but this one time? We would ask that you think about that prioritization.
Some of us in Alaska can recall very clearly we are a state that was invaded and occupied. We now have the situation going on in Kosovo. We are very concerned about that shifting in prioritization for the purposes of these bills.
Wildlife is a concept that we all support. We all are concerned about good conservation, but after talking with Mr. Henry of your staff yesterday, it became apparent to me that, though the term wildlife is often used when we talk about this legislation, the public is not aware that this definition will now extend wildlife management and fund wildlife management down to. It will fund the wildlife management of alleged green tree frogs south of Petersburg, Alaska. It will provide funding for wildlife management for a subspecies of housefly that today prevents the building of a $16 million medical clinic just outside of Sacramento. I drove by it a few months ago. That is not anything that any Alaskan has ever asked me to appropriate monies for.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And to bring us back to just the impact on Alaska, because that's my purpose here, I've provided today a map to the membership, and also we have a map here. It's very difficult to see from where you are seated, but there is a very thin, pie-shaped piece of Alaska. That's the total private ownership of land in this state. It represents less than one-third of 1 percent of the total land mass. Now, of course, that little pie includes all the residential homes in Anchorage, property we are sitting in today which is owned by the municipality. But if you look at every single home in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Wrangell, they are all right there. So let's take them out because this legislation isn't targeted to them. And let's talk about what small portion of that less than one million acres in Alaska is remote parcels. I actually happen to be an inholder. I have 78 acres of fee simple property that's an old homestead I acquired on the Stikine River. I'm dead center in the middle of the Stikine LeConte Wilderness Area.
Congressman, if only 50 percent of the funds appropriated under this legislation is used for the acquisition of property, my property would go to the value of $936,000. Since that's the purchase of a willing seller of less than one million under your bill, Congress would never hear about it. I guarantee you that those of us that own remote parcels, as I do, those of us who are inholders are very concerned about this legislation, and we pray that you would put additional restrictions on it.
The mere removal of condemnation does not give us much comfort because that only takes condemnation out of this bill. It doesn't prevent them from condemning and taking our property in another. And willing seller, I submit to you that every Member of Congress, every home they own, every ranch they own, every condominium is available for sale if the price is right. Unfortunately, the price might get right on my property, and my grandkids will never have a chance to play on it if the government truly wants to buy it and run me off of it.
It's with those concerns I came today. I'm sorry I'm going a couple moments over, but I have submitted the bill—the map to the Committee, and in addition to that, the amendments that have been suggested. But my primary concern is that the impacts on our state where we have such a very, very small portion of private land ownership could be distorted as opposed to the impact of this legislation on other states.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Congressman, thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Selby.
STATEMENT OF JEROME SELBY, CHAIRMAN, OCS POLICY COMMITTEE, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
Mr. SELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm here today representing the Outer Continental Shelf Policy Committee. I also serve as a chair of the working group that prepared the report that came to you folks. And needless to say, we are delighted with the amount of material that you folks found to have been well thought out and included in the bills from the policy committee.
As Mr. Shively pointed out, the committee is a broad ranged group. It represents all of the states on the coastal part of the United States as well as the environmental interests on the one extreme, of course, and oil companies and other inholders, land holders on the other, and a lot of folks in the middle; we've got fishing interests, local governments, and those folks represented. And so it does represent a broad section of the United States in terms of the thinking and the input into what was recommended to you.
Just a couple of points on Title I. The committee discussed and was very careful to try to craft something that made sense in terms of where impacts are occurring and who have impacts in terms of the recommendations. And that's why one-half is based on the impact or the cost of actual activity in the oil and gas operations, 25 percent based on shoreline and 25 percent based on population. And because those are three different groups in discussing this, the committee got the input from the various states, and that seemed to provide a base for virtually all of our coastal states and our coastal communities and counties to be able to deal with—If nothing else, there is a fiduciary responsibility there to be stewards of that shoreline and that Outer Continental Shelf. Whether there is development or not, there is impact. And so what we were trying to do is find a way for folks to manage to be proactive about looking at that portion of the Outer Continental Shelf that's adjacent to their political jurisdiction.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secondly, the split between the state and local funds was very important to us. Our recommendation was a direct payment to the local governments, and we strongly support that from the committee. We think that has worked well with the PILT program, and therefore we would recommend the same approach on this, and you have adopted that. We would suggest and request that you take another look at the distribution to the local governments. And here we would suggest you take a look maybe at the Senate language in Senate Bill 25. Right now the way that this is crafted, it distributes only to folks with direct impact.
Having been mayor of a borough that probably wouldn't be getting any direct impact monies, we still were responding to the five year leasing schedules to proposed lease sales offshore of Kodiak Island. So there was a fair amount of expense to the Kodiak Island Borough, even though we wouldn't be receiving those monies under the way that it is proposed to be distributed under the House Bill.
So we would ask that you take a look because the committee had crafted that very carefully with that very idea in mind that coastal communities who do need to be responding to things that are happening to them need a funding source to help pay for that so they can do the job of managing that. So that was why that recommendation was there. Again, there are checks and balances that are placed in that, and those are, I think, in there for good cause.
Under Title II, the conservation recreation, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the discussion from the states and the folks of the committee, we were concerned about the fact that there seemed to be very little oversight of Land and Water Conservation Fund, and you summed that up very well, Mr. Chairman, in your opening comments. For that reason we asked for a lot of input from local government and state governments in discussion that a public process about selecting what parcels are going to be acquired and how that's going to happen and really taking a look at that. And you have incorporated that, I think, in a very positive way.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again, the two-thirds east of the Mississippi or east of the 100th parallel is excellent. Removing condemnation—these are all things that we felt made this a public process and put some emphasis perhaps on where—what is identified by some of the states; whereas the problem really lies primarily on the eastern half of the country more so than here in the west, as you well know, where there is a lot of Federal ownership already.
But there are still some land issues that a lot of us are familiar with— even here in Alaska there are a lot of little land issues. That's why I think we were focused more on resolving a lot of the little boundary things that are a few acres here and there that square up boundaries, that remove conflicts on boundaries of existing ownership. And that's what we were thinking more of rather than large acquisitions because realistically we're only talking $20 million a state. So that's not going to be very many large acquisitions obviously with that kind of money.
So again, with the million dollar threshold, Congressional oversight and a lot more public oversight, the not more than 25 percent of a county can go into reserves, trying to make sure that there wasn't negative impact. And that's a lot from the western states that that particular input came. We felt it was a coordinative approach.
We didn't have the wildlife piece on our recommendation, but we think that's a brilliant addition to the bill because it takes it from the land management part to the actual management on an ongoing basis in operations and the impact on the wildlife. Again, a lot of public input into that section and a lot of public drive about how those funds and trying to keep hunting and fishing open. And that would be our recommendation.
State parks, represented tourism, development opportunity, state parks need a lot of money right now for development, cabins for trails, for those sorts of things. And they just don't have that funding available to them. This provides a way that we can do that. From our perspective, Mr. Chairman, we felt that that meant that we would use the public lands that we have to better use by the public as opposed to right now a lot of the public can't get access. If these funds can be used to actually use the public lands we have, we felt that took a lot of pressure off the demand to buy yet more public property because if we go out and really develop and use to the maximum benefit public lands that are already owned by Federal and state governments and really do a nice job with that, then we could have a place where the public can go out and recreate and really enjoy the outdoors without having to buy more and more and more land for the future. So it was kind of intended to be a stopgap and put to good use.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I've overrun, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for that. Our view is this is an outstanding bill because it shares the revenues back to states and local governments. I think it puts the Land and Water Conservation Fund in a very public process, and funds fish and game enhancement projects. And those are all very positive things for the American public.
Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. I want to thank the panel. I appreciate the testimony. Wayne, some groups are suggesting that the dollars in Title III should be dedicated only to the management of the species that are not hunted, nongame. What is your answer to that?
Mr. REGELIN. Mr. Chairman, I feel that the needs of state and wildlife agencies—their needs are in the area of nongame species, the species that are not hunted. We don't have a real problem with state agencies with funding for species that we—that are hunted because the hunters pay their way through license fees and excise tax, but I think that we do need more funding for the—most of the—most of the state agencies will use their money to collect information on species that aren't hunted, but I like the way your bill leaves us the flexibility so each state director can dedicate the money to what he feels in that state are the highest priorities. So I think that it would at this time probably be counterproductive to dedicate it just to nongame.
We don't want to get into this argument about whether it's benefiting species that are hunted or species that aren't hunted and try to argue about how the money from each subaccount should be spent.
Mr. YOUNG. The bill as written is pretty flexible.
Mr. REGELIN. It's very flexible, and I think that's very good for us.
Mr. YOUNG. One of the things that concerns me the most is because we have been dealing with endangered species, and if my interpretation of my bill is correct, it would allow the states to manage other species other than the hunting game to keep them from being endangered, thus really keeping access to public lands. One of our biggest problems we have is in the Endangered Species Act because of the petition process. And once the Federal Fish & Game or other agency identifies a species that's threatened, the state is pretty much isolated from improving the species habitat. And that's really what I'm trying to get at is we want to make sure that the state has the ability to avoid listing of a species through activity.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. REGELIN. I'm sure that will happen. Each state will have money to look at species that are of concern that we don't have any data on. As soon as we start looking and have the money to have a program to evaluate and look at the distribution and the status of that species, most often you don't need to list it. But right now we don't have the funding to put those programs in place.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Shively, first I want to thank you for supporting the legislation, the administration, and thank Governor Knowles. Do you want to expand on some of the projects you think that would benefit from these funds in the state? Do you have any concept what you would be spending the money on?
Mr. SHIVELY. I think, Mr. Chairman, there are several things. First of all, in the initial stages of OCS development, clearly planning and community development, community input, often the smaller communities—take Kaktovik, for instance—feel they are really under the gun and they have to respond to major development projects, so getting them some money so they can sort of deal with some of their concerns up front, they feel they need to hire independent expertise to get that.
Once developments take place, monitoring systems particularly in this state for subsistence in rural areas is important, and I think both the state, our own leases and the Federal Government, which is primarily offshore—the Federal Government hasn't done much onshore leasing—We hope to change that with NPRA, but we think that subsistence—groups that can look at subsistence have been a very good model effect of how local people are overseeing the subsistence impacts. It gives them more confidence in the development.
Then if you look at other community impacts as people come into small communities like Kaktovik, improving even the school or other community infrastructure, airports, things like that also are projects that we think could be funded.
Mr. YOUNG. You heard Senator Taylor mention the fact that he would like to have the legislature approval of expenditure of dollars. I take it the administration would not support that?
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SHIVELY. I'm not sure I would categorically say we wouldn't support it. I think in this state, to be perfectly frank, as we look at—as the state has become more urban, I think there's become less of a recognition by the legislature about what's going on in rural Alaska. So I am somewhat concerned, since I think most of the impact of OCS development is in rural areas, whether the legislature wouldn't find that most of the impact was in the Mat Valley and Anchorage and not where it really was. I'm not saying the legislature shouldn't necessarily have a role, but if you give them a role, I think it's perhaps more important that you set pretty stringent guidelines on what communities are impacted and how they get their funds.
Mr. YOUNG. I listened to Mr. Selby, and he was talking about money going directly to the communities. There may be a method here that we can work together because I know—not just in the state of Alaska—there is a great deal of mistrust between the administration and the legislative branch, and I agree with the senator that the appropriation process on the state level at least—by the way, Senator, why we are not appropriating the money is because the monies were originally developed from an offshore development for the investment in conservation, and it hasn't done so. It's been going into the general treasury and been spent on all kinds of silly programs outside of what it was intended for. That's the reason I don't trust our appropriators in the Congress.
It's just the same thing Mr. Shively said; the appropriators in Congress are all from big cities and they don't have the slightest idea about habitat or reestablishment of game or the education of individuals involved in it, so that's the reason it was put in it.
I think we can work out a formative system that would maybe make it more equitable. The main thing is to get it into the communities without much red tape. That's really what we would like to try to do.
Mr. Selby, you were a former mayor. I think you answered in your testimony, but you—what do you see would be the benefits with this increased funding as far as state-based conservation and recreational purposes in the city of Kodiak?
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SELBY. Well, yes, Mr. Chairman. I tried to address that a little bit, but basically it's an opportunity to go out and build the enhancements, build the trails and cabins in the state parks. Shuyak is a good example where we did—The trustee council acquired the entire island that represents an economic growth opportunity for the Kodiak community, and that is happening as we speak. We are developing a multi-million dollar tourism industry based in Kodiak that that park is the focus of those folks. The fact that it's going to be there now means they can go out and get loans and buy boats, buy kayaks, get a base under developing that and turning it into something that's really used by the public.
So it does represent an opportunity for outlying communities in particular where things can be enhanced and really used to the maximum for the local community.
Mr. YOUNG. You heard Senator Taylor made a point about the amount of control the governor has. What did your committee discuss about the distribution of funds? If I interpret it correctly, the governor didn't have that much control in your recommendation.
Mr. SELBY. There's two pieces, Mr. Chairman. One is a piece to the locals. Our feeling is that that goes directly to the locals and the locals have their own hearing process, and they'll do their own planning process as far as how they use the local monies. Similarly, then, for the state there is a state plan that has to be developed; the intent being it's not just the governor saying I like this, this, this, and don't have to listen to anybody, but quite to the opposite is there should be a very public process involved in developing that state plan and talking about which parcels are going to be impacted and how those state monies would be used.
I guess we were assuming that the legislature would have to be involved in that portion of the appropriation of the state monies based on that plan, and so we didn't really see it necessarily as the governor gets this personal slush fund to go out and do things because that's counter to what we were trying to do with the whole recommendation on all of those monies, which was to make it much more of a public process, and have a lot of public input into the planning and a lot of discussion about what's going to be done and how those funds could be used.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. YOUNG. My staff just asked me a question about the constitutionality of decreasing the control of the governor to put it into the local communities. I don't know why that would be a problem as long as we define it in the legislation.
Mr. SHIVELY. Mr. Chairman, there is sort of an existing model now with the NPRA funds where the Congress agreed to share NPRA funds with the state of Alaska, and they said the first shot for those funds goes to the local community, and they come up with impact projects and those get funded. And anything that's remaining, they spend it. That goes into the state treasury and that would, in turn, be appropriated by the legislature. So you might want to look a little at that model.
Mr. SELBY. There are two other models. That's the old Federal revenue sharing process as well as the PILT program, which is an ongoing program that's directly funded to the municipalities. And those are both revenue sharing sorts of things, just like this one, and that's the model that was used. And just as a point, it's not outside of the governor because, as you have written into the bill, the governor—there has to be a plan developed by the local government and reviewed by the governor before any money gets spent. So again, we try to put checks and balances into all of these things to assure there is a very public process involved in making determination about how these monies are going to be spent. So we intentionally tried to make sure that no little group could get off and plan and scheme and spend the money before anybody else knew what was going on.
Mr. YOUNG. Senator, I do thank you for offering your suggestion. The biggest problem I've had with this bill is those that are concerning private property. And we have tried to write the bill as well as we could concerning private property because I happen to agree, the state of Alaska is in a serious condition. There is no private property other than Native owned land. I would like to see the state relinquish some of its property to the citizens of this great state because it's not a healthy situation. But I'm willing to listen to anything that you put forward, regardless of what my good friend says on e-mail.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I've always been a private property advocate because I believe it's the strength of our society, but we have now a problem under the present system with condemnation and with the appropriation process. We spent $700 million last year through the appropriations process that really nobody supported but the President of the United States. And this is an attempt to at least get it into the legislative branch, into the governors' branch and into the Pittman-Robertson fund, which the governor doesn't have anything to say about. At least to make it more fair and equitable because the present system is being misused, and that was the intent of my bill to try to make it more equitable for the private property rights. I know people don't believe that, but that's really the way the bill has been written.
Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you for letting me comment on that. I agree with you 100 percent on that and I think others would, too, that there has been a significant appropriation of Federal funds for the acquisition to the government's estate of private property. And it's not my philosophy, and I know it isn't yours. I do agree with you, there are many salient portions of the legislation. I didn't comment on those. I wanted to bring to you concerns that I felt you would want to address. It's for that reason I was here today.
I did want to also indicate to you that under Title III, the definition of wildlife, as Mr. Regelin has commented, does allow them to go in and to do some of the proactive things that you and I would support. Unfortunately, we all have to remember that's a two-edged sword. Depending upon the attitude within the department, they can also utilize those same funds to go in and create surrogate species for their friends within the environmental community to then shut down corridors of access for utilities, to shut down highway projects—and we have seen a great deal of that activity with this department.
That's why my only recommendation was that you provide for significant legislative oversight of any funds going to the department that are allegedly going to be used for conservation purposes. Conservation purposes right now—and I only mention this because Mr. Henry asked me to—I wish you could just review with me the ''experiment'' done on wolves on the Kenai last year where we used helicopters to capture over 30 of them up on the 40 Mile, flew them down to the Kenai for purposes of finding out whether or not the new wolves introduced would acquire lice as fast as the lice infected wolves that live there. These wolves were brought into an area where we have a very small caribou population struggling to survive. Is that good conservation? Is that what you and I would mean by it? I don't think so.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So you see, I have concerns about how the allocation of many of those funds have gone on, and the idea of just giving them additional Federal funds for additional projects like that without some review I think would be—would be inappropriate. That's why I wanted to bring that to your attention and say we would like to have legislative oversight.
Mr. YOUNG. Wayne, I know you are chomping to respond.
Mr. REGELIN. All I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that every dollar of Federal aid money that the state has gotten since it's been a state is appropriated by the legislature. And this money that would come to wildlife would be part of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. And that money comes to the state, and we cannot spend it unless it's appropriated by the legislature. And that would not change. And I have no comment on the situation on the Kenai, but we didn't move them down there for that reason. We moved them to save a caribou herd in another place. That's just where we happened to put them.
Mr. YOUNG. Would you have the same problem with—the Pittman-Robertson fund, that's not appropriated money, is it?
Mr. REGELIN. Mr. Chairman, that money comes to the state of Alaska as a block grant, and the legislature appropriates it, yes.
Mr. YOUNG. They do appropriate it, but it has to be appropriated for fish and wildlife conservation.
Mr. REGELIN. It's restricted and can only be spent on fish and wildlife. The current Federal Aid Act allows us to spend it on species that aren't hunted. We haven't done that in Alaska, but we have—the law allows that.
Mr. YOUNG. Well, again, my interest isn't in—I'm a big supporter in species that are hunted, but I also recognize that you can't separate the other species off of those because the problem we have now under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish & Wildlife, if they identify a species, then the state is precluded from trying to rehabilitate that species from being threatened or endangered. And under my understanding, the way I tried to write this bill is that you would have the money available to offset that and take it out of Fish & Wildlife's hands and save the species and keep it from being listed endangered or threatened, so it does impede other activities.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I can very frankly see it down the road with all this problem we have of interest down the road that there is a possibility that someone will file a petition on a species within an area that's used for recreational purposes for fishing and hunting, and if the Fish & Wildlife take it up they can preclude Alaskans from doing anything, including subsistence or sport hunting or sport fishing or snowmobiling or anything else because it might disturb that species.
What I want to do is give the state more latitude to avoid that so you have some science behind you and ability to understand that really what they are saying is nonsense. And come back—a lot of times it's misuse of the Endangered Species Act.
This bill is broader than one might think. It's a chance to make the states more actively involved. Any other comments before I excuse the panel?
Mr. TAYLOR. Let me say this in passing: We do support that on your last thought. It's just, as you and I both know, in drafting legislation you can't control how that will be applied, nor can I control on a day-to-day basis how the funds even I appropriate apply through the legislature. So the stated purpose, if that can be an additional amendment within the legislation giving guidance and direction to both departments and legislatures would be beneficial, Congressman, and we appreciate that.
Mr. SELBY. Just one point, Mr. Chairman, and that's I did want to comment on H.R. 798 since that is actually part of the hearing process as well. Just from the committee's perspective, I think it's fairly obvious the comments I made that we would have some real concerns with H.R. 798 because it's kind of opposite of what we were trying to accomplish with our recommendations, and that's that you make this much more of a local and state government open public process as opposed to the very Federal process that's proposed in H.R. 798 or really the agencies—Federal agencies are totally in control, don't have to answer to anybody, and counter to public process, from our perspective. And I realize you are going to have to deal with that politically, and we'll leave that in your very capable hands. But that's our concern with the other approach.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. YOUNG. I want to thank the panel and thank you for your testimony in answering the questions. We are going to take a five minute break and start at 12 p.m. Anybody that eats lunch around here, you are in bad shape because I don't eat lunch.
[Recess.]
Mr. YOUNG. We have our second panel. Mr. Chip Dennerlein cannot make it, will not be on the panel. We have Carl Rosier, Board Member, Alaska Outdoor Council, Juneau, Alaska; Mr. Nelson Angapak, Alaska Federation of Natives, Anchorage, Alaska; Mr. Steve Borrel, Alaska Miners Association, Anchorage, Alaska. If each one of you will take the position, all three of you, I'd deeply appreciate it. Gentlemen, we will go through the way I gave. Mr. Rosier, you will be the first one up.
STATEMENT OF CARL ROSIER, BOARD MEMBER, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL, JUNEAU, ALASKA
Mr. ROSIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the House Committee on Resources. My name is Carl Rosier, and I'm here today testifying on behalf of Alaska's fish and wildlife resources, as a retired commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game that's been involved in management and development of those resources since 1955. In retirement I'm also a board member of the Alaska Outdoor Council. The AOC is an umbrella organization representing a diverse group of sport and recreational folks. We number 47 around the state, with an annual membership of approximately 12,000 individuals.
Before beginning, I'd like to express my appreciation to you, Chairman Young, and the Committee for holding its field hearing in Alaska and inviting me to testify.
I've carefully reviewed both H.R. 701 and H.R. 798, and I strongly prefer the approach in H.R. 701. It appears to me that endangered species are dealt with after listing in H.R. 798, rather than encouraging action before listing occurs. It also seems that the absence of an impacted assistance program within H.R. 798 conflicts somewhat with the basic concept of sharing OCS funding. Further, H.R. 701 appears to give considerably more flexibility to the states and their political subdivisions to design needed programs and identify priorities. H.R. 798 appears to be a top down Federal approach to substantially more Federal agency involvement.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For the above reasons, my comments are being confined to H.R. 701 and, due to my wildlife background, largely Title III. H.R. 701 is landmark legislation. It promotes a wildlife legacy for all citizens for many years to come. Sponsors of this bill can truly be proud of their efforts. This bill provides for stabilizing funding for wildlife, fish, land and water conservation programs. H.R. 701 builds on the long-term financial support states have received for many years from hunters and fishermen.
The bill utilizes the successful distribution system of the existing Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration program to minimize costs. It enables states to take preventative measures early on to address needs and habitat requirements of declining fish and wildlife species that may be listed under endangered species.
H.R. 701 provides funding for addressing the needs and habitat requirements of the so-called nongame species. Little funding is directed to these species today. It provides funding for increasing public education about fish and wildlife through outreach programs that sponsor responsible resource stewardship.
Finally, the bill provides funding to the states cited in the Land and Water Conservation Fund program, ensuring improved public access to areas used by hunters, anglers, and other outdoor interests. There are other positives about H.R. 701, but those listed above are my primary reasons for strongly supporting this bill.
Alaskans have a strong commitment to sustainable use of the state's fish and wildlife resources. Over 75 percent of Alaska voters in a 1994 statewide poll indicated a preference for eating wild game. A 1996 study by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service indicated that Alaskans spent $1.7 billion in 1996 to participate in wildlife related activities.
In addition, I believe the Committee has been supplied with the statistics on support from Alaska business organizations, individuals, and elected officials for increased funding for wildlife under the Teaming With Wildlife proposal in recent times.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Congressman, I believe you have a winner here, and I'm sure the wildlife I speak for today will appreciate the additional management support provided by H.R. 701. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosier may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. YOUNG. Thank you Carl, for your testimony. Nelson, you are up.
STATEMENT OF NELSON ANGAPAK, ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
Mr. ANGAPAK. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Committee, thank you very much for coming to Alaska to hold the field hearing on this particular—on H.R. 701 and H.R. 798. For the record, my name is Nelson Angapak. I'm vice president of the Alaska Federation of Natives. We have reviewed H.R. 701, and we are finding that it's a fairly complex bill, that it addresses a number of bills, number of existing statutes. But I think that insofar as establishment of a national policy that leads to sharing of offshore Federal funds with the states affected and the communities most affected, we feel it's a step in the right direction.
Insofar as an expanded statement, Mr. Chairman, we will be reading—submitting our statement.
Another point that I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, is that the lands that are owned by the Native corporations, all 44.5 million acres are private lands. And having stated that, we support the concept that those lands would never be taken away by condemnation, if my understanding of H.R. 701 is right. You know, it took us years to get the 44 million acres. And Mr. Chairman, there has been from time to time condemnation of ANCSA lands, and I think that that safeguard is a safeguard that we welcome.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Insofar as this bill addresses subsistence, I think that it's addressed in Title III in that portion called cultural. And we do believe, Mr. Chairman, that when we look at the resources that are used for subsistence purposes, those resources need protection. And I think that— you know, you know that unemployment in rural Alaska is 60 to about 80 percent on the average. And they are not working not because they don't want to work, but because there is a lack of economic and employment opportunities. So subsistence is a major portion of life in rural Alaska. And I think that protection of those resources is one of the things that we feel is paramount in this—in H.R. 701.
So Mr. Chairman, with that, I want to thank you for coming up to Alaska, and I do hope that you will give our membership and the state of Alaska an opportunity to make their own individual comments on both of these two bills. Thank you very much.
Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Nelson. And again, we are in the process of hearing as many people as we possibly can and for constructive suggestions because the philosophy of these bills are, I think, in the right direction, as you mentioned. So the record will be open and we will be more than willing to take all comments, suggestions, advice, as we try to go forth with this process.
Mr.—Steve, you are up next.
STATEMENT OF STEVE BORELL, ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
Mr. BORELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting us to participate today. My name is Steve Borell. I am executive director of the Alaska Miners Association. I am testifying on behalf of the association. First, just a couple of comments about H.R. 798. We cannot support this bill. This bill is not in the best interest, in our opinion, of American business, of the mining industry, of private property owners, or the general public.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The rest of my comments will focus on H.R. 701, Conservation and Reinvestment Act. We support the primary goal of this bill, which is to pass revenues from offshore leasing to the state's local communities where revenues are generated. Local states and communities are better able to properly allocate and use these funds and to do so with significantly less administrative overhead than Federal agencies. We do have concerns with this bill regarding Title II.
Specifically we are concerned with any program that gives Federal agencies additional funds to purchase private property. We recognize that H.R. 701 contains some restrictions and limitations, for example, on the amount that can be expended without Congressional approval; however, this does not assuage our concerns. Alaskan miners are possibly the single group of U.S. citizens most severely impacted by Federal agencies intent on obtaining and controlling private property.
Being an inholder has been a terrible problem for many miners in this state. Many Alaskan families have lost their equipment, their property, their life savings and their livelihood because of passage of ANILCA in 1980 that made them inholders. ANILCA contained all manner of promises for access and protection of valid existing rights. With 18 plus years of experience, we can say that those promises have not been honored by the Federal agencies and that the relentless efforts of the agencies to control the property have made a sham of the promises.
Additionally, harassment by the agencies reduces the value of the property so that the owner has no viable alternative than to settle at a greatly discounted amount. It is with this background that we cannot support Title II of H.R. 701 as currently drafted.
Our concerns with Title II include the following: Title II creates a dedicated fund that can be used for purchase of private property by government agencies. This fund will become an entitlement, and once the entitlement is established, it is nearly impossible to change it. Agencies will set up new programs to administer and spend the money, lease new office space, hire new employees, all of which establishes new dependencies on the continued receipt and perpetual increase of the amount of money needed.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This dedicated fund will be off budget, and as a result not subject to annual Congressional oversight. The availability of huge amounts of money to purchase private lands will provide a tremendous motivation for government agencies to use the money to buy more private land than is necessary. This will place private property owners in jeopardy. For private lands or inholdings within Federal conservation system units, agencies are able to withhold the issuance of various permits or require outrageous amounts of money as ''mitigation,'' thereby rendering the private land of little value, forcing the owner to sell his property for a song. The existence of a trust fund to purchase inholdings will also become an argument for new congressionally designated parks and refuges, et cetera, because money exists to buy-out inholdings.
As written, the funds can be used to purchase private property within the boundaries of national forests. National forest boundaries often encompass huge areas of private hand. Every mining claim and operating mine will become a target for purchase by the U.S. Forest Service. Farms, ranches, resorts, homes, small towns, and private land around these towns will be placed in jeopardy. The availability of huge amounts of money for purchase of private lands will provide a tremendous motivation for government agencies to find new ways to use the money. The EVOS (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill) funds have been used to separate the Native peoples from their lands and their heritage. The Natives have been given promises of continued use for subsistence and other traditional purposes; however, if 18 years from now they believe those promises, we will be surprised. Native allotments will also be in jeopardy.
There are four areas that we feel need to be changed or we cannot accept the bill. Number one, require a hard cap on the national acreage of land owned by the Federal Government and set this at the same acreage as presently owned. This will ensure that there is no ''net loss of private land'' for the nation.
Secondly, require that in states where Federal land ownership exceeds some threshold—possibly 10 percent—for every acre of private land purchased, not less than one acre of Federal land be sold into private hands. This will ensure that there is ''no net loss of private land'' on a state by state basis. Additionally, standards should be established for determining valuation so reduction in value brought about by agency harassment of inholders will not be effective in reducing property values.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have various other comments within our letter, and we will be submitting all of these for the record. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Borell may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Steve. You were reciting the attack on private property. That's under present law. That's occurring right now. And there is no safeguards.
Mr. BORELL. We agree.
Mr. YOUNG. Under my bill, we take away the condemnation proceedings where they cannot condemn land. And the intent of our bill, frankly, is to put the money in to fish and wildlife. That's our biggest intent. The reason we had the idea of purchase of inholdings, there are a lot of inholdings that have been condemned under present law, and there has been no money appropriated to purchase the land from those that have been condemned, but there were not willing sellers. Under my bill, it has to be a willing seller, willing buyer, and has to be also—they cannot condemn the land to require one to sell. So I'm hoping that we can write a bill that you can look at and say this is a better system than we have now. And because the way—what we have now, I agree with you, has been terribly misused. But I want you to keep that in the back of your head. And hopefully we will have some constructive suggestions out of it.
Carl, how would the Outdoor Council interreact with this CARA bill if it became a reality? Would you be directing or suggesting to the state how the money should be spent, or is there a way that you think there would be more hands-on type approach? I'm just running this by you because you have been a commissioner and now you are in the Outdoor Council position and you are part of the users of our lands in this state, over a billion dollars, as you mentioned. Just how do you think the benefit would be?
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROSIER. Well, Mr. Chairman, to begin with, I think the Outdoor Council certainly tries to work hand in hand with ADF&G. We certainly don't always agree, but on the other hand, we make every effort to work through the Department of Fish & Game. I think we would certainly make an effort to make our views known to the department in terms of what we see as priorities on this.
As you know, one of the great concerns that's associated with this is kind of the mix that we come up with, the balance that we come up with out of this particular program when we have the consumptive user versus the nonconsumptive user versus ultimately what I consider to be the far right, the animal rights people as far as this is concerned. And the protection of the—you know, of the sports community that's, in fact, utilizing these fish and wildlife resources, we don't want to see that undermined. We want to be sure that the personal use fisherman, the sports hunter, the users of that wildlife as part of a—of the good management program, we want to be sure that that's protected as far as the legislation is concerned.
As I see it, you know, we would certainly—we would certainly benefit. I think you have given the opportunity here with the public process that you are trying to build into this in terms of that involvement of other interests. I think we have to be very careful in terms of the—some of the definitions. I think, as I read the bill, there is a couple of things that are a little soft in my estimation where we talk about definition of conservation. We begin to talk about such things as necessary or desirable to sustain healthy populations. Those are the kind of fuzzy things that get us into a little bit of difficulty down the road in terms of people's interpretation exactly what they mean.
Mr. YOUNG. I happen to agree with you. If you have any suggestions how we can tighten it up, I'm more than willing to have that submitted to us. Most of the time when we write laws, we write them so open-ended that there can be a misinterpretation or this is what was meant. I know we didn't mean to do that, but then the legal beagle is going to get involved and we have all kinds of problems.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROSIER. I think you made a good step on it here, Mr. Chairman, and you will hear from us on these kinds of concerns within the bill. But my way of thinking, these are things that will be worked out along the way and I'm fairly confident that these are not items that are going to jeopardize the bill as far as we are concerned.
Mr. YOUNG. Nelson, you mentioned subsistence, and that is an issue that is very hot. And under this program, I think the main thing you have to keep in mind is the abundance of game—this would be helpful in making sure there is game available for whatever use it has to be and not a lack of game. Quite a bit of dollars go into the Federal offices fund and the legislative branch to make sure that that occurs. Comment, if you would like to.
Mr. ANGAPAK. Mr. Chairman, I think that you put it quite broadly. I don't believe any more comments from me will make it any more clear. You understand exactly what we mean when we talk that, having lived in Fort Yukon and in rural Alaska, you know. Thank you very much.
Mr. YOUNG. I'm not going to argue with you, Steve, at all, but I want you to look on the positive side of this bill, what it does do. And, you know, my bill funds PILT, for instance, which is crucially important. It is, in fact, only Federal lands that can be purchased or inholdings within existing boundaries. They can't buy land outside of those boundaries. And we can make that very clear. It does not preclude the states—I will say this: There is some legitimate concern by those who don't want any more land taken out of private ownership. It does not preclude the states because I will not direct the states if they wish to try to pursue that effort themselves. And we might be able to tighten that up. And the excess of $1 million, that could be discussed. That was a figure that we thought would be really the minimum to have to come back. You can't buy a lot for a million dollars nowadays, and it has to come back to Congress.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I want you to know right now the present system isn't working correctly for land conservation as far as I'm concerned, and it's also being misused for the condemnation of private property. So if we work with this as we go through this, I'd deeply appreciate it because we are—we have a challenge here that I think is badly needed for this country. I think we ought to have more private land. I said that up front. I don't want to use this vehicle, though, to fight the total battle over private and public lands. My ultimate goal is to get involved in the fish and wildlife conservation and the perpetuation of species instead of decline of species. That to me is important after the year 2000. We will work with you.
I want to thank the panel. Appreciate you being here and appreciate your comments. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dennerlein may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. YOUNG. Now we will have panel three. Ms. Cindy Bailey, Director for Local Governmental Affairs, BP Exploration-Alaska; Ms. Dorothy Childers, Executive Director, Alaska Marine Conservation Council; Mr. Ray Kreig, Anchorage, Alaska; and Mr. John Schoen, Executive Director, Alaska Office of the National Audubon Society, Anchorage, Alaska.
We'll go right down the line. You're up, Ms. Bailey.
STATEMENT OF CINDY BAILEY, DIRECTOR FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, BP EXPLORATION-ALASKA
Ms. BAILEY. Good afternoon. My name is Cindy Bailey. I'm with BP Exploration. I work as the Director of Local Government Affairs with primary responsibility for community relations on the North Slope. I'd also like to express my thanks to you for this opportunity to be here today and also for having this hearing in Alaska.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I'd like to express congratulations to you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in developing this bipartisan legislation, which will go a long way toward enabling a more equitable allocation of revenues from offshore oil and gas development. We know that you and your colleagues have worked very hard to get to this point, and we are pleased to support this long overdue legislation.
On behalf of BP Exploration, I would like to take this opportunity to very briefly comment on Title I, the impact assistance provisions of H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999.
Your legislation creates a mechanism to allocate offshore oil and gas revenues to states and local communities. As you know, BP Exploration has been operating on the North Slope of Alaska for over 20 years, and we hope to continue operating for many more years. Our long-term commitment to Alaska is demonstrated by our continued investment program and commitment to developing a resource base without adverse impact to the environment. As you know, we take these responsibilities very seriously. We view the people of Alaska and the North Slope residents as partners in many of the decisions we make. While Alaska does not yet have production from Federal OCS leases on the North Slope, we fully expect and hope it will begin when Northstar and Liberty become operational after the year 2000.
To the merits of H.R. 701, Mr. Chairman, you are well aware of the immense needs which exist in many of the rural communities in Alaska. Many of these communities lack basic infrastructure like clean water and sewer systems and safe roads on which to travel. Unfortunately, state, local and Federal budgets cannot always fully address those needs. That is why H.R. 701 is so important. It will provide much needed resources and flexibility for the state and local communities to deal with these very real problems. Furthermore, this legislation will also benefit coastal communities in the Gulf of Mexico region where we also operate.
Finally, there has been discussion about this legislation creating incentives for offshore development. And I want to state clearly that such statements could not be farther from the truth. The fact is, this legislation will in no way provide an incentive for BP Exploration or any other company to invest in offshore development in Alaska or elsewhere throughout the U.S. Our investment decisions are made on environmental and economic merits, not on the basis of how Federal revenues will be distributed to states and local communities. I hope you will share these views with your colleagues who may view this differently.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We stand ready to support you in advancing this legislation which will invest Federal OCS revenues to states and local communities which play host to offshore operations and activity.
Again, I thank you for this opportunity to present the views of BP Exploration before the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bailey may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. YOUNG. Thank you for good testimony. Dorothy.
STATEMENT OF DOROTHY CHILDERS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA MARINE CONSERVATION COUNCIL
Ms. CHILDERS. Thank you. My name, for the record, is Dorothy Childers. I'm the executive director of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council. We are a broad-based, community-based organization. Our members are over 600 now. They come from diverse cultural and economic backgrounds. What we have in common is that our livelihoods and ways of life are closely tied to coastal and marine resources. Our members include commercial fishermen, recreational fishermen, subsistence hunters, small business owners, guides, marine biologists, fishery observers, parents and tribal leaders. In preparing for this hearing, I spoke to one of my members who said to me, ''We wouldn't live here and we can't stay here without abundant resources. They make us who we are.''
I would first like to thank you for the important work you have done in the past in the protection of Bristol Bay through the annual OCS moratorium, and we also want to thank the Resources Committee for considering new legislation for funding coastal conservation and giving us the opportunity to testify today.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, you are well aware of the many changes that are occurring in the ocean environment in the north Pacific today that are cause for great concern: Seabird die-offs; marine mammal and seabird declines; killer whales preying on sea otters which was not done before; thinning sea ice, which changes the habitat for ice-dependent marine mammals and presents dangers for subsistence hunters who travel on ice; new algae blooms are taking over large water masses in the Bering Sea; and some of our commercially harvested fish stocks are lower in abundance at a time when markets are poor and fishermen are struggling. In the western Gulf of Alaska, the once prized red king crab population collapsed in the early '80s. It has yet to show signs of recovery at the same time that the bycatch of these crabs goes unchecked. These changes in management problems call for a better scientific understanding and conservation initiatives to guide long-term management of our resources.
So in looking at these two bills, we find very good elements in both of them that we think can help meet some of these needs effectively. There are two aspects to the legislation that we would like to address. The first is dedicated funds for marine conservation, and the second is the OCS revenue sharing provisions.
AMCC believes that OCS legislation would serve our communities well by including dedicated funds for the conservation of living marine resources and their habitat. For this reason, we strongly support the approach taken in H.R. 798. Title VI of this bill dedicates $300 million for living marine resources and their habitat. We realize, Mr. Chairman, that your bill H.R. 701 allows for these funds to be spent for such purposes, but we believe that OCS legislation should include a dedicated permanent fund, if you will, for these purposes.
We think that such a fund would support the state of Alaska in the development and execution of plans to meet these management challenges both for state managed species and for Federal managed species that are deferred to the state. The state also has responsibilities related to the essential fish habitat and bycatch production requirements in the Magnuson-Stevens Act and we think this fund can help support those—implementation of those things. We are not suggesting this money be used to fund existing Federal programs, but rather to complement efforts for which the state is responsible.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We feel strongly that without some dedicated fund, effective implementation of some of the provisions that you, Mr. Chairman, championed—and we thank you—in the last reauthorization of the Magnuson Act are in some danger of slipping through the cracks, because many of these things are going unfunded. So we would like to see a portion of the OCS funds focused on maintaining marine fisheries and their habitat that are important to our communities, and we urge you to look at the approach taken in H.R. 798.
On the OCS revenue sharing, the second area of interest we have in this legislation, AMCC supports the intent in both bills to share a percentage of revenues from OCS activities with coastal states and communities simply as matter of public policy. We recommend, however, that the Committee eliminate provisions that function as inducements to local governments to choose new OCS leasing. Many of our communities have longstanding concerns about offshore oil and gas development that may affect valuable fishing grounds and traditional subsistence hunting areas. Last week was the Exxon Valdez tenth anniversary, was a reminder of the risk that we take and the values we have to weigh in our communities when faced with potential offshore drilling. We appreciate the stated intent of your bill, Mr. Chairman, that it shall not function as an incentive to new leasing, but we wish to recommend some changes to ensure that this intent is clearly met.
H.R. 701 currently drafted provides for the amount of revenue for communities to be tied to the community's proximity to new leases. It is our view that offering financial reward in this way for new leasing undermines the ability of our communities to participate without bias in the OCS decision making process. So we recommend that this link be modified to provide for the best process at the community level that does not place one industry over another. It is up to each of our communities to chart our own future course, but to do so the various economic options available to our community need to be considered on a level playing field.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So it's my honor to provide my members' views to you, Mr. Chairman, and we are happy to work with you further on the development of the bills.
Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Dorothy, for your testimony. And we will take them into deep consideration.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Childers may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Kreig.
STATEMENT OF RAY KREIG, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
Mr. KREIG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Ray Kreig. I came to Alaska in 1970. I'm an inholder in four different units. I'm chairman of the Kantishna Inholders Association, and I'm chairman of the Arkansas Scenic Rivers Landowners Association. And today I'm here testifying in an individual capacity, however.
Before proceeding, Mr. Chairman, even though my time before you is limited, I want to recognize the three decades' long career that you have had in service to the people of Alaska. You and your family's roots go deep in our state. You served as a boat captain on the mighty rivers of our interior. You know the land, and you have used that knowledge to defend the land, mining claims, businesses and rights of rural Alaskans that have continued to be under siege since the D-2 struggles of the '70s. And I thank you. I'm sincere for that.
What I want to talk to you about today is the implementation of ANILCA as a prologue to landowners' future under a dedicated off budget land trust. President Carter declared national monuments across Alaska in 1979, and the conflict raged between those who wanted to lock up as much of the state as possible and those who had a more balanced perspective that included human habitation and economic activity as part of the landscape.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ANILCA was a grand compromise. No party received everything that it wanted, but the deal crafted by Congress incorporated guarantees of access and valid existing rights for communities, landowners and residents who were enveloped in the new conservation system units.
But Mr. Chairman, as you well know, the intent of Congress codified in ANILCA was not followed. Since then you have seen how promises made to inholders of the conservation system units to preserve our existing rights of access and economic activity have been abridged, undermined, and disregarded by the Federal Government. You have been a champion for Alaska's rural residents, and I think you know very well from this experience the difficulties of designing protections in legislation that will self execute properly, without unintended consequences, in the face of a well-financed and determined bureaucracy working with special interest groups that do not agree with the objectives embodied in an original legislative compromise.
Where I'm going with this is that the private property protections in H.R. 701 are weak and will be ineffective in protecting landowners from these same special interests and agencies who really want Congress to give them the unchecked condemnation powers under H.R. 798. As long as you supply the trust fund money, the ultimate result will be the same as under H.R. 798.
Let me mention just one example of many. Mining. Within only seven years of passage of ANILCA, the National Park Service acquiesced in a friendly lawsuit filed by environmental organizations, and mining in all of Alaska's national parks was shut down by injunction. The miners then suffered years of flagrant abuse as they were dragged through biased validity determinations and ever increasing Park Service demands for more and more detailed mining plans of operations, all designed to exhaust the resources of claim holders and increase their risk and expense, ultimately driving many of them into bankruptcy.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As for my position on the bills, H.R. 798 is similar in concept to the massive land acquisition agenda of the American Heritage Trust Act of 10 years ago. Both are based on the unappropriated trust fund concept, and I don't believe this was good public policy in 1988, nor do I believe it is now. It should be rejected (as it was by Congress in 1990 after an outcry by Americans across the country).
H.R. 701 has the desirable feature of sharing revenue from Outer Continental Shelf leasing funds with affected coastal states and communities.
If enacted and signed into law, Mr. Chairman, you may think that H.R. 701 will have the properties of a grand Congressional compromise similar to ANILCA. But, also similar to ANILCA there will be those powerful interest groups and agencies that will not be satisfied with your compromise and that will actively start undermining it with confederates in the resource agencies the day after it's signed. The trust fund properties of Title II will be an open invitation to abuse by those that want to thwart and circumvent the will of Congress and you, Mr. Chairman, in this legislation. The recent history lessons from ANILCA demonstrate that ways have not be perfected to effectively manage agencies that are dissatisfied with the direction they receive from Congress, and this is going to be especially so with funding not subject to annual appropriation and review.
My written comment—I'm running out of time here——will go into this in more detail. And I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kreig may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. YOUNG. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr.—John, you are up next.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF JOHN SCHOEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA STATE OFFICE, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY
Mr. SCHOEN. Mr. Chairman and Committee staff, thank you for the invitation to testify today on H.R. 701 and H.R. 798. My name is John Schoen. I am the director of the Alaska Office of the National Audubon Society. I've worked as a wildlife biologist here in Alaska for over 20 years. Before I get started, I want to take this opportunity to thank you on behalf of the National Audubon Society for sponsoring the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. We appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the concepts embodied in H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, and H.R. 798, the Permanent Protection for America's Resources 2000 Act, can bring tremendous benefits to conservation programs throughout the United States. There are elements of both bills that Audubon strongly supports. Each would establish permanent funding mechanisms for the purchase of conservation and recreation lands, as well as much needed wildlife conservation and outdoor recreation programs.
We are especially pleased to see the cooperation between you and Congressman Miller in looking for the common ground between your bills. We encourage you to continue working constructively together to craft legislation that will significantly enhance fish and wildlife conservation and outdoor recreation across America.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, Alaska assembled the largest state coalition supporting the original Teaming With Wildlife Initiative. Both of these bills include major funding for conservation and recreation programs, which were the foundation of the Teaming Initiative, and they have enormous potential for benefiting Alaska. As a former state wildlife biologist, I know how important this funding is for our state.
For example, there is little funding currently available in Alaska for state nongame conservation or wildlife viewing and education programs. An investment in these programs will bring important conservation, recreation and economic benefits to the state of Alaska.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you work to refine and improve this legislation, Mr. Chairman, the National Audubon Society believes there are four principles that need to be adhered to in a final bill. First, this legislation should not provide incentives for new OCS oil and gas development. Additionally, funding for coastal impact assistance should focus on environmental protection and marine conservation while avoiding deleterious environmental impacts.
Second, new funding for state based conservation should be substantially focused on nongame species of fish and wildlife. Traditionally, most state conservation funding has been directed toward the species that are hunted and fished. This legislation needs to fill that missing link in our nation's wildlife conservation work. We strongly encourage you and your Committee to craft a bill that clearly addresses the significant funding needs for nongame wildlife conservation, wildlife education, and wildlife related education.
Third, annual funding should be made available on a permanent basis and should not be required to go through the normal appropriations process.
And fourth, the Land and Water Conservation Fund should receive a minimum of $900 million each year divided equally between Federal and stateside programs. We also recommend against geographic restrictions placed on expenditure of Federal funds.
The National Audubon Society has previously endorsed H.R. 798. However, we recognize and appreciate many of the positive elements of your bill H.R. 701 and are interested in working constructively with you as this legislation is further developed and refined.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased and heartened that you and Congressman Miller have been working hard to find the common ground between your two bills. This is good news for the American public and the wildlife and wild lands we all enjoy. I firmly believe that by working constructively together, you and your Committee will succeed in crafting a truly landmark legislation benefiting wildlife conservation and outdoor recreation across America.
Thank you for your work on this significant legislation and considering our recommendations.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schoen may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. YOUNG. Thank you very much, John. Ms. Bailey, in Washington, DC we have heard a lot about incentives, and Ms. Childers mentioned it, too. But I can't find any incentives in the bill. And you have read this legislation. Can you find any incentives?
Ms. BAILEY. No, Mr. Chairman, we have not found any incentives. And as I stated in my testimony, the cost of developing oil and gas reserves are tremendous, and the decisions are made on the economics of each project.
Mr. YOUNG. Okay. And Ms. Childers, there is a relation, because you said there was incentives in the bill primarily because of the proximity of the production. How could you not reward or distribute money according to the proximity of a community or village? I mean, what's wrong with that?
Ms. CHILDERS. Mr. Chairman, my organization supports impact aid to communities that are affected by OCS activities. What we are concerned about, though, in this bill is how—how the funds will be distributed at the lease sale stage, and it's our concern that promises of funding at the lease sale stage will change how local people in a community and a local government participate in the decision making process because they will be facing rewards for making a decision that—to accept OCS development.
Mr. YOUNG. The funding in both pieces of legislation are directly related to activities already occurred. It is not—there is no incentives for any future. It's the—the revenue being generated right now primarily in the Gulf of Mexico has been put in a general fund. We are saying we want to take that money and put it into areas that are impacted by that action.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. CHILDERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Our concerns are not—our concerns are strictly about incentives to new leasing around our communities.
Mr. YOUNG. That was your concern, too.
Ms. CHILDERS. Not with regard to existing activities.
Mr. YOUNG. All right. That's a fair discussion. Mr. Kreig, I happen to agree with you 100 percent on the ANILCA. We wrote that bill as well as we could, and I voted against it, and I worked against it. It had 90 amendments adopted to it. We never intended for the agencies to go beyond the intent of the Congress. And I can assure you as we go through this bill we are going to try to tighten it so there is a definite goal, there is water, land, fish and wildlife conservation and promotion. And it's not to be used as a sledgehammer as very frankly Kantishna, Glacier Gay, aircraft, things that were never intended in ANILCA are now being reinterpreted 20 years later by the agencies incorrectly. And that's one of the responsibilities I have to face up to that we didn't write it tight enough. So I'm going to do everything I can to write it tight to make sure this works.
Mr. KREIG. Well, I think that far more effort had gone into ANILCA in trying to put forward a compromise that made it possible for economic activity to continue, but as long as the funding mechanism is there and the money is supplied, it's devilishly difficult to control a situation. And I just think that far more work has got to be done in this area. And it may be insurmountable (as long as that amount of unreviewed money is supplied every year) to try to come up with mechanisms to ensure that your intent is carried out.
Mr. YOUNG. One of the things, again—I will repeat what I'm saying. The present system isn't working. And my goal is to get the monies from offshore development, nonrenewable resources into fish and wildlife conservation. That's the ultimate desire that I have. And then of course, allowing the states to make decisions on how they would like to spend the money on ballparks, whatever they want to do. But my goal personally is to make sure that we have species that will not endangered and that we have species available for hunting, fishing, whatever it may be, and there is no shortage. And I think we have to address that.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I've said all along that our society today is in probably greater jeopardy because of urban tyranny than anything else. I say that with respect to everybody in this room. The lack of knowledge about what this life is all about is created because there isn't the availability nor the abundance of actually experiencing wildlife. It's not there. And if we don't improve that, it becomes worse. People become insensitive. That's why they got away with ANILCA regulations. People were insensitive to its effect upon individuals and not understanding the intent of the law. I'm trying to write legislation to achieve that goal. It is difficult. But I do not shirk it because it's difficult, because I do think this has to be addressed. I just want you to know that.
Mr. KREIG. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think you have sta