Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
MARCH 10, 1999, WEDNESDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
2914 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS J.
COVE
VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
SPORTING GOODS MANUFACTURERS
ASSOCIATION
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
SUBJECT - THE CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999
(H.R. 701 )AND THE PERMANENT PROTECTION FOR AMERICA'S RESOURCES 2000
(H.R. 798)
BODY:
Good morning, Mr.
Chairman. My name is Thomas Cove. I am Vice President of the Sporting Goods
Manufacturers Association (SGMA). SGMA is the national trade association for
producers and distributors of athletic equipment, footwear and apparel. We have
more than 2,000 member companies.
I welcome the opportunity to testify this
morning and would like to start by commending both the Chairman and Ranking
Member for the leadership they have shown in calling for greater resources to be
devoted to our nation's conservation and recreation programs. Both bills under
consideration by the Committee this morning represent bold initiatives in an
area that vitally needs visionary thinking and commitment. My industry and the
broader recreation community are deeply encouraged by the introduction of these
bills. We believe it is high time to debate how to reestablish the promise made
to the citizens of this country 35 years ago to invest in natural, cultural and
recreational resource protection with the proceeds of offshore oil and gas
drilling. We have seen the unique promise of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund cheapened for too many years.
A well-funded and widely supported LWCF
will provide the tools for stewardship of our public lands, and, for the first
time in years, is attainable. The recreation community sees this as an
unprecedented opportunity and we intend to play whatever role we can to ensure
the legislative process results in bold, breakthrough, bipartisan legislation
that will indeed rekindle the auspicious LWCF vision. We need to get to work.
I recognize there are substantive differences between HR 701 and 798. The
two proposals raise several important policy issues that must be addressed.
These hearings are serving to highlight many of them. I share some of these
concerns, and will speak to them later in my testimony. But initially, I would
like to focus on provisions of the proposed bills that are quite similar, and
are critically important to my industry and to America's families and
communities, namely the state assistance program of the LWCF and the UPARR
program.
Almost two years ago to this day, I testified before Chairman
Hansen's National Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee in an oversight hearing on
the state grants program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. At that time I
brought a message of lament. The stateside program had been virtually eliminated
due to lack of funding. UPARR also was getting no appropriations. The federal
side of LWCF had to scratch for every dollar it could, and was annually funded
at hundreds of millions of dollars below authorized levels. Backlog was
increasing. More important, precious resources at the local, state, regional and
federal levels were being lost. Never to be recovered.
Today, it is with
great expectation that I come before the Committee again. In place of lament,
there is hope. In place of indifference, there is leadership. In place of a
moribund program, there is new legislation. And, in place of tired claims of
empty coffers, there is a real possibility for mandated spending of the incoming
OCS revenues.
What has not changed, and what I would like to spend a moment
addressing this morning, is the tremendous need in America today for the kinds
of resources the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the UPARR program can
protect and make available to the people.
In inventory of America's sports
and recreation infrastructure today shows a simple equation way out of balance.
The demand for accessible, safe, clean, recreation facilities--ball fields,
courts, trails, rivers, greenways, bike paths, lakes, nature preserves and the
like-is far outstripping supply. The problem is particularly acute, not
surprisingly, near major metropolitan centers, but it is truly a nationwide
concern. It is a basic quality of life issue that full funding of LWCF and UPARR
would go a long way to alleviate.
Let me explain how the problem manifests
itself around the country.
It is an urban issue. In the city of Minneapolis,
Minnesota, it is estimated that literally thousands of young girls and boys want
to but will not get to play soccer this year, due to lack of playing fields in
their neighborhood. There is only one public soccer field in the entire city, (a
second one is now under construction), while there are 341 soccer fields built
and maintained in the Minneapolis suburbs.
Inner-city focused programs like
Reviving Baseball in the Inner City (RBI), Soccer in the Streets, and Boys and
Girls Clubs Housing Project program all report lack of fields and facilities as
constraints to serving greater numbers of at-risk youth. Just last month at a
meeting of mayors and large urban county executives, securing additional federal
support for urban parks was identified as the top priority of the group.
Images of unscathed community gardens and parks adjacent to torched
buildings after the 1992 Los Angeles riots offer a powerful illustration of the
value urban communities place on protected open space.
It is a suburban
issue. The explosion of soccer participation is America is well established and
the trend is continuing. Let me cite the example of a single Maryland county. In
this county, 25,000 girls and boys play organized soccer, with only 74 soccer
fields to serve them. Last year in one age-specific league, 550 children were
turned away due to lack of field space. In the next two years, county officials
estimate 60-120 fields will be required to meet recreational demand. By the year
2005, 40,000 county kids are expected to register for soccer. This is a single,
not atypical, county.
In Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, there is a waiting list of
1,000 children to play in the American Youth Soccer Organization League.
According to AYSO officials, the reason is that sub-divisions are being
constructed without zoning requiring open space and parks.
Nationally, the
United States Soccer Foundation has received 1050 formal grant applications to
build soccer fields in urban, suburban and rural areas in the past four years.
The Foundation believes this represents a small fraction of the actual demand
for more fields. The Foundation has been able to award grants to only 7% of the
applicants.
The problem is not unique to soccer. There is no football field
in Hopewell, New Jersey and the surrounding area. This year, after ten years
without football, Hopewell parents decided to gauge interest in setting up a
local Pop Warner league. More than 130 kids signed up at the first call. Now
this community is scrambling to find a usable space for its youth football
program, while simultaneously raising thousands of dollars to buy equipment and
supplies, hire referees and pay operating expenses. Lack of a field may yet keep
those Hopewell kids from playing youth football.
It is a gender equity
issue.
In Georgia, girls and women's softball league administrators are
forced to do battle with baseball officials over allocation of scarce fields. In
one fairly typical Georgia city, there are five fields for the 800 boys (and
several girls) who play baseball, while there is only one field for the more
than 300 girls who play softball. Already at capacity, this girls softball
program would expand substantially if more fields were made available. Such
conflicts are documented across the country.
As Title IX has opened doors
for girls and women to play non- traditional field sports like lacrosse, rugby
and field hockey, conflicts over field usage have risen. With the United States
hosting the Women's World Cup this summer, and the American women favored to
gain international soccer's ultimate prize, we envision even greater rates of
participation in girls and women's soccer, further complicating the field
dilemma.
It is a cultural issue. Field scarcity forces many youth sports
leagues to schedule games on Sundays, often from early morning until dusk. This
presents a serious conflict for many parents who want to take their families to
religious services or keep Sunday devoted to "family time." Many Pop Warner
football leagues use the local high school football field for games. On any
Saturday when the high school hosts a home game, the Pop Warner kids must play
on Sunday. Frazzled league administrators are left with little choice but to
schedule Sunday games, even though they know substantial numbers of would-be
players won't be able to participate.
It is a socio-economic issue. One
response to these field conflicts among local parents and supporters has been to
develop and operate private, fee-based sports facilities. This market-based
approach has produced some of the nation's finest fields, courts and support
facilities, truly first-class athletic complexes. They are serving a valid
purpose, especially for the elite athlete. But use of these facilities comes
with a price, and often the price of admission effectively excludes large
segments of the community from participation. The development of private
fee-based facilities is welcome news for many, but it is not the fix to the
widespread challenge of providing affordable recreation to all Americans. We
should not allow a family's financial resources to limit young people's basic
access to sports and recreation.
Economics also play a role in allocation of
many public parks and ball fields. Cash-strapped public recreation departments
establish fees for field rentals that only adult leagues can comfortably pay.
Many youth leagues, already challenged to provide registration scholarships and
equipment donations, cannot raise sufficient funds and are left with less
desirable fields, or time slots.
It is a health and safety issue. A
recently-released study by the Centers for Disease Control established that
people living in neighborhoods they perceive as unsafe are demonstrably less
likely to get outside for physical activity. Almost 40% of people ages 18 to 64
living in "not at all safe" neighborhoods reported no physical activity or
exercise the previous month. The impact on older Americans is severe. The study
found 63 percent living in unsafe areas got no exercise, compared with 38
percent in safer areas. The provision of safe, clean, nearby parks would provide
vitally needed opportunities for Americans of all ages to get out and appreciate
their natural environment.
Similarly, quality recreation facilities and
programs offer safe haven to thousands of at-risk urban youth and their parents.
Police Athletic League, Boys and Girls Clubs, public recreation departments in
every major city in this country - they all provide recreation opportunities for
young people during after-school and summer hours where few desirable
alternatives exist. These safe haven programs often serve to reduce rates of
violent crimes, teen pregnancy and truancy. Just ask the local police officers
and social workers.
It is an educational issue. One of LWCF's greatest
legacies is the preservation of the natural environment for generations to learn
about in a hands-on, experiential manner. Scores of LWCF sites have served to
awaken young people's awareness of, and appreciation for, the natural world
around them. We are concerned that unabated sprawl and unchecked urban
degradation may lead to generations of Americans who have no connection to the
wonders of our country's vast natural legacy. We must ensure that refuges,
parks, and nature centers are protected in places close to where people live,
thereby guaranteeing children and families the chance to learn environmental
ethics on their own terms.
I provided anecdotes to put a human face on the
tremendous needs facing America's communities. The stories truly represent a
nationwide challenge. The National Council of Youth Sports represents more than
53 national youth sport organizations, whose membership consists of more than 45
million children participating in organized sports programs. In its 1997 Member
Survey, NCYS reported that 97% of its members organizations conduct outdoor
programs and believe there is an immediate need to advocate for federal support
for LWCF-type legislation. At the same time, NCYS reported that up to that point
in time 98% of its membership maintained no advocacy capability in Washington.
The National Recreation and Park Association estimates the backlog of capital
investment needs for state and local parks exceeds $25 billion. State and local
parks are where the vast majority of Americans recreate day in and day out.
Though most Americans might love to visit our showcase national parks regularly,
they are unable to for reasons of economics, geography, or competing leisure
alternatives. Most Americans recreate close to home - in local, regional and
state parks. Whether for toddlers in a playground, teenagers on a ball field or
senior citizens on a nature trail, easily accessible recreation opportunities
contribute significantly to quality of life for individuals, families and
communities across the country. Participation in recreation is valued not just
for enjoyment, but because Americans know it leads to improved physical and
mental health, better appreciation of nature and the environment and stronger,
shared values.
As such, the recreation industry and community regards LWCF
(both Federal and Stateside) and UPARR, when funded, as an unqualified success
story. The Land and Water Conservation Fund was a promise made to the American
people beginning in 1965 that has delivered a return on investment that any Wall
Street financier would be proud to call his/her own, even in today's high flying
market.
The problem is that the investment was drastically reduced in the
1980's and early part of this decade. Today, we are feeling the impact. We
cannot continue to pass on these needs to the next generation without action.
Which brings me back to the bills under consideration by the Committee.
Let me be clear. We generally support H.R. 701 because it will provide a
permanent, dedicated, sustainable funding source for federal and state LWCF and
UPARR. This is the heart of the bill for us. SGMA supports HR 798 as presented.
But the provisions I am about to address represent areas where HR 701 can be
improved. We sincerely hope the Committee can address these concerns before the
bill is brought to mark-up.
I want to raise specific legislative concerns we
see in Title II, as they relate to the administration of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. The "Allocation" provision in Section 202 is unnecessarily
restrictive in its limitation of purchases to lands solely within the exterior
boundaries of federal land management units. This poses a particular problem for
my community because it will exclude many important recreation lands that fall
outside a designated management unit. We strongly believe willing sellers of
land on Utah's Bonneville Shoreline Trail or on the Ice Age Trail in Wisconsin
should be able to be accommodated in order to protect valuable recreation
resources.
Similarly, we oppose the requirement that 2/3 of federal moneys
be spent east of the 100th meridian. We believe Congress annually takes very
seriously its obligations to determine priority uses of LWCF. We see this
provision as overly constraining the flexibility of Congress to determine the
nation's land acquisition priorities. We believe that a $1 million cap on
federal contributions to individual projects is redundant and therefore,
unnecessary. We believe there exists adequate control over the potential
expenditures, through State Action Plans and congressional committee oversight.
With regard to Title I, my industry is strongly against the use of coastal
impact assistance as an incentive to promote increased offshore oil and gas
drilling. We are not in a position to adequately assess what might serve as an
incentive, so we urge that all consideration be given to ensuring that final
language represents as clearly as possible the notion that any funds distributed
according to the three titles be incentive-neutral.
With regard to Title
III, the sporting goods industry supports the need to develop a dedicated
revenue stream to provide funds for wildlife and habitat management. We applaud
the drafting work of this title, particularly as it moves away from previous
proposals to impose excise taxes on sports products to produce the desired
revenue stream. This appears to be an ideal resolution to a longstanding
problem.
We believe one element of Title III should be changed. We would
like to see modified the state matching requirements for the Title III funds so
as to conform to mandated state matching requirements in Title II. It is
illogical for recipient state and local park agencies to be required to match 50
percent funding under Title II, while recipient state wildlife agencies are
required to match as little as 10 percent.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, we
applaud your leadership in proposing a bold return to the original promise of
the Land and Water Conservation Fund and UPARR. We recognize competing interests
hold strong views about how these funds should be administered. My message today
is these programs will deliver immeasurable value and enjoyment to millions of
American communities and families. We need to find a way to fund them. We urge
the Committee to work together to develop a broadly supported, bipartisan bill
that can be passed by the House and Senate, and signed into law. We stand ready
to work with you to this end.
Thank you.
END
LOAD-DATE: March 14, 1999 
