Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
MARCH 10, 1999, WEDNESDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
1700 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT BY JAVIER
GONZALES,
NACO SECOND VICE PRESIDENT AND COMMISSIONER,
NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
RESOURCES
SUBJECT - TESTIMONY ON H.R. 701, THE CONSERVATION AND
REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999 AND H.R. 798,
THE RESOURCES 2000 ACT
BODY:
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my
name is Javier Gonzales. I am a Commissioner from Santa Fe County, New Mexico
and I am here today representing the National Association of Counties (NACo) 1,
in my capacity as Second Vice President.
NACo is pleased to testify on
behalf of these important bills that, if enacted, will have very positive
effects on our Nation's counties and communities. These bills present an
exciting opportunity because of the genuine support from such a broad range of
interests and the fact that the Administration, the U.S. Senate and this
Committee have very similar proposals. It is important to note the bipartisan
nature of these proposals and the distinct possibility that something will be
done in this arena in this Congress. Each bill uses OCS revenue as the source
for funding the distribution proposed by this legislation, and each has similar
uses in mind. I need not remind you that the potential budget pitfalls are
significant and creative solutions need to be found.
Today I will focus my
remarks primarily on the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of
1999, (CARA), but will comment on H.R. 798 during my remarks.
At our recent
Legislative Conference, our Board of Directors adopted a resolution in support
of the concepts embodied in the CARA legislation. Our resolution states: "NACo
strongly supports the principles of the Conservation and Reinvestment
Act of 1999 (CARA'99) that would reallocate Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) oil and gas revenues to the LWCF, a coastal state revenue sharing program,
add funding to the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) program and
establish an innovative procedure for adding funding for the Payments In Lieu of
Taxes (PILT) program, in addition to annual appropriated funds. NACo will
advocate a change in the "stateside" program to allow counties to directly apply
for LWCF grants and provide authority for innovative and flexible methods for
utilization of these grants such as a leasing program, rather than outright
purchase of land that removes them from tax roles."
We also have another
resolution, one that was passed in July 1998, supporting OCS revenue sharing
with coastal states, and one of our key principles for reauthorization of the
Endangered Species Act parallels H.R. 70l's section on Habitat Reserve Program.
We believe it is clear why NACo supports the approaches in this legislation.
Let me take this opportunity to comment on some of the issues surrounding
this legislation.
First, NACo is very pleased that the authors have chosen
to recognize the significant impact OCS development can have on coastal counties
and have taken steps to assure that any shared revenue from OCS development is
shared with coastal counties.
Second, the bill acknowledges the need to fund
the stateside portion of the LWCF and would assure that counties would share the
revenues set aside of the states. It would be preferable to have counties be
able to utilize their share of the Fund without having to work within the
mandated structure of a state plan, but we believe an acceptable approach can be
worked out during deliberations on the bill. We also believe we need to look at
innovative approaches, such as conservation leasing to meet the goals of the
LWCF without removing land from the tax roles.
Third, the innovative
approach to adding money to the PILT program in Titles I and II should be
applauded and the authors should be commended for recognizing the need to fund
the PILT program at reasonable levels. Let me share with you some interesting
facts from a soon-to-be-released PILT study by the federal government:- Overall
PILT payments are about $1.31 per acre LESS than the property taxes that would
be generated. PILT entitlement lands in the sample counties would have generated
an average of $1.48 per acre if taxed by the county, but PILT payments only
amount to an average of 17 cents, only 11 percent of the potential tax bill.
- To fully fund PILT another $100 million would have to be added to the $125
million currently appropriated.
- To achieve overall PILT/tax equivalency
another $696 million would have to be added to full funding of the PILT program,
and even then 18 percent of the counties would not be equivalent.
- In the
case of the East, taxes would exceed PILT payments by over 1,000 percent.
-
Counties in the Interior West responded that moderate or substantial costs were
imposed by the presence of federal lands, particularly in the areas of search
and rescue, law enforcement and road maintenance.
- The presence of federal
lands in a county provide virtually no direct fiscal benefits (other than PILT
and existing revenue sharing programs) to counties.
NACo is the only
national organization advocating for additional funding for the PILT program,
and we appreciate this attempt to do something about this shortfall.
NACo,
through its Large Urban County Caucus, applauds the inclusion of funding for the
Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act (UPARR). Parks and open space are
important factors in improving the quality of life in America's urban counties.
We believe improving our parks and preserving and acquiring additional open
space will assist our efforts to attract new economic opportunities for our
counties. The synergism created by inclusion of this provision helps bring
together urban, suburban and rural counties in support of this legislation. It
also brings to the debate on resources other interest groups, such as The U.S.
Conference of Mayors, that have not traditionally been involved with legislation
of this type.
NACo also supports the additional funding for the
Pittman-Robertson Act, but we believe counties should play a larger role in the
allocation and utilization of the disbursements.
On other matters, NACo is
confident that this legislation does not adversely effect private property
rights without due process and local involvement. This is an important
consideration as this bill moves through the process. We believe there are
adequate protections built into the bill to preclude an incentive for opening
new areas for OCS oil and gas development. While supporting this bill
approaches, NACo will make every effort to assure there are no unfunded mandates
or requirements that would effectively preclude counties from participating and
enjoying the benefits of this legislation. H.R. 798, the Resources 2000 Act, has
a role to play in the consideration of legislation in this area, however, we do
not believe it is as "county friendly" as the CARA proposal and it attempts to
fund a much broader array of programs that could reduce the amount of money
available for counties to meet local needs.
It also does not make any
provision to assist the PILT program, which again is very important to the
hundreds of counties nationwide that receive payments from this program. Title
VIII speaks to the concept of incentives for the conservation and recovery of
endangered species, as mentioned in our resolution on the subject, however, we
would defer judgment at this time on the specifics of the Title.
I would
like to take this opportunity to touch on specific provisions of H.R.701. Title
I, Section 103 (a)(2) addresses the issue of incentives for new OCS development,
the Committee may want to be even clearer in its intent. We applaud Section
103(a)(3) for its innovative approach to adding money for the PILT program.
Section 103(e) assures that counties will benefit from OCS revenue sharing and
we believe this is a critical element of the bill. In Section 105(a) dealing
with state plans, the role for counties needs to be strengthened and expanded
and subsections (b) and (c) need further review and fine tuning. Section 202 (a)
needs clarification where it refers to the utilization of any excess revenue
above $900 million where the excess would be available without further
appropriation to the PILT program or the Migratory Bird Act of 1935, but does
not make clear what entity decides where the money shall be allocated. I
specifically wanted to note that the legislation in Section 202(b)(1) requires
that 2/3 of the federal LWCF be spent east of the 100th Meridian. Many county
officials in the west would wholehearted support this requirement because, as
you well know, the bulk of the federal lands inventory is in the west. I wanted
to reiterate our concern about mandates and Section 202(g) may present some
concern. Section 205 establishing a voluntary Habitat Reserve Program is
consistent with the principles of NACo's resolution on reauthorization of the
Endangered Species Act. Section 205(c) specifically limits lands eligible for
the program to no more than 25% of the land or water of any county at any one
time unless a determination is made that exceeding that level would not
adversely affect the local economy of the county. While in concept this is a
good idea, the provision allows a state agency to make the economic
determination rather than the local county commission. This needs to be changed.
My final comment about the specifics is that counties need a larger role
throughout Title III.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I have
attached copies of the relevant policy resolutions adopted by the NACo Board of
Directors. I would like to thank you, and members of the Committee for your
interest in the needs and concerns of America's counties. We stand ready to work
with the Committee, the Senate and the Administration to hammer out an
acceptable bill that will set the tone for conservation in the 21 st Century.
Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify on this important
legislation.FOOTNOTE:
1. The National Association of Counties is the only
national organization representing county government in the United States.
Through its membership, urban, suburban and rural counties join together to
build effective, responsive county government. The goals of the organization are
to: improve county government; serve as the national spokesman for county
government; serve as a liaison between the nations counties and other levels of
government; achieve public understanding of the role of counties in the federal
system.
END
LOAD-DATE: March 14, 1999
