Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
MARCH 10, 1999, WEDNESDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
1290 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY OF THE
HONORABLE RON MARLENEE
ON BEHALF OF SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL
BEFORE THE
HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
SUBJECT - H.R. 701: THE
CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT
AND H.R. 798 THE
RESOURCES 2000 ACT
BODY:
Mr. Chairman, I want to
thank you for giving Safari Club International (SCI), the opportunity to testify
before this committee on H.R. 701 and H.R. 798. We have reviewed both bills.
SCI has verified the need for additional money for state fish and wildlife
agencies. State agencies have been forced to spend money, raised by sportsmen,
on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and other Federal mandates not related to
sportsmen's interests. This has resulted in a tremendous drain on Federal Aid to
Wildlife Restoration Act funds, otherwise known as Pittman-Robertson funds.
SCI strongly supports H.R. 701 and the wildlife conservation that it will
accomplish with the broad-based support of fish and wildlife agencies,
implementing essential wildlife preservation. By creating a sub-account under
"Pittman-Robertson," and funding it with a 10% draw on the Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) revenues, H.R. 701 will effectively expand the species restoration
efforts which, in the past, have largely been funded by hunters and anglers
nationwide.
These new funds will be available to State fish and wildlife
agencies for conservation of game and non-game wildlife; endangered species
conservation; conservation education; and other aspects of wildlife
conservation, as the individual states deem appropriate.
As you know, over
60 years ago, Congress passed the PittmanRobertson law and created a wildlife
conservation and restoration program that is among the most successful federal
programs ever instituted. It has also become one of the most successful wildlife
conservation programs in the world and has been responsible for the restoration
of many species, such as white-tailed deer, elk, and wild turkey, which were
rare or on the brink of extinction a century ago. Since then, Congress has added
the DingelI-Johnson and WallopBreaux laws, to provide a complete program for
fish and wildlife species. Under the provisions of these bills, sportsmen have
willingly paid user fees, in the form of excise taxes, on hunting and fishing
equipment for six decades.3
Using OCS money, Title III of H.R. 701 will
expand state wildlife conservation efforts and allow state agencies to work with
the federal government, tribal governments, private landowners and interested
organizations to ensure achievement of state specific goals in virtually all
areas of wildlife conservation, healthy habitat conservation, and a diversified
variety of wildlife, as well as conservation education.
During the 104th and
105th Congresses, a concept to increase funds available to States for wildlife
conservation was conceived as a new and additional excise tax on all outdoor
recreation equipment. However, this idea, called "Teaming with Wildlife (TWW),"
was never introduced as legislation.
Although SCI supported the general
concept of providing funds to the State fish and wildlife agencies for wildlife
conservation, we could not support the TWW approach. To begin with, in the newly
conservative political climate of Congress, a tax of any kind was unlikely to
ever become law. In addition, the TWW draft would have forced the States to use
most of the funds for non-game wildlife and outdoor recreation activities,
regardless of state needs. We feel that it is critical to leave the decision to
the State wildlife agencies as to how best to use any additional funds for
wildlife conservation. Like a lot of federal legislation, the TWW proposal would
have been an incentive to spend valuable taxpayer money on unwanted, or perhaps
even unnecessary programs. However, H.R. 701, introduced by Representatives Don
Young and John Dingell, corrects that.
In the 105th Congress, Chairman Young
wisely saw a way to achieve the important goals of increasing state funding for
wildlife conservation without imposing an unpopular tax, and without robbing the
State fish and wildlife agencies of the discretion to make professionally-sound
decisions on directing wildlife conservation funds to where they are needed
most. This bill has been reintroduced in the 106th Congress as H.R. 701.
As
one of the leading organizations representing sportsmen nationwide, SCl supports
Mr. Young and the co-sponsors of the Conservation and Reinvestment
Act. H.R. 701 is a focused and carefully crafted effort. By contrast,
H.R. 798 scatters its funds on issues, and thinly distributes the OCS revenues.
H.R. 701 is an effort to solve a few important needs; whereas.H.R. 798, although
well intentioned, is an inappropriate approach that reaches into new programs
and appears to expand other programs. It circumvents the committee process by
poring money into programs that have not been authorized, approved, or debated.
H.R. 701 enhances the time-tested mechanisms of the PittmanRobertson program
to increase the funds available to the States for wildlife conservation. Under
Pittman-Robertson, both game and nongame species have benefited dramatically.
Species, which were nearly extinct, from the white-tailed deer to the beaver in
the Eastern United States, are now back in force. By contrast, H.R. 798 would
put a smaller amount of OCS revenues into the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act
of 1980, a law that has never been implemented and in which the "Findings"
section fails to recognize a need for funding the full diversity of wildlife
needs by emphasizing only those species called "non-game" wildlife.
Both
bills deal with the acquisition of property. While this is not the primary
expertise or interest of SCI, many concerns about these provisions have been
expressed to us, both from within and from outside of our organization and so we
would like to make a comment on the subject. We appreciate Mr. Young's
sensitivity to those concerns and we feel that Congressman Young's bill, H.R.
701, contains provisions intended to guard against an undue infringement on
private property rights. As a matter of fact, the League of Private Property
Voters has published a rating of the members of Congress for 1998. Attached to
this statement is the rating, which indicates that Congressman Young had a 100
percent "protection of private property" rating in 1998. With this kind of
record, I'm sure Congressman Young will support provisions which strengthen
private property rights even further.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, we would
like to congratulate you for recognizing the need to provide more funding for
the State fish and wildlife agencies and for finding an inventive way to
accomplish that goal. We believe your bill appropriately recognizes the primary
role of the States and their professional wildlife agencies in wildlife
conservation.
We encourage the States to seek local and regional management
solutions to wildlife conservation problems and we think that the funds provided
by H.R. 701 can be an important part of that effort. We would rather see States
using the funds provided by H.R. 701 to work together to manage various wildlife
species and their associated habitats, than to see an escalation of Federal
listings of endangered species. We feel that the States have both the proper
interests and qualifications needed to manage and conserve wildlife, and we do
not favor unnecessary Federal intrusions on the lives and properties of people
throughout the country.
Much of what the States have lacked in order to
accomplish their conservation mission has been adequate funding to conserve
wildlife before it reaches the point of endangerment. H.R. 798 does not provide
enough funds and attempts to use an untried mechanism for distributing those
funds. Its focus on wildlife conservation is watered down by its efforts to be
all things to all people. H.R. 701 is a much better vehicle for the important
work of wildlife conservation.
END
LOAD-DATE: March
14, 1999 
