LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe-Document

Search Terms: "Conservation and Reinvestment Act", House or Senate or Joint

Document 13 of 92.

View Related Topics

MAY 4, 1999, TUESDAY

SECTION: IN THE NEWS

LENGTH: 1008 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY OF
THE HONORABLE RON MARLENEE
BEFORE THE SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
SUBJECT - THE CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT

BODY:

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the Committee:
My name is Ron Marlenee and I am representing Safari Club International, which is an organization comprised of thousands of sportsmen and women worldwide. They are committed to wildlife propagation and habitat protection because they know that without wildlife and habitat there is no future for sportsmen. This legislation, S. 25 and it's house counterpart, H.R. 701, will have the most profound, long term effect on wildlife since the Pittman/Robertson and Wallop/Breaux statutes enacted over sixty years ago.
Sportsmen and women have put more than $3 billion dollars into wildlife and wildlife habitat under these laws. Pittman/Robertson is responsible for one of the greatest success stories known to wildlife conservation.
But in recent years this effort has been diluted and drained of funds by mandates and requirements of the federal government. Trying to keep up with funding endangered species, coastal protection and other programs, the state wildlife agencies are having shortfalls that force them to dip into funds that sportsmen have paid to enhance wildlife populations.
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.
With S. 25 and H.R. 701, Senators Murkowski and Landrieu; and Congressmen Young and Dingell have found a way to achieve the important goals of increasing state funding for wildlife conservation without imposing the unpopular excise 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. Safari Club International supports this effort.
In addition, S. 25, The Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999, could well be termed a partial solution for unfunded federal mandates. Under Title III, the new funds that S. 25 creates will be available to state fish and wildlife agencies for conservation of game and nongame wildlife, endangered species conservation, education, and other aspects of wildlife conservation. The state agencies will be able to use this money in the areas of conservation that they feel is most appropriate.
There needs to be assurance that the states retain the discretion to determine what wildlife management needs should be met by the funds made available by this bill. We do not want the states to be coerced into spending money on programs that they do not need or want. This could be accomplished by stating that the term "wildlife" includes both game and non-game species, and by adding language to prevent the Secretary from using his authority to set standards and to approve projects funded under Title III by either pressuring or coercing the states into certain projects or discouraging them from certain projects.
We should allow states to decide how to use OCS money under Title III of S. 25. By doing this, the state agencies will be able to work with the federal government, private landowners and interested organizations to achieve state specific goals in virtually all areas of wildlife conservation, healthy habitat conservation, and a diversified variety of wildlife, as well as conservation education.
We would suggest that the bill is less than perfect when it comes to the section dealing with private property. We hope that this section does not sink a bill from which so many benefits accrue. In as much as the legislation seeks to solve one tax problem regarding wildlife, we believe that to avoid creating another tax problem, another amendment should be added to require that any proposed acquisitions receive specific authorization from Congress. This would help to prevent a shrinking tax base or economic base in local communities.
Another concern that we have is the loss of access to public lands for hunting, fishing and other recreation. Before we give more funds to purchase more land from which hunters may be excluded, we would like to see language added to the bill that states that Federal agencies using funds under Title II to purchase private lands should be required to demonstrate to state and local governments that any closures or restrictions of access over the preceding five years have not adversely affected public access for recreational, hunting and fishing opportunities.
We are also concerned that the federal government may be inclined to transfer acquired public property to a non-state or non-federal entity for management for the benefit of that entity. If that transfer results in a loss of public access, or the recreational opportunity to hunt and fish, then it should be prohibited. Why should we use taxpayer money to acquire private property just to turn around and give it to an entity that can deny public access?
Because public and outdoor recreation are supposed to be the beneficiary of this legislation we would hope that an anti- profiteering clause would be built in. Such language could embrace the concept that none of the funds from this legislation should be used to acquire private property from an individual, a corporation, or an NGO if the property is acquired less than a year prior to a transaction and the transaction results in a net price that exceeds the cost of the land plus normal fees for brokering, consistent with the rate in the area of the sale.
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 remain steadfastly in support of this legislation, with the hope that the problems that have been pinpointed will be addressed.
END

LOAD-DATE: May 6, 1999

Document 13 of 92.


Search Terms: "Conservation and Reinvestment Act", House or Senate or Joint
To narrow your search, please enter a word or phrase: