Copyright 2000 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
May 24, 2000, Wednesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 4374 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY May 24, 2000 JOHN SHADEGG CONGRESSMAN SENATE
environment & public works CONSERVATIONS BILLS
BODY:
May 24, 2000 Congressman John Shadegg
STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD HEARING ON THE CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT
ACT SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND PUBLIC WORKS Chairman Smith, thank
you for the opportunity to testify regarding the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act (CARA). While I oppose this legislation, I want to
take a moment and compliment its three principal authors, Representatives Young,
Tauzin, and Miller. I think it is safe to say that this coalition of men who
have often been fierce adversaries on issues relating to the environment and
federal land policy is what has enabled this legislation to move forward. Each
of these Members brought their own distinct and differing priorities to the
table. Mr. Young fiercely advocated funding for the Pittman-Roberts Wildlife
Program. Mr. Tauzin fought to secure funding for coastal states, such as his
home state of Louisiana, which permit off-shore drilling. Mr. Miller advanced
the notion of full funding for federal and state land acquisition programs. On
their own, each of these proposals might not have gone very far in the
legislative process. Indeed I am confident that Mr. Young would have opposed a
stand alone measure which guarantees funding for federal land acquisition just
as fiercely as Mr. Miller would have opposed funding that assisted a state on
the basis that it permitted off- shore drilling. These Members, however, were
able to put aside their policy objections in the name of creating one omnibus
bill with a little bit of federal money for everyone, to create in the words of
The Washington Post, a "legislative freight train." In so doing they increased
the likelihood that each of them would see their own priority enacted into lane
While this arrangement may make good politics, I am afraid it makes awful public
policy. Permit me to cite a few examples for the Committee. Private Property
Rights -- Proponents of CARA will tell you that their bill strengthens private
property rights and indeed the bill does include several provisions such as
community notification and Congressional approval that improve the federal land
acquisition process. However, the price paid for these provisions was extremely
high, namely the creation of an annual $450 million mandatory funding stream for
federal land acquisition. Many private property rights advocates, myself
included, would argue that one of the greatest threats to private property is
the existence of such a large mandatory funding stream exclusively for the
purpose of acquiring more federal land. The proponents of this legislation will
argue that this is not a threat at all because to paraphrase them, "on average,
the Republican Congress has provided around $400 million a year for federal land
acquisition anyway.'' I would alert the Committee to the fact that the key to
that statement is "on average.'' While mathematically correct, the use of an
average by the proponents distorts the actual funding trend. As you may recall,
the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement included, at the demand of President Clinton,
a one-time appropriation for federal land acquisition of $697.7 million. This
one-time agreement dramatically inflates the five year average cited by
proponents. If the funds provided pursuant to the BBA agreement are excluded,
the average funding for federal land acquisition during the Republican Congress
$263.4 million, almost $200 million less than what is provided annually under
CARA. Furthermore the ' ill actually repeals private property rights protections
that exist in current law under the State-side LWCF Program and the Urban Parks
Program. Backlog Maintenance -- Even in regards to protecting environmentally
sensitive land, the central issue which CARA is intended to address, this
legislation does more harm than good. CARA allocates $450 million each year for
federal land acquisition but only allocates $180 million per year for the upkeep
and maintenance of existing federal lands and facilities. There currently exists
between a $12 and $15 billion maintenance backlog for federally owned
properties. So at a time when the federal government owns a third of all the
land in the United States and has a $15 billion maintenance backlog, CARA
provides $2.50 for more federal acquisition for every $1 it provides for
maintenance. At this rate, it will take 83 years to eliminate the current
backlog. Of course by acquiring more land we will increase our maintenance needs
and ultimately increase the backlog. Financial Flexibility and Oversight -- CARA
creates a mandatory spending program of approximately $3 billion per year for a
15 year period; in effect, setting future Congresses on an autopilot course to
spending $45 billion. The Outer Continental Shelf revenues which CARA will
utilize are currently available for Congress to address any need or priority,
including education, our national defense, and tax relief. Under CARA, this
flexibility disappears. What is even worse is most of the proposals for a
dedicated funding stream for conservation, including the proposal originally
brought to the House floor by Mr. Young, would spend $3 billion a year
irrespective of the federal government's financial situation. I think that most
of use here today would agree that it is foolish to assume that the economic
prosperity enjoyed by the American people and the federal government this year
will continue unchanged for the next fifteen years. CARA, however, foolishly
locks us into spending $3 billion a year for the next fifteen years. The
creation of a mandatory funding program also undermines the ability of Congress
to perform effective oversight over these federal programs. One of the most
powerful tools of oversight this or any other Congress enjoys is the power of
the purse. Every year a majority of each body attaches restrictions on the use
of appropriated funds as a way of addressing mismanagement, waste, and abuse in
federal programs. When we take discretionary programs and turn them into
mandatory programs, we lose part of our ability to perform effective oversight.
CARA turns $3 billion a year for the next 15 years over to the Executive Branch
with relatively few strings attached. There are numerous other policy objections
to this legislation, including increasing federal land use planning, inadequate
funding for Payment in Lieu of Taxes, and the creation of funding mechanisms for
private non-governmental organizations. Each of these are outlined more fully in
the Policy Brief prepared by the House Conservative Action Team which I am
submitting for the record. In closing, I would like to encourage my colleagues
in the Senate to be leery of the argument that we should pass this legislation
because it is what the American people are demanding. It is true, as its
proponents claim, that CARA has been endorsed by most of the governors, numerous
mayors, and thousands of groups across this country. A close look at this list,
however, reveals that it is almost entirely made up of groups which would be
eligible for funding under one or more titles of the bill. Those who have looked
at this legislation objectively, including both the Washington Post and the
Washington Times, two papers which rarely agree on anything, have concluded that
the bill is simply bad public policy. Edmund Burke famously stated, "Your
representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he
betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." With the
promise of free money, it is very easy to get a group behind almost any
legislative proposal. CARA has attracted its supporters with little more than
the promise of free money. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to look at
these proposals objectively and weigh the benefits and the costs not in a vacuum
but in the context of our many competing national priorities, and in the context
of the most pressing conservation needs. Analyzed in those contexts, I believe
that you will find that these proposals are full of good intentions, but bad
policy. Conservative Policy Brief Conservation and Reinvestment
Act (CARA) -- H.R. 701 Analysis & Review SUMMARY: CARA sets up a
mandatory funding mechanism whereby $2.825 billion is annually taken from Outer
Continental Shelf Revenues (mainly oil and natural gas royalties which under
current law are set aside to address the environmental impact of offshore
drilling) to the following programs: $1 billion to be distributed to Coastal
States (includes any state bordering the Great Lakes) $450 million for Federal
Land and Water Conservation Fund land acquisition $450 million for State Land
and Water Conservation Fund land acquisition $350 million for Federal Aid in
Wildlife Restoration (Pittman Robertson) $125 million for Urban Park and
Recreation Recovery Act $100 million for National Historic Preservation $200
million for Indian and Federal Land Restoration $ 100 million for acquisition of
Conservation Easements $50 million for Endangered and Threatened Species
Recovery. CARA also makes up to $200 million annually in interest on the fund
available for Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and Refuge Revenue Sharing.
However, the amount disbursed under the bill would be the lesser of the amount
appropriated from general funds or $200 million. If congress appropriated
nothing from discretionary funds for PILT or refuge revenue sharing, then CARA
would also provide no funds. The bill sunsets on September 30, 2015. BUDGETARY
IMPACT: CARA declares off-budget the entire $2.825 billion it takes from the
Outer Continental Shelf Fund and the interest on the fund of up to $200 million.
Since this money is currently considered on-budget, the bill would have the
effect of removing $3 billion annually from the budget process for the next 15
years. Since the Budget Resolution adopted by Congress last month allocates all
of the surplus to either public debt reduction or tax relief. passage of this
bill would require Congress to either dip into Social Security, cut the amount
set aside for reducing the debt, or reduce the amount of funds set aside for tax
cuts. PROPERTY RIGHTS: CARA contains a number provisions (including notification
of the public and government officials, willing seller requirements, and
Congressional approval) to protect private property owners, HOWEVER, those
provisions only apply to $450 million for the Federal Land and Water
Conservation Fund. There are no private property rights protections restricting
the use of funds provided to state and local governments. In fact, the bill
actually eliminates property protection provisions in current law related to
acquisition of land. Under the Urban Parks and Recreation Program (passed by a
Democrat Congress and signed into law by President Carter) none of the funds
made available by the federal government could be used for land acquisition.
CARA repeals that provision. Under the State Land and Water Conservation Fund,
the bill eliminates the current prohibition on the use of funds for incidental
costs related to state land acquisition. Some property rights advocates are also
concerned that despite the protections provided against federal land
acquisition, the creation of an annual $450 million fund primarily dedicated for
land acquisition will only further encourage increased federal acquisition.
Right now, funds for land acquisition have to compete against other priorities.
In the past it has been a priority of the Republican Congress to hold down
spending on acquisition and redirect funds to other priorities. MAINTENANCE
BACKLOG: Current cost estimates of the maintenance backlog for federally owned
properties, including the national park system, range anywhere from $8 to $15
billion. CARA only allocates $180 million a year for federal land maintenance,
yet it allocates $450 million a year for federal land acquisition. Over 15 years
that is $2.7 billion for backlog maintenance and $6.75 billion for land
acquisition. In other words, CARA provides $2.50 to buy new federal land for
every $1 it provides for maintenance. Furthermore, these new federal lands will
also require maintenance which may further exacerbate the maintenance backlog
problem. FUNDS FOR PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS: Four of the seven titles within CARA
either specifically or implicitly provide authority for funds to be transferred
to private organizations. Title I -- Impact Assistance and Coastal Conservation
-- allows for cooperative initiatives with "private entities." Title III --
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration -- authorizes grants and contracts for
"wildlife conservation organizations and outdoor recreation and conservation
education entities. Title V -- Historic Preservation Fund -- authorizes funding
for the "management entity for any national heritage area." Many of these
heritage areas are operated by private foundations. Title VII -- Conservation
Easements -- allows funds to be provided by the Secretary of the Interior to
private 501(c)(3) groups which are organized for "conservation purposes" to
cover up to 50% of the costs of acquiring an easement. CARA provides that these
private organization may hold title to and enforce any conservation easement.
Some Members are concerned that this is a method of funding land acquisition by
some environmental groups. While it is impossible to put a dollar figure on the
amount of funds that could be provided to private organizations under CARA, it
is quite possible that millions of dollars a year could flow to private
organizations, such as the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, and the
Environmental Defense Fund with specific environmental or conservation agendas.
Indeed, this concern is significant enough that CARA includes a provision to
prohibit funds under Title III -- Wildlife Conservation and Restoration -- from
being used to promote or encourage opposition to hunting. FEDERAL LAND USE
PLANNING: CARA contains several provisions which could significantly increase
the federal governments involvement in local land use planning. In order to
receive funds under Title I (grants to Coastal States) each State is required to
submit a Coastal State Conservation and Impact Assistance Plan setting outlining
how funds are to be used. This plan must be approved by the Secretary of the
Interior. Under Title II (Land and Water Conservation Fund) States are also
required to prepare a State Action Agenda "in partnership with its local
governments and Federal agencies, and in consultation with its citizens."
(Emphasis added) CARA also expands the ability of the Secretary of the Interior
to disapprove conversion requests submitted by state and local governments.
Under both the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Urban Parks program,
current law states if a state or local government wish to convert land that was
acquired or developed with the assistance of federal funds to some other non-
conservation or non-recreation purpose (such as a new road) then it must be
approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Current law provides that the
Secretary shall approve of such conversions if he is satisfied that other
properties of equivalent fair market value and usefulness are set aside to
replace the land being converted. CARA expands the authority of the Secretary of
the Interior by providing that he shall only approve a conversion request if the
State "demonstrates no prudent or feasible alternative exists". This exact
language currently applies to conversion of conservation lands for federal
transportation purposes. This authority was recently used by the Secretary of
the Interior to extract $20 million for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from
the Minneapolis / St. Paul Airport as compensation for having flights approach
the airport over a wildlife reserve. (Source: Dear Colleague circulated by Rep.
Don Young 2-9-99) LIMITED GOVERNMENT: CARA resurrects two programs (State Land
and Water Conservation Fund and the Urban Parks Program) that the Republican
Congress had previously taken credit for eliminating. (Source: Appropriations
Committee Press Release touting "Commitment to Cut Government" in Fiscal Year
1996) ADDITIONAL CONCERNS: 1) Given that Congress has yet to fully fund Payments
in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), some Members are concerned that taking more land out of
private hands will significantly impact local economies and tax bases,
particularly for local schools and law enforcement. CARA does not provide a
guaranteed level of funding for PILT, the amount provided is entirely dependent
upon the amount provided in regular discretionary appropriations. 2) In the view
of some Members, CARA represents a significant expansion of federal spending.
This will reduce the surplus directly impacting Congresses ability to cut taxes,
reduce debt, and meet other priorities. The views expressed in this Policy Brief
do not necessarily reflect the views of all Members of the Conservative Action
Team. The Conservative Action Team is a Congressional Member Organization of
over 50 Republican House Members and is chaired by Representative John Shadegg
(R-AZ).
LOAD-DATE: May 25, 2000, Thursday