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.
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).