This issue has received a lot of attention lately with the passage of a companion bill in the House, under the leadership of Congressmen Young, Tauzin and Miller, by a margin of three to one. I want to congratulate them on their effort.
I have heard from many constituents in New Hampshire, and the overwhelming majority strongly support the concepts in these bills. For years now, they have heard from Washington that there isn't any money available for conservation programs and that it's up to landowners to bear the burdens of saving our land and resources. Well, those days are over. Now, it's time for the federal government to contribute its fair share. After many years of tightening our belts, the federal deficit is under control. We have a unique opportunity to use Outer Continental Shelf revenues on the programs that they were originally intended to fund, plus several other conservation programs that have been woefully underfunded.
It's time to keep the promise we made years ago to use OCS revenues responsibly to put back some of those dollars into restoring and protecting the environment. We owe it to generations of Americans yet to come.
I want to thank the Congressmen and Senators who came today to testify on these bills. I look forward to hearing their views.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BOB SMITH Hearing before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
PART II
It isn't often that you get Congressman Don Young from Alaska, Billy Tauzin from Louisiana, and George Miller from California to agree on environmental legislation. I'm willing to bet it's the first time that those three have come before this Committee to testify in support of a single bill. That's a reflection of just how much broad, popular support there is across the country for preserving our natural resources whether they are small urban parks or pristine wilderness areas.
The bottom line is that Americans like to spend their time outdoors. Over half of all Americans will tell you that their preferred vacation spots are national parks, forests, wilderness areas, beaches, shorelines and mountains. And almost all Americans 94% believe we should be spending more money on land and water conservation because parks, forests and seashore provide an opportunity to visit areas vastly different from their own. There is a growing consensus that we must act now or we will lose many special places, and if we wait, what is destroyed or lost will be gone forever. I agree with those Americans who enjoy the special places that make America unique. I want to do whatever I can now to ensure that those areas remain for our children and grandchildren.
As we have heard, each of the bills that has been introduced in the Senate, including the one introduced by Senator Boxer last week as a companion to the House-passed bill, provides permanent funding to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as well as a number of other important conservation initiatives, through Outer Continental Shelf revenues. I believe the time is right to pass this kind of legislation. We owe it to future generations to do what we can to preserve and protect our scarce and unique resources. Numerous states have been struggling for years to preserve open space, limit urban sprawl and provide residents with a better quality of life, with virtually no assistance from the federal government. It is time for the federal government to step up to the plate and assist the states in their efforts.
Many of you may be wondering why the Environment and Public Works Committee is holding a hearing on these bills considering that they have been referred to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. While the Energy Committee has primary jurisdiction, several of the programs affected by the bills, such as the Pittman-Robertson Act and the Endangered Species Act, are clearly within our jurisdiction. As the Committee with jurisdiction, it is our responsibility to review the proposed changes to those programs and, based on the Committee's institutional expertise, make recommendations as to any amendments that may be appropriate. Next month, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee plans on holding a markup. As most of you know, earlier this year I cosponsored S. 2123, a bipartisan bill introduced by Senators Landrieu and Murkowski. Since no bill is ever perfect, I look forward to working with Senators Murkowski and Landrieu to make several improvements that will address the needs of small states such as New Hampshire.
Earlier, several of our colleagues from the House raised concerns about the potential impact of these bills on private property rights. While I share their very strong support for the rights of private land owners, and their concern that there should be limits on federal acquisition of land, I believe that some of their concerns may be misplaced. I believe that Senator Murkowski, in S. 2123, and the House, in the bill passed a few weeks ago, have addressed many of the legitimate concerns that were raised by the property rights community. Contrary to popular belief, S. 2123 contains no new federal land acquisition programs. In addition, S. 2123 provides an unprecedented level of protection for the private land owner.
For example, funds from this bill cannot be used by the federal government to implement regulations on private property. All too often the federal government places so many restrictions on private property that the owner can no longer use it. This bill prevents that unfair and probably unconstitutional practice.
Under the Murkowski bill, any federal acquisitions of land through the Land and Water Conservation Fund would also be subject to significantly more restrictions than under current law. S. 2123 requires Congressional approval of all federal acquisitions, notification to the local communities, and prohibits the condemnation of land unless Congress directs otherwise.
In fact, this bill helps landowners who have endangered species on their land. For the first time, private landowners will be able to apply for a grant to assist in the recovery of endangered of threatened species on their property. In other words, they would be eligible to get compensation for some of the conservation measures that they now have to pay for themselves. In my opinion, that is a big step forward.
The programs funded in S. 2123 have worked well throughout the years. One in particular is the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) state-side matching grant program. I have long supported this program, and have worked tirelessly for the past several years to ensure that some funds are appropriated. States rely heavily on this program to purchase much needed recreation areas and facilities. Since the LWCF's creation in1964, the state-side matching grant program has funded more than 37,000 projects and conserved approximately 2.3 million acres. This program should serve as a model because the decision to conserve land is made at the local level. Who better to know what lands should be preserved than the people who live there.
There are many good provisions in this legislation. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of S. 2123. I look forward to working with Senators Murkowski and Landrieu to make further improvements to the bill and to do what I can to help pass this historic piece of legislation.
I would also like to take this opportunity to extend my appreciation to Wayne Vetter, Executive Director of the NH Fish and Game Department, and Charlie Niebling of the Society for the Protection of N.H. Forests. I appreciate their taking the time to come here today to testify in support of these bills.
In closing, I think it is important to remember that it is not anti-conservative to be pro-environment.
I'll stack my record as a fiscal conservative up against anyone's. We made a promise when we decided to lease oil and gas rights on the Outer Continental Shelf to dedicate a portion of those revenues to the environment. This is no different than the highway trust fund. We haven't lived up to that promise. In this time of budget surpluses, I believe it's about time we do.
Fulfilling our commitment to use revenue generated from offshore oil drilling to preserve the environment elsewhere is a balancing act. Unfortunately, for too long we have been taking without giving. I believe that President Teddy Roosevelt summed it up best when he said: "Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use natural resources of the land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us."