Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

	<html>
	<title> - HEARING ON H.R. 15, H.R. 150, AND H.R. 154</title>
	<body><pre>
	[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
	[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




	HEARING ON H.R. 15, H.R. 150, AND H.R. 154

	=======================================================================

	HEARING

	before the

	SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS

	of the

	COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

	ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

	FIRST SESSION

	on

	H.R. 15, A BILL TO DESIGNATE A PORTION OF THE OTAY MOUNTAIN REGION OF
	CALIFORNIA AS WILDERNESS; H.R. 150, A BILL TO AMEND THE ACT POPULARLY
	KNOWN AS THE RECREATION AND PUBLIC PURPOSES ACT TO AUTHORIZE DISPOSAL
	OF CERTAIN PUBLIC LANDS OR NATIONAL FOREST LANDS TO LOCAL EDUCATION
	AGENCIES FOR USE FOR ELEMENTARY OR SECONDARY SCHOOLS, INCLUDING PUBLIC
	CHARTER SCHOOLS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 154, A BILL TO PROVIDE
	FOR THE COLLECTION OF FEES FOR THE MAKING OF MOTION PICTURES,
	TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS, AND SOUND TRACKS IN NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM AND
	NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM UNITS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

	__________

	FEBRUARY 4, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC

	__________

	Serial No. 106-2

	__________

	Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

	Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
	or
	Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources



	U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
	54691 WASHINGTON : 1999
	------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
	Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402



	COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

	DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
	W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
	JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
	JIM SAXTON, New Jersey BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
	ELTON GALLEGLY, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
	JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
	JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
	JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California Samoa
	WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
	KEN CALVERT, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
	RICHARD W. POMBO, California OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
	BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
	HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
	GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
	WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
	Carolina ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
	WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
	CHRIS CANNON, Utah ADAM SMITH, Washington
	KEVIN BRADY, Texas WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
	JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
	RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN,
	BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado Virgin Islands
	JIM GIBBONS, Nevada RON KIND, Wisconsin
	MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana JAY INSLEE, Washington
	GREG WALDEN, Oregon GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
	DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania TOM UDALL, New Mexico
	ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina MARK UDALL, Colorado
	MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
	THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

	Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
	Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
	Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
	John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
	------

	Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands

	JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
	ELTON, GALLEGLY, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
	JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Rico
	JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
	RICHARD W. POMBO, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
	GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
	WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN,
	Carolina Virgin Islands
	CHRIS CANNON, Utah RON KIND, Wisconsin
	RICK HILL, Montana JAY INSLEE, Washington
	JIM GIBBONS, Nevada TOM UDALL, New Mexico
	MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana MARK UDALL, Colorado
	DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
	Allen Freemyer, Counsel
	Todd Hull, Professional Staff
	Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel
	Gary Griffith, Professional Staff


	C O N T E N T S

	----------
	Page

	Hearing held February 4, 1999.................................... 1

	Statements of Members:
	Bilbray, Hon. Brian, a Representative in Congress from the
	State of California........................................ 5
	Prepared statement of.................................... 6
	Hansen, Hon. James, a Representative in Congress from the
	State of Utah.............................................. 2
	Prepared statement of.................................... 3
	Hayworth, Hon. J.D., a Representative in Congress from the
	State of Arizona........................................... 8
	Prepared statement of.................................... 11
	Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the
	State of Colorado.......................................... 12
	Prepared statement of.................................... 14

	Statements of witnesses:
	Bigelow, Clarence, County Manager, Apache County, Arizona.... 29
	Prepared statement of.................................... 41
	Brouha, Paul, Associate Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest Service.... 16
	Prepared statement of.................................... 35
	Fry, Tom, Acting Director, Bureau of Land Management......... 15
	Prepared statement of.................................... 34
	Lee, Arthur N., Supervisor, District 3, Apache County,
	Arizona.................................................... 30
	Prepared statement of.................................... 42
	Saunders, Stephen, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Fish,
	Wildlife, and Parks........................................ 18
	Prepared statement of.................................... 36
	Silva, David, Principal, Alpine Elementary School, Apache
	County, Arizona............................................ 28
	Prepared statement of.................................... 60
	Valenti, Jack, President and CEO, Motion Picture Association
	of America, Inc............................................ 24
	Prepared statement of.................................... 37
	Voorhees, Philip H., Director of National Programs, National
	Parks and Conservation Association......................... 26
	Prepared statement of.................................... 39

	Additional material supplied:
	Association of National Advertisers, prepared statement of... 93
	Beck, Michael, San Diego Director, Endangered Habitats
	League, prepared statement of.............................. 99
	Hunt, Frances A., Director, BLM Programs of The Wilderness
	Society, prepared statement of............................. 97
	Perlman, Victor S., Managing Director and General Counsel of
	American Society of Media Photographers, prepared statement
	of......................................................... 88
	Text of H.R. 15.............................................. 44
	Text of H.R. 150............................................. 50
	Text of H.R. 154............................................. 55
	----------


	THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1999

	House of Representatives,
	Subcommittee on National Parks
	and Public Lands,
	Committee on Resources,
	Washington, DC.
	The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
	Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James Hansen
	[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
	Mr. Hansen. It is time for the meeting to come to order;
	however, our first three witnesses haven't walked in the door
	yet, which makes it just a tad difficult. So, if it is all
	right with everybody, we will just wait just a moment. If they
	don't show up in a couple minutes, we will start with the first
	panel.
	While we are doing that, I welcome the Ranking Member,
	Carlos Romero-Barcelo from Puerto Rico, a very fine member of
	the Committee, and it has always been a pleasure to work with
	the gentleman from Puerto Rico, and I will look forward to
	working you through this next term.
	Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has always
	been a great pleasure working with you. I know you to be a fair
	person and I look forward to working with you together on this
	Subcommittee.
	Mr. Hansen. So far, we have Mr. Udall as the only member
	who has come from far out, and we welcome Mr. Udall as a member
	of this Committee. We will look forward to working with you,
	and I spent many years working with your father who was an
	outstanding individual. Every time I think of Udall, Arizona
	just pops in my mind for some reason.
	Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am looking forward to
	being here as well. I think you know the Udalls are of Mormon
	stock, and my great grandfather came down from Utah and settled
	in northern Arizona, so we do have connections.
	Mr. Hansen. We won't hold that against you.
	Mr. Udall. Please don't.
	[Laughter.]
	One of the reasons I think we did so well in Arizona
	politically is my great-great grandfather was a polygamist, and
	he had 15 wives, and if you ran the numbers, there are more
	than 1 million Udall descendants. You figure there are only
	600,000 people in a congressional district, you might have
	pretty good odds.
	Mr. Hansen. I understand that if Mormons can't convert
	them, they breed them, so it is one way or the other----
	[Laughter.]
	I don't have the privilege of coming from that kind of
	stock, but my wife had the same type of thing. In fact, her
	father came from a polygamist family in Montpelier, Idaho. When
	did you leave Arizona, may I ask?
	Mr. Udall. My mother is a native of Colorado; my father,
	you may remember, played basketball for the Nuggets. They met
	in the late forties in Denver and came back to Arizona, and
	when I got out of school, college that is, I moved back to
	Colorado in the early seventies. And I have, I am proud to tell
	you, on my mother's side of the family some people who served
	in public life there--Republicans as well. So, you know, there
	is some hope.
	Mr. Hansen. I do know some Udall Republicans just like
	there are some Babbitts that are Republicans in Arizona.
	And speaking of Arizona, we are grateful to see the
	gentleman from Arizona, Mr. J.D. Hayworth, and the meeting will
	come to order.

	STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
	FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

	Mr. Hansen. This is the first meeting of the Subcommittee
	on National Parks and Public Land for the 106th Congress, and I
	would just like to take this opportunity to welcome our new
	members. We have talked to Mr. Udall; I don't see any other new
	members here at the present time. We are happy to have you with
	us, and we look forward to working with you.
	This morning we will hear testimony on three bills: H.R.
	15, to designate a portion of the Otay Mountain region of
	California as wilderness; H.R. 150, to amend the act properly
	known as the Recreation and Public Purpose Act to authorize
	disposal of certain public lands or national forest lands to
	local education agencies for use as elementary or secondary
	schools, including public charter schools, and H.R. 154, to
	provide for the collection of fees for the making of motion
	pictures, television production, and soundtracks in National
	Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System units.
	The first bill, introduced by Congressman Bilbray of
	California, would create the Otay Mountain Wilderness Area in
	southern California. This area is right on the U.S.-Mexico
	border and contains several sensitive species, including the
	Mexican flannel bush and the Tecate Cypress. The Otay Mountain
	Area has good opportunities for solitude and primitive
	recreation, and its preservation is very important to people of
	San Diego County.
	I have heard a few concerns that this bill might need to be
	finetuned to avoid blowing a hole in our border. I share those
	concerns; I want to assure people that the subcommittee will do
	whatever it needs to do in order to ensure that border patrol
	and drug interdiction activities will continue in this area.
	We had the same issue arise during the 103rd Congress when
	we passed the California Desert Wilderness Protection Act, and
	I am confident that we can reach a similar solution here that
	will satisfy all parties concerned.
	The second bill is H.R. 150 introduced by Mr. Hayworth of
	Arizona. H.R. 150, the Education Land Grant Act, would amend
	the Recreation and Public Act which covers the Bureau of Land
	Man-

	agement public domain land to include Forest Service lands and
	would provide for an expedited review of the RPPA applications
	from local education agencies.
	I commend Mr. Hayworth for introducing this bill again.
	This is a good idea that would help numerous rural communities.
	As it stands now, anytime we want to convey national forest
	lands to a community for a school, we have to come in here and
	push a bill all the way through Congress. H.R. 150 would give
	the Forest Service the statutory authority to make these
	decisions administratively.
	The final bill we will hear today is H.R. 154 which was
	introduced by a fellow member of this subcommittee, Mr. Hefley,
	from Colorado. H.R. 154 would repeal the existing Department of
	the Interior regulatory prohibition on collecting fee units at
	the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge
	System for the use of these areas for commercial film
	production.
	This bill also authorizes the Secretary to establish a fee
	schedule using a number of relevant factors, such as the number
	of people on site and the duration of the filming activities.
	However, the bill would not affect newsreel or television news
	activities.
	I want to commend Mr. Hefley on reintroducing this bill
	which we also heard last year. Correcting the regulatory
	prohibition on collecting fees from the film industry for using
	our national treasures as backdrops for their production is
	long overdue, and I am glad to have this bill before us once
	again.
	I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today to
	testify, including Mr. Jack Valenti, the well-known president
	of the Motion Pictures Association of America.
	And with that said, I will turn to the ranking member of
	the committee, Mr. Romero-Barcelo, for any comments that he may
	have.
	[The statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]

	Statement of Hon. James V. Hansen, a Representative in Congress from
	the State of Utah

	Good morning. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public
	Lands will come to order.
	This is the first meeting of the Subcommittee on National
	Parks and Public Lands for the 106th Congress and I would just
	like to take this opportunity to welcome our new members. We
	are happy to have you with us and we look forward to working
	with you.
	This morning we will hear testimony on three bills:--H.R.
	15, to designate a portion of the Otay (O Tie) Mountain region
	of California as wilderness.--H.R. 150, to amend the Act
	popularly known as the Recreation and Public Purposes Act to
	authorize disposal of certain public lands or national forest
	lands to local education agencies for use as elementary or
	secondary schools, including public charter schools--and H.R.
	154, to provide for the collection of fees for the making of
	motion pictures, television productions, and sound tracks in
	National Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System units.
	The first bill, H.R. 15, introduced by Congressman Bilbray
	of California, would create the Otay Mountain Wilderness Area
	in southern California. The area is right on the U.S.-Mexico
	border and contains several sensitive species, including the
	Mexican flannel bush, and the Tecate Cypress. The Otay mountain
	area has good opportunities for solitude and primitive
	recreation and its preservation is very important to the people
	of San Diego County.
	I have heard a few concerns that this bill might need to be
	fine tuned to avoid blowing a hole in our border. I share those
	concerns, and I want to assure people that the Subcommittee
	will do whatever it needs to do in order to insure that border
	patrol and drug interdiction activities will continue in this
	area. We had the same issue arise during the 103rd Congress
	when we passed the California Desert Wilderness Act, and I am
	confidant that we can reach a similar solution here that will
	satisfy all parties concerned.
	The second bill is H.R. 150, introduced by Mr. Hayworth of
	Arizona. H.R. 150, the Education Land Grant Act, would amend
	the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (RPPA), which covers
	Bureau of Land Management public domain lands, to include
	Forest Service lands, and would provide for an expedited review
	of RPPA applications from local education agencies.
	I commend Mr. Hayworth for introducing this bill again.
	This is a good idea that would help numerous rural communities.
	As it stands now, any time we want to convey National Forest
	land to a community for a school, we have to come in here and
	push a bill all the way through Congress. H.R. 150 would give
	the Forest Service the statutory authority to make these
	decisions administratively.
	The final bill we will hear today is H.R. 154 which was
	introduced by a fellow member of the Subcommittee, Joel Hefley
	from Colorado. H.R. 154 would repeal the existing Department of
	the Interior regulatory prohibition on collecting fees at units
	of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge
	System for the use of these areas for commercial film
	productions. This bill also authorizes the Secretary to
	establish a fee schedule using a number of relevant factors,
	such as the number of people on site and the duration of the
	filming activities. However, the bill would not affect newsreel
	or television news activities.
	I want to commend Mr. Hefley on reintroducing this bill
	which we also heard last year. Correcting the regulatory
	prohibition on collecting fees from the film industry for using
	our national treasures as backdrops for their production is
	long overdue and I'm glad to have this bill before us once
	again.
	I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today
	to testify on these bills, including Mr. Jack Valenti, the
	well-known president of the Motion Picture Association of
	America.

	Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is,
	indeed, a pleasure to be here today at the first meeting of the
	year of the National Parks and Public Lands Subcommittee. We
	look forward to working with you on the many issues of the
	Subcommittee that we will likely face in this 106th Congress.
	Although we are in a new Congress, the legislation before
	the Subcommittee today are not new measures. All three bills we
	are hearing today were considered and marked up by the
	Subcommittee in the last Congress. H.R. 15 the Otay Mountain
	Wilderness bill reflects a bill that was marked up by the
	Subcommittee in the last Congress. However, we understand that
	there are still some questions as to the effect of the language
	of section 6(b) of the bill which I am confident will be
	answered and addressed during this hearing and during the
	process.
	H.R. 150, although we considered a similar bill last
	Congress, the bill that was introduced does not reflect what
	was adopted by the Resources Committee last Congress. The
	administration has concerns for the legislation that they will
	elaborate on in their testimony.
	And with regards to H.R. 154, the film fee bill, we are not
	aware of any controversy associated with the legislation. The
	bill reflects language we worked out last Congress with all
	interested parties.
	Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the attendance of the witnesses
	today and look forward to their testimony.
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's
	comments. We will start out with our three Members of Congress
	on the bills that are being considered. Gentlemen, we would
	like to point out to you that we have got three panels
	following your testimony and, the gentleman from California,
	the gentleman from Arizona, when you have completed your
	testimony, we would be very pleased to have you join on us on
	the dais, whatever your druthers would be.
	Mr. Bilbray, we will start with you.

	STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN BILBRAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
	FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

	Mr. Bilbray. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for giving
	me a chance to be able to address your Subcommittee on behalf
	of the Otay Mountain Wilderness Act, H.R. 15. The bill is
	identical to that which was approved by your Subcommittee last
	year. Let me just tell you we have been working with all
	parties involved. We have the strong support from the Federal
	contingency, including the Border Patrol; the California
	Department of Forestry, the San Diego Board of Supervisors,
	which represents the 2.8 million million that live just to the
	north of this area, and the San Diego Association of
	Governments that represents all the local cities and government
	agencies in the region, and the Endangered Habitat League, a
	respected local environmental group. I also want to thank the
	senior Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, for her
	years of working to make sure that management of this area was
	balanced and effective from all sides of the issue.
	I would like to point out that the concerns which have been
	expressed related to the border region are ones that do not go
	past me at all. As I think that you are aware, outside of maybe
	Silvestre Reyes or Duncan Hunter, there are not very many other
	Members of Congress who have been as involved or as committed
	to border security and border control.
	I think, though, here with H.R. 15, we are able to prove
	that by working all the agencies together and naturally being
	sensitive to both missions, we can fulfill the mission of
	preservation of a wilderness area and the issue of border
	patrol.
	And let me just say, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, that not
	only are the two missions not mutually exclusive, they are
	essential to each other. There is no way to preserve the
	habitat potential for the Tecate Cypress and the other
	endangered species in the area without successfully controlling
	the immigration issues in the area.
	Now, we have extensive experience in this region. If you
	will refer to your map, if you look down on the extreme left-
	hand corner of the map of what is showing the San Diego County/
	Imperial County region, there is the Tijuana Estuarine Research
	Preserve in that corner. That is the most protected land under
	our designation, practically, in the United States, and we have
	been able to work with Border Patrol and the Department of
	Interior to not only preserve the habitat in that area but also
	to control illegal immigration, and the two agencies have
	worked together consistently in that area. Otay Mountain is the
	next step in showing that immigration control and wildlife
	preservation are both essential and mutually compatible.
	Now, I just had a discussion with the regional director of
	the Border Patrol yesterday about this item. They are very
	comfortable with this bill, Mr. Chairman, and if you are
	concerned that it could cause some problems for Border Patrol,
	let me refer you to the onsite map and the references to the
	cherry stemmed roads. We have learned that we need to have the
	ability, if necessary, to put structures up along the border,
	but we need proper access and communication. Border patrol and
	BLM have completed a road that runs right along the border,
	and, if you notice, the wilderness area does not include the
	area actually on the border. That gives the Border Patrol the
	ability to build structures if need be, and to maintain their
	access roads. On either side of the cherry stemmed roads they
	have a 100 feet, which, if a physical structure is found to be
	needed in the future, can be accommodated, and the space is
	there to be able to do that.
	Not just that, but this will be one of the few places along
	the border where we will have not just one, but the ability to
	place two lines of defense directly on the border, and the two
	cherry stemmed roads--you can tell there is one on the border
	and then there is one about a half a mile to a mile north of
	there--that gives the Border Patrol the level of confidence to
	be able to sincerely tell me yesterday that everything looks
	great. They are very comfortable with this proposal. In fact,
	they think this proposal will help to resolve the management
	difficulties it had in the past.
	I would refer you to a letter by the Department of
	Interior; Secretary Babbitt has stated in this letter, dated
	February 3rd, 1999, that the Administration is in strong
	support of H.R. 15.
	And, so I just leave you with this--I think we have worked
	it out; we have gotten all sides, everybody working together.
	Frankly, I think the history of cooperation along this part of
	the border has been more than productive, and I think with H.R.
	15, we have been able to build on that, and I would like to
	take the next step. I hope it will set an example for more
	action, appropriate and balanced action, east of this area and
	elsewhere. So, I guess we are all learning as we are doing it
	and moving forward.
	Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Bilbray follows:]

	Statement of Hon. Brian P. Bilbray, a Representative in Congress from
	the State of California

	Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing, and for
	the opportunity to testify before your Subcommittee on H.R. 15,
	the Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1999. I appreciate the
	attention of the Subcommittee to this important legislation,
	which would designate as wilderness a special and unique
	natural resource along our southern border with Mexico.
	Mr. Chairman, as a lifelong resident of San Diego, I am
	very aware of the unique natural assets which are found at Otay
	Mountain, most of which is presently managed as a wilderness
	study area. This management has in large part been focused on
	conservation and enhancement of the region's plant and animal
	life, including unique scenic, cultural, and geologic assets,
	in addition to the wilderness values found at Otay.
	Historically, Otay's Mountain's close proximity to the U.S.
	Mexican border has also made it a flashpoint for the ongoing
	immigration control and narcotics interdiction efforts of the
	United States Border Patrol.
	I am pleased to be able to report to you the high level of
	support which exists for H.R. 15 at the local, state, and
	Federal level. Secretary Bruce Babbitt recently toured Otay
	Mountain, and while I was unfortunately unable to accompany
	him, he was clearly impressed with its natural beauty, drawing
	comparisons to such crown jewels as Yellowstone and Yosemite,
	and is very supportive of this legislation. In fact, I'm told
	that he said he hoped to be able to return to Otay Mountain
	this year to ``pop a champagne cork'' in celebration of
	enactment of this legislation.
	Local support, which is so critical to any successful
	resource management plan, is considerable--the San Diego County
	Board of Supervisors (on which I served prior to coming to
	Congress) will meet on February 17th to consider a resolution
	in support of H.R. 15 that is expected to pass unanimously; the
	San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is also on record
	in support, as is the Endangered Habitats League, a respected
	regional conservation group.
	I also want to thank my California colleague, our Senior
	Senator, for her ongoing active role in and support of this
	issue. Senator Feinstein has in the last several years played a
	key role in facilitating increased access by to Otay Mountain
	by the Border Patrol, which has resulted in dramatic reductions
	in illegal activity along this border region. She deserves a
	great deal of credit for the progress which has been achieved
	there to date, and I am proud to have her support for this
	legislation, which will be in her capable hands upon being sent
	to the Senate.
	As you are well aware, I first introduced this legislation
	in the 105th Congress as H.R. 3950, on which this Subcommittee
	held a hearing on July 28th of last year. Following this very
	productive hearing, H.R. 3950 was subsequently amended and
	passed unanimously by your Subcommittee in August. This revised
	language, which amended Section 6(b) of H.R. 3950 as introduced
	and was sought and supported by the Administration, reflected
	concerns expressed over the original Section 6(b) by the
	Departments of Justice and Interior, members of this
	Subcommittee, and the environmental community. The practical
	effect of this language, which is also found in H.R. 15, is to
	provide assurance that the Border Patrol and other law
	enforcement agencies will be able to continue to pursue their
	missions of national security in the Otay Mountain region
	effectively and without hindrance, while simultaneously
	protecting the surrounding resources as wilderness and
	maintaining the integrity of the 1964 Wilderness Act.
	I would like to expand on this last point. Many of my
	colleagues, and especially my fellow Californians, have heard
	me speak to the volume and variety of law enforcement
	challenges we face along our southern border, both
	environmental and criminal. As I have made clear to you, Mr.
	Chairman, and to this Subcommittee at the July hearing, I would
	not be pursuing enactment of H.R. 15 in the first place if I
	did not firmly believe that we would be able, at the end of the
	day, to protect this wonderful and rugged place as wilderness
	for future generations of San Diegans and all Americans to
	enjoy, while simultaneously maintaining the formidable
	interdiction capabilities of the Border Patrol which are
	critical to our national security.
	Mr. Chairman, I have remained in close contact with the
	Border Patrol throughout this process, and you will be
	interested to know that it is confident that the wilderness
	designation which will occur under H.R. 15 will be compatible
	with its ongoing mission in years to come. The Border Patrol
	worked closely with the BLM in designating the wilderness
	boundaries for Otay Mountain, including those for the essential
	access roads which they presently use. Indeed, the interagency
	cooperation which has occurred to date has already actually
	improved Border Patrol's ability to deter illegal immigration
	and apprehend the smugglers of narcotics and human beings which
	still unfortunately taint our border regions. The compromise
	language now found in Section 6(b) of H.R. 15 provides the
	ability for this success to continue, based on the flexibility
	found in Section 4(c) of the existing Wilderness Act.
	In years past, the Border Patrol had expressed concerns
	about the potential designation of Otay Mountain as wilderness,
	due largely to its rugged terrain, which served as a ``magnet''
	for illegal immigration and smuggling activities. However, by
	working with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the
	California Department of Forestry (CDF) to construct new access
	to the area and along the border itself, and repairing and
	improving existing roads, the Border Patrol's ability to
	operate in the region has been greatly improved. There have
	already been noticeable reductions of traffic in both illegal
	immigration and narcotics as a result of this improved access.
	Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Administration's willingness
	to work with me, your Subcommittee, and other stakeholders to
	develop this compromise language which addresses these concerns
	in a satisfactory manner. I would like to again emphasize that
	I share the legitimate concerns which have been expressed in
	the past about ``setting precedent'' which might be detrimental
	to the landmark Wilderness Act of 1964 or be harmful to
	essential law enforcement activities along our borders;
	however, I am pleased with the level of consensus which now
	exists for this bill amongst the stakeholders. We all want the
	same things--we want to protect the natural beauty of Otay
	Mountain for future generations, we want to maintain strong and
	effective law enforcement at the border, and we want to
	maintain sound wildfire management practices.
	I would like to talk for a moment about the kind of
	precedent which I am interested in setting with this bill, Mr.
	Chairman, because I believe that an important opportunity
	exists before us. Too often in years past, discussion or debate
	of various wilderness proposals have unfortunately been marked
	by conflict rather than consensus, and partisanship rather than
	partnership. I take heart in the fact that while there have
	been differences of opinion as to how best to refine H.R. 15 to
	achieve the results all stakeholders want, they have been
	expressed openly and in good faith, and that constructive
	dialogue has resulted in the legislative product before us
	today. It seems to me that the best legacy we could leave with
	H.R. 15 is beyond that of a simple wilderness bill, important
	though it is.
	I have to believe that there are other regions of
	extraordinary beauty elsewhere in our country, possibly even in
	other border regions, where the critical missions of different
	departments or agencies have historically been viewed as being
	at ``cross-purposes'' with those of resource conservation or
	environmental protection. We have already seen the positive
	environmental results of the Border Patrol's increased access
	to the Otay Mountain wilderness study area and adjoining areas.
	The reductions in illegal smuggling and immigration there has
	directly translated into reduced impact on the resource
	itself--fewer illicit trails beaten through delicate and
	sensitive habitat, less trash and human waste, and, elsewhere
	in the vicinity, fewer sensitive animal and bird species being
	harmed or consumed for food, and less toxic chemical residue
	from makeshift drug labs, to list but a few benefits.
	It is my hope that if we are successful in our efforts to
	designate wilderness at Otay Mountain, we can establish and
	shore up the precedent that wilderness designation is not
	inherently incompatible with critical law enforcement or other
	work being conducted in the same region, and vice versa. We
	should emphasize and support these opportunities, where Federal
	operating strategies can and should be made to complement each
	other, rather than be allowed to run completely independent of
	one another, and at cross purposes. In the instance of H.R. 15
	and Otay Mountain, there is clear benefit to be derived both to
	our natural environment and our law enforcement strategies.
	Given the great importance of both these assets, I would like
	nothing more that to see this bill become law and serve as a
	blueprint for future cooperation and success, in which we can
	all share and benefit.
	Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your consideration of
	this important legislation; I look forward to working with you
	and our colleagues to move H.R. 15 through the House of
	Representatives to the Senate, and ultimately to the
	President's desk. I have some supporting material which I would
	ask to be included in the record, and would be happy to answer
	any questions from the Subcommittee.

	Letter to Mr. Bilbray from Secretary Bruce Babbitt
	The Secretary of the Interior,
	Washington, DC,
	February 3, 1999.
	Honorable Brian P. Bilbray
	House of Representatives
	Washington, D.C. 20515

	Dear Mr. Bilbray: Thank you for your letter of December 14, 1998,
	regarding the proposal to designate Otay Mountain in San Diego County
	as wilderness.
	I regret that you were unable to join me on the Otay Mountain tour.
	I was pleased to meet the many individuals and local officials
	committed to preserving the special resources on Otay Mountain.
	The conclusion of the group present was that the time was
	appropriate to designate Otay Mountain as part of the National
	Wilderness Preservation System. Bureau of Land Management Acting
	Director Tom Fry will be testifying on February 4, 1999, before the
	House Resources Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands on
	behalf of the Administration in strong support of H.R. 15.
	I look forward to working with you to preserve the unique resources
	of this area as the legislation makes its way through Congress.
	Sincerely,
	Bruce Babbitt,
	Secretary.

	Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
	testimony.
	Mr. Hayworth.

	STATEMENT OF HON. J.D. HAYWORTH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
	FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

	Mr. Hayworth. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. It is good to see
	members of the Subcommittee, including my good friend from
	Colorado and, yes, Mr. Udall, there are Republican Udalls. In
	fact, the joke my staffer, Chris Udall, likes to tell is that
	your dad and others on your side of the family took a left turn
	out of St. Johns while brother Chris took a right turn out of
	the Round Valley. But be that as it may, we are pleased to see
	you here in the 106th Congress, and my long-time colleagues
	thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of H.R.
	150 or what my staff has taken to calling the Hayworth
	Educational Land Grant Act, or HELGA.
	The idea for HELGA came from legislation I introduced in
	the 104th Congress which became public law. That bill conveyed
	30 acres of U.S. Forest Service land in Apache County, Arizona
	to the Alpine Elementary School District for the purpose of
	building new school facilities. I am very pleased to have the
	principal of the Alpine School, Mr. David Silva, here to
	testify in support of HELGA which seeks to set up a mechanism
	that would allow for similar conveyances of federally-
	controlled land to school districts nationwide.
	HELGA would amend the Recreation and Public Purposes Act,
	title 43, section 869 of the U.S. Code to authorize conveyances
	of small parcels of BLM or Forest Service land to public school
	districts. Currently, title 43, section 869 only allows
	conveyances of BLM land for certain purposes.
	The size of any transfer would be limited to 640 acres
	which is the same limitation in title 43, section 869. Land in
	the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System,
	National Wilderness Preservation System, National Wild and
	Scenic River System, National Trail System, National Recreation
	areas, and any specially designated lands are strictly
	prohibited from being subject to applications for conveyances.
	If at some point the land was used for non-public purposes,
	ownership of the land would revert back to the Federal
	Government.
	Finally, the Secretary of the Interior, in the case of the
	BLM, and the Secretary of Agriculture, in the case of the
	Forest Service, must respond to applications for land by school
	districts within 60 days. If this deadline is not met, then the
	agency must report to Congress.
	Many school districts, especially rural school districts,
	are financially strapped. For example, I want to briefly tell
	you about the Alpine School District. The district sits within
	Apache County in the eastern part of Arizona near the New
	Mexico border. Eighty-five percent of Apache County is
	federally-controlled land. As a result, the school district has
	relied in the past heavily on proceeds from timber harvesting.
	Unfortunately, due to lawsuits, logging there has been
	halted. Consequently, the timber receipts that have gone toward
	funding the schools have all but dried up. Without a
	conveyance, Alpine's school district could not have afforded to
	pay the estimated $7,500 per acre to purchase land and at the
	same time pay for badly needed new school facilities. The
	prohibitive costs for acreage and new facilities make it nearly
	impossible for those financially strapped districts, like
	Alpine, to survive. However, by conveying land to the Alpine
	District and saving that district one-quarter of a million
	dollars, the district could afford to build new facilities,
	thus reducing class sizes and concentrating money where it is
	most needed, on the students. This is why we need to amend the
	Recreation and Public Purposes Act to include land conveyances
	from school districts on Forest Service lands.
	In a moment, you will also hear from Apache County Board of
	Supervisors Chairman Art Lee and Apache County Manager Clarence
	Bigelow. I look forward to their testimony and their
	explanation of the challenges they face as a result of Apache
	County's large amount of federally-controlled land.
	This situation is not isolated to the Alpine School
	District. As you may recall, last year when I testified before
	the Subcommittee, the city of Globe also testified about
	problems its schools face in rural Gila County. I have also
	received letters from other school districts facing similar
	problems.
	Mr. Chairman, I have only incorporated one minor change to
	the original bill, H.R. 2223, which was introduced in 1997,
	because of the Forest Service's previous testimony. Last
	Congress' bill inadvertently would have allowed disposal of
	Forest Service lands by the Secretary of the Interior, although
	Forest Service lands are currently under the purview of the
	Secretary of Agriculture. I agree with the Forest Service that
	the language in H.R. 2223 did not clearly specify who had
	jurisdiction over Forest Service lands, and so the new bill
	reflects the change.
	Nevertheless, even with this change, I expect the Forest
	Service to argue that the Secretary of Agriculture already has
	existing authority to accommodate public uses through the
	Townsite Act or the Sisk Act. While the Secretary does have the
	authority to convey land through various Acts of Congress,
	these lands can be only conveyed at fair market value. These
	are the same prohibitive costs I am trying to eliminate through
	my bill. Rural districts simply cannot afford the exorbitant
	costs of land and the construction of new school facilities.
	Moreover, it is fair to ask what is more important,
	ensuring that Federal land is purchased at fair market value or
	that children are educated in adequate facilities. Mr.
	Chairman, the answer is obvious to me--that latter proposition,
	our children, are our most precious resource.
	The Forest Service may also say that the government must be
	compensated for ceding Federal land to local education
	agencies. I would like to remind the Forest Service and the
	Subcommittee of two things: first, many States, especially
	those in the West, agreed to hand over large amounts of their
	land to the Federal Government in order to join the Union. The
	least we can do is give some of this land back to some of our
	most important constituents, our children. Second, while the
	Forest Service claims they are concerned that they will lose
	money by ceding land to various school districts, the
	Congressional Budget Office has scored my bill and concluded
	that HELGA would, ``have no significant impact on the Federal
	budget.''
	Mr. Chairman, on both sides of the aisle, Members of
	Congress have talked about the importance of education. HELGA
	is a common sense proposal we can all agree on, because it will
	allow economically-challenged school districts throughout the
	U.S. to put more money where it counts, in the classroom. This
	is a goal I know we all support, and I hope this Subcommittee
	will act quickly and decisively on this legislation in order
	that we might help school children throughout rural America.
	Thanks again, Mr. Chairman, and other members of this
	Subcommittee. I look forward to any questions you might have
	concerning HELGA.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayworth follows:]

	Statement of Hon. J.D. Hayworth, a Representative in Congress from the
	State of Arizona

	Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, and
	distinguished guests, thank you for allowing me to testify in
	support of H.R. 150, what my staff has taken to calling the
	Hayworth Education Land Grant Act or HELGA. It is indeed a
	great honor to be before the Committee on which I was very
	proud to serve during the 104th Congress.
	The idea for HELGA came from legislation I introduced in
	the 104th Congress that became public law. That bill conveyed
	30 acres of U.S. Forest Service land in Apache County, Arizona
	to the Alpine Elementary School District for the purpose of
	building new school facilities. I am very proud to have the
	principal of the Alpine School, Mr. David Silva, here to
	testify in support of HELGA, which seeks to set up a mechanism
	that would allow for similar conveyances of federally-
	controlled land to local school districts nationwide.
	In President Clinton's last three State of the Union
	addresses, he advocated spending $5 billion on new school
	construction. While I have serious reservations about the
	President's plan because of constitutional concerns, HELGA
	offers a way to help rural school districts with construction
	at little or no cost to the Federal Government. If the
	Administration is sincere in its efforts to help local
	communities build new schools, it should endorse this proposal
	unequivocally.
	HELGA would amend the Recreation and Public Purposes Act--
	Title 43, Section 869 of the U.S. Code--to authorize
	conveyances of small parcels of BLM or Forest Service land to
	public school districts. Currently, Title 43, Section 869 only
	allows conveyances of BLM land for certain purposes.
	The size of any transfer would be limited to 640 acres,
	which is the same limitation in Title 43, Section 869. Land in
	the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System,
	National Wilderness Preservation System, National Wild and
	Scenic Rivers System, National Trails System, National
	Recreation Areas, and any specially-designated lands are
	strictly prohibited from being subject to applications for
	conveyances. In other words, HELGA would not affect Federal
	lands of national significance. If at some point the land was
	used for non-public purposes, ownership of the land would
	revert back to the Federal Government.
	Finally, the Secretary of the Interior, in the case of the
	BLM, and the Secretary of Agriculture, in the case of the
	Forest Service, must respond to applications for land by school
	districts within 60 days. If this deadline is not met, the
	agency must report to Congress.
	As you know, Mr. Chairman, private land in the West is very
	expensive. And, while most federally-controlled land is located
	in the West, westerners also face another problem: rapidly
	growing populations. In fact, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada are the
	three fastest growing states in the nation. With less and less
	private land on which to build schools and other public
	facilities, the West will increasingly need to find new
	solutions to its growth problems. HELGA is one of the ways we
	can alleviate some of the West's concerns and, at the same
	time, help our children receive the education they need and
	deserve.
	And while the West is growing rapidly, many school
	districts are financially-strapped for cash. For example, let
	me tell you about the Alpine School District's predicament. The
	district lies within Apache County, in the eastern part of
	Arizona near the New Mexico border. Some 85 percent of Apache
	County is federally-controlled land. As a result, the school
	district relies heavily on proceeds from timber harvesting.
	Unfortunately, due to lawsuits, logging has been halted.
	Consequently, the timber receipts that had gone toward funding
	the schools have all but dried up. Without a conveyance, Alpine
	School District could not have afforded to pay the estimated
	$7,500 per acre to purchase land and, at the same time, pay for
	badly needed new school facilities.
	The prohibitive costs for acreage and new schools make it
	nearly impossible for financially strapped school districts,
	like Alpine, to survive. However, by conveying land to the
	Alpine School District and saving the district $225,000, the
	district could afford to build new facilities, thus reducing
	class sizes and concentrating money where it is most needed: on
	the students. That is why we need to amend the Recreation and
	Public Purposes Act to include land conveyances for school
	districts on Forest Service lands. In a moment, you will hear
	from Apache County Board of Supervisors Chairman Art Lee and
	Apache County Manager Clarence Bigelow. I look forward to their
	testimony and their explanation of the challenges they face as
	a result of Apache County's large amount of federally-
	controlled land.
	This situation isn't isolated to the Alpine School
	District. As you may recall, last year when I testified before
	the Subcommittee, the City of Globe also testified about
	problems its schools face in rural Gila County. This county is
	the size of the state of Connecticut, yet only 3 percent of its
	land is under private control. The government controls an
	amazing 97 percent of the land. Globe's population is growing,
	but the schools are hamstrung by the prohibitive costs of
	buying acreage and paying for improved school facilities. HELGA
	is a simple way to help rural, economically-strapped school
	districts.
	Mr. Chairman, I have only incorporated one minor change to
	the original bill--H.R. 2223--I introduced in 1997 because of
	the Forest Service's previous testimony. Last Congress's bill
	inadvertently would have allowed disposal of Forest Service
	lands by the Secretary of the Interior, although Forest Service
	lands are currently under the purview of the Secretary of the
	Agriculture. I agree with the Forest Service that the language
	in H.R. 2223 did not clearly specify who had jurisdiction over
	Forest Service lands, so the new bill reflects this change.
	Nevertheless, even with this change, I expect the Forest
	Service to argue that the Secretary of Agriculture already has
	existing authority to accommodate public uses through the
	Townsite Act or the Sisk Act. While the Secretary does have the
	authority to convey land through various Acts of Congress,
	these lands can only be conveyed at ``fair market value.''
	These are the same prohibitive costs that I am trying to
	eliminate through my bill. Rural school districts simply cannot
	afford the exorbitant costs of land and new school facilities.
	Moreover, what is more important--ensuring that Federal land is
	purchased at fair market value or that children are educated in
	adequate facilities? Mr. Chairman, the answer is obvious to me.
	My friends from the Forest Service may also argue that the
	government must be compensated for ceding Federal land to local
	education agencies. I would remind the Forest Service of two
	things. First, the states in the West agreed to hand over large
	amounts of their land to the Federal Government in order to
	join the union. The least we can do is give some of this land
	back to some of our most important constituents: children.
	Second, while the Forest Service claims they are concerned they
	will lose money by ceding land to various school districts, the
	Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has scored my bill and
	concluded that HELGA would ``have no significant impact on the
	Federal budget.''
	Mr. Chairman, on both sides of the aisle, we have talked
	about the importance of education. HELGA is a commonsense
	proposal that we all can agree on because it will allow
	economically strapped school districts throughout the United
	States to put more money where it counts: in the classroom.
	This is a goal we all support, and I hope that this
	Subcommittee will act quickly and decisively on this
	legislation to help our school children in rural America.
	Thanks again to you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
	Subcommittee, for allowing me to testify. I will remain here to
	answer any questions you may have regarding HELGA.

	[The information may be found at end of hearing.]
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Hayworth.
	The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Hefley.

	STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
	FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

	Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would like to
	welcome my colleague from Colorado, the new gentleman from
	there, but I would also like to make a motion that this
	Committee cannot have two people by the same name on the
	Committee----
	[Laughter.]
	[continuing] if you father and uncle's picture is hanging
	in the room, or something about that.
	Mr. Chairman, I apologize for having to take up the time of
	this Committee with this bill again this year. We worked very
	hard on it last year. This was a bill that there was
	cooperation between everybody--Democrats, Republicans, the
	legislative branch in the form of this Committee, the
	administration in the form of the Interior Department, and,
	certainly, the Motion Picture Association--to try to work out a
	bill that everybody was happy with, and it passed the House
	without any trouble whatsoever, and then got involved in the
	machinations of the Senate in the last days over there where it
	got involved with being held hostage for something else and all
	that kind of thing. And, so here we are again, and I really
	appreciate the Chairman bringing this up early in the session
	so that maybe we can work our way through that.
	Prior to 1948, filmmakers paid a market price to film on
	public land, but for some reason that practice was banned by
	regulation in 1948. This bill directs the Interior Department
	to develop a uniform policy for the collection of fees for the
	making of any motion picture, television production,
	soundtrack, or similar project for commercial purposes if it is
	determined that those uses are appropriate to and will not
	impair the value and resources of the land and facilities. The
	bill directs that these fees provide a fair return to the
	government and not less than the government's direct and
	indirect cost of processing applications and the use of the
	land and facilities, including necessary cleanup and
	restoration.
	In drafting this policy, Interior is directed to develop a
	standard schedule of rates for such factors as the number of
	people on the site, the length of the stay, service to
	services, and use of special areas. This was suggested by a
	policy initiated by the Forest Service in California last year.
	Newsreel, news television productions, and most still
	photographers say those that are using props and models or sets
	would be exempt from the fees. Any proceeds resulting from this
	policy would be dispersed according to Rec Fee Demo Program. In
	other words, 80 percent of those proceeds would remain in the
	unit where filming takes place to be used for maintenance
	needs. The remaining 20 percent would go towards servicewide
	use.
	In this bill, we have tried to strike a balance between the
	flexibility Interior wants and the certainty that the industry
	needs. A rate schedule will allow the industry a quick,
	ballpark estimate of the minimum cost for filming on public
	land. The regulatory approach recognizes there will be cases
	where the resources involved demand special treatment.
	I believe everyone involved in the drafting of this
	legislation wants to see filming continue on public land. You
	know, for many folks this may be the only way they ever see the
	great jewels of our park system, the Yellowstones, and the
	Grand Canyons, and so forth. We want them to film on public
	land. It is good, I think, for the country; it is good for the
	economy. We want them to do it; we want them to have some
	certainty about what it is going to cost, so that that is not
	an arbitrary thing, and we want them to do it in such a way
	that it does not harm the resource.
	I think this bill sets the framework that will be to the
	benefit of everybody, and I particularly again want to thank
	the Motion Picture Association for working with us so
	diligently on this. They will testify a little later. I think
	we have got a good bill, Mr. Chairman. We had a good bill last
	year; I think we have a good bill this year, and maybe by
	starting this early, we can actually get it through the entire
	process. Thank you very much.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Hefley follows:]

	Statement of Hon. Joel Hefley, a Representative in Congress from the
	State of Colorado

	Mr. Chairman, H.R. 154 seeks to correct an inequity that
	has existed within the Department of Interior for more than 50
	years--a prohibition on the collection of fees by the National
	Park Service and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for
	commercial filming on the lands they administer.
	Prior to 1948, these agencies charged fees for the use of
	public lands for filming. I suppose many Americans got their
	first taste of the West through the classic Westerns of John
	Ford. Many of those films were made on public lands in Utah and
	Mr. Ford paid a standard fee for the use of those lands. But,
	for some reason known but to God, that practice was ended in
	1948 and there it rested until last year when a constituent of
	mine wrote to ask why film makers like Steven Spielberg could
	film on public land for no more than the permit fee. It turned
	out she was right and this bill is the result.
	H.R. 154 directs the Secretary of Interior to develop a
	policy for the collection of fees for the making of any motion
	picture, television production, soundtrack or similar project,
	for commercial purposes on lands administered by Interior
	agencies, if the Secretary determines that use will not impair
	the values and resources of the land and facilities.
	The bill directs the Secretary to require a payment of fees
	in an amount determined to provide a fair return to the
	government and that said fee shall not be less than the direct
	and indirect costs to the government for processing permit
	applications and for the use of the land and facilities,
	including any necessary cleanup and restoration.
	The bill further directs the Secretary, as part of this
	policy, to develop a schedule of rates for fees based on such
	factors as the number of people on site under a permit, the
	duration of their stay, surface disturbances and the use of
	special areas. These factors were drawn from a similar policy
	launched by some regions of the U.S. Forest Service last year.
	It exempts from fees bonafide newsreel or news television
	production and most still photographers, save those using
	models, sets or props.
	The bill further directs that proceeds from this policy
	shall be available without appropriation to be used by Interior
	in accordance with the formula and purposes outlined under the
	Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. Penalties will be in
	accordance with Title 18 of the U.S. Code. After some
	discussion, it was decided that film makers should be treated
	the same as any other permittee, whether that permittee grazes
	cattle, chops down a tree, mines coal or makes a movie.
	Finally, the bill stipulates that this legislation go into
	effect 180 days after enactment, that the Secretary review and
	revise regulations issued as a result of this legislation
	within three years after enactment, and that he periodically
	review and revise those regulations, as needed, over time.
	This bill is the product of a great deal of cooperation
	between both sides of the aisle in this Committee, from the
	Interior Department and from the Motion Picture Industry. We
	have tried to balance the film industry's needs for certainty
	with the Interior Department's desire for flexibility. I think
	we have had some success achieving that balance.
	This bill remained an active item on the agenda of the
	105th until the day it recessed. Despite a concerted effort by
	members and administration representatives including, I
	believe, Secretary Babbitt, it somehow fell through the cracks
	on the last day. It is my hope that we can avoid a repeat of
	that this year and that we can pass this bill, put the needed
	policy in place and get moving on this issue. There's no reason
	why we shouldn't be able to.
	We all want to see filming continue on the public lands;
	the more people see them, the more will be stimulated to visit
	them. Even the film industry admits its only fair that one of
	the nation's leading industries and exporters pay a fair price
	for the use of these lands. It's possible revenues from this
	policy will take care of some maintenance needs on our public
	lands. At the same time, we don't want to see our public lands
	turned into sound stages. I think H.R. 154 can accomplish this.
	I urge your support.

	[The information may be found at end of hearing.]
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Hefley.
	Questions for our colleagues? Mr. Romero-Barcelo.
	Mr. Romero-Barcelo. We have no questions. We just want to
	thank the witnesses for bringing forward the bills.
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Mr. Hefley, do you want to ask
	yourself any questions------
	[Laughter.]
	[continuing] or ask our two colleagues anything?
	Mr. Udall.
	Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just two comments--I
	didn't have questions, but I wanted to first acknowledge my
	colleague from Colorado, and I am new around here, as you know,
	and I would love to co-sponsor your bill. I think it sounds
	like it is a very, very important piece of legislation and
	would like to do that. Secondly, I would just like to thank the
	Chairman and Congressman Bilbray for bringing forward this BLM
	wilderness bill. I know in Colorado we have a maturing
	situation there with a lot of BLM lands, and I am looking
	forward to having a discussion about what we do with those
	lands as well. So, I appreciate that. Thank you.
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Udall. I have no questions for
	you.
	Gentlemen, if you would like to come up and join us, we
	would be pleased and privileged to have you with us.
	We will call our first panel. Mr. Tom Fry, Acting Director
	of Bureau of Land Management; Mr. Paul Brouha, Associate Deputy
	Chief, U.S. Forest Service; Mr. Stephen Saunders, Deputy
	Assistant Secretary, Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. If the
	gentlemen would like to take their place.
	Gentlemen, we are privileged to have you here. The rules of
	this Committee are that you get five minutes. Seeing this
	morning we don't have too many folks here, we would be more
	than pleased if you--I was going to say go over, but I don't
	really mean that--please stay within your time. If you really
	have to go over a minute or two, I won't bang the gavel on you.
	You will see in front you just like a traffic light--green
	means go, yellow means wrap it up, and red means stop. So, five
	minutes goes in a hurry.
	Mr. Fry, it is a pleasure to see you again, sir, and we
	will start with you if that is all right.

	STATEMENT OF TOM FRY, ACTING DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
	MANAGEMENT

	Mr. Fry. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
	pleasure to be here and to be on this panel. I would like to
	ask that my written remarks be made a part of the record.
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Without objection, so ordered, and
	that will be the case on all witnesses today. If you want to
	abbreviate your statement, your written comments will be part
	of the record.
	Mr. Fry. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman Bilbray
	for his efforts on behalf of the Otay Mountain Wilderness bill.
	He had a similar bill last year that we were able to support.
	There were some changes made to the bill in Committee markup
	last Congress. The administration supported the bill last year,
	so I am here again today to reiterate that support for the bill
	as introduced by Congressman Bilbray.
	Secretary Babbitt has taken a personal interest in the Otay
	Mountains and the Otay Mountain wilderness. He has recently
	made a trip there and had an opportunity to tour the area with
	Representative Filner from San Diego County, the San Diego
	County Association of Governments, the California Biodiversity
	Council, the Sierra Club, the Endangered Habitat League, the
	Wilderness Society, the U.S. Border Patrol, BLM, and
	representatives from Senators Feinstein and Boxer's office. At
	the end of that tour, the Secretary reiterated his support for
	wilderness designation for this area.
	I think I can represent, on behalf of all the parties
	involved, that everybody thinks this is an appropriate area for
	wilderness as it's currently drawn on the map. There have
	obviously been some questions raised about section 6(b), the
	provision of the bill which pertains to the Border Patrol and
	activities within the wilderness area. This is something that
	we have looked at with great interest within the
	administration.
	The 6(b) language of this bill has been approved by the
	Justice Department in consultation with the Border Patrol and
	with the Department of the Interior, and we are fully
	supportive of the language that is currently in the bill. We
	recognize that others may differ with some of the language, and
	reasonable people can differ, but we think that this is the
	appropriate language that provides a good balance between
	protecting the interest of the Border Patrol and also
	protecting the standards of the 1964 Wilderness Act.
	So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I recommend to this Committee
	that you report this bill, and we look forward to working with
	you to getting it through the entire Congress.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Fry may be found at end of
	hearing.]
	Mr. Hansen. Well, thank you, Mr. Fry. I appreciate your
	comments.
	Mr. Brouha.

	STATEMENT OF PAUL BROUHA, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S. FOREST
	SERVICE

	Mr. Brouha. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, good
	morning, and thank you for the opportunity to present the
	administration's views concerning H.R. 150 which are the
	amendments to the Recreation and Public Purposes Act in order
	to dispose of National Forest lands to education agencies. The
	administration commented on the previous bill, H.R. 2223,
	regarding this subject during a hearing before this
	Subcommittee last year.
	I am accompanied today by Mr. James B. Snow, who is the
	Deputy Assistant General Counsel for the Department of
	Agriculture. In the matter of land use law, we may need to use
	his skills and knowledge.
	While the administration supports the objective of making
	Federal lands available under certain circumstances for public
	purposes, the administration strongly opposes this bill. First,
	the bill is unnecessary because current statutory authority
	exists to make land available for educational purposes. Second,
	the bill would permit the disposal of National Forest lands for
	less than fair market value. And, third, the deadline
	requirement to make the conveyance within 60 days is entirely
	inadequate.
	Let me expand a little bit. The administration appreciates
	the efforts that the Subcommittee has made to address the
	concern raised last year regarding H.R. 2223, but we continue
	to have serious problems with the bill. First, to include the
	disposal of National Forest lands for public purposes under the
	Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926 is unnecessary
	because the Secretary of Agriculture has existing authorities
	to accommodate public uses through authorities to permit,
	lease, and exchange or dispose of National Forest lands.
	For example, under the Townsite Act, the Secretary of
	Agriculture may convey full fair market value up to 640 acres
	of land to establish communities located in the State of Alaska
	or in the contiguous western States. Within certain limits, the
	Sisk Act of 1967 authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to
	exchange lands with States, communities, or municipal
	governments or public school districts for lands or lands and
	money. Moreover, the Secretary of Agriculture can exchange
	National Forest lands with State and local government.
	Secondly, the administration objects to H.R. 150 because it
	would permit the disposable of National Forest lands for less
	than fair market value. The taxpayers of the United States
	should receive fair market value for the sale, exchange, or use
	of their National Forest land.
	Unlike the R&PPA, other land exchange laws require the
	Secretary of Agriculture to obtain fair market value for the
	exchanges or sales of the National Forest. Indeed, Federal
	policy backed by bipartisan consensus in the executive and
	legislative branches in recent decades has moved towards
	maximizing the return to the public for the value of the lands
	conveyed out of the Federal estate. The administration objects
	to legislation that would reverse that policy by opening the
	door to less than fair market value, consideration for the
	disposal of National Forest lands.
	Third, the administration objects to the requirement that
	within 60 days a decision on these conveyances must be made.
	Decisions about the appropriate use of National Forest lands
	and resources are accomplished through the forest planning
	processes that are identified under the National Forest
	Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Under
	NFMA and NEPA, the Forest Services analyzes important
	environmental considerations, and the public is intensively
	involved.
	During this process, local Forest Service officials work
	closely with State and local governments to identify their
	concerns, the needs for the land, and lands appropriate for
	land ownership adjustments. These processes take time, and
	since every land adjustment is unique, it would be difficult to
	determine an appropriate amount of time necessary to complete
	environmental analyses. In fact, such a limit would only serve
	to create expectations that the agency could not meet and
	undermine the credibility of its public development processes
	and environmental analysis. The agency strongly believes that
	attempts to short-circuit environmental and public processes
	will only lead to more controversy.
	In closing, Mr. Chairman, while the administration supports
	the general objective of making Federal lands available for
	educational purposes, the administration strongly opposes H.R.
	150. However, the administration remains open to discussions
	with the Subcommittee on other ideas for this bill.
	This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer
	questions, sir.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Brouha may be found at end
	of hearing.]
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
	statement.
	Mr. Saunders, we will turn the time to you, sir.

	STATEMENT OF STEPHEN SAUNDERS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
	FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PARKS

	Mr. Saunders. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to join
	the choir singing the praises of H.R. 154. I think there will
	be more praise sung by your third panel from the key interest
	groups that are involved in this. We are strongly supportive of
	this bill even though it is perhaps unusual for somebody from a
	Department to come and say that about a problem that is really
	created by the Department itself.
	For the past half-century, we have had a regulation on our
	books that keeps the Park Service from recovering fees for the
	use of the resources in our National Parks. For the past 40
	years, that has also applied to the Fish and Wildlife Service,
	and there is no real sense for that. We can't even find out why
	that was done to begin with.
	The Fish and Wildlife Service and the Park Service would
	like join to BLM and the Forest Service in being able to charge
	some kind of fee that would ensure a fair return to the
	taxpayers for the use of the resources. State and local
	governments do this; tribes do it. We see no reason why we
	should tie our hands the way we have.
	The bill has been worked out. As has been said, we enjoyed
	the opportunity to work with you on it last year. I think the
	success in having everybody reach agreement was shown by the
	vote in the House, and we see no reason why the Senate
	shouldn't go along, and we thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
	action on this early in the year.
	I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Saunders may be found at end
	of hearing.]
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. We appreciate that
	positive response.
	Questions now for the panel? The gentleman from Puerto Rico
	will be recognized for five minutes.
	Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I do have
	questions for Mr. Brouha.
	Mr. Brouha, I understand from your testimony that you
	currently have the authority to make available National Forest
	land for public school purposes. Do you in fact use this
	authority?
	Mr. Brouha. Yes, we do, sir.
	Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Can you give us an idea of how many
	schools you have permitted on National Forest land using the
	current authority?
	Mr. Brouha. We have made use of the authorities that are
	available to us under the Townsite Act approximately nine times
	in the past 10 years.
	Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Nine times in the past 10 years?
	Mr. Brouha. Yes, and we have six that are currently under
	processing. And then under the Sisk Act, we have about 25
	applications and transfers that have occurred during the last
	decade.
	Mr. Romero-Barcelo. You have only used it nine times in the
	past 10 years. How long is the average time that it takes from
	the time that the land is requested to the time that the land
	has been given for the education purposes? Is there an average
	amount of time? Is it a short time? Is it years? Is it months?
	Mr. Brouha. Well, let me clarify a point, sir, if I may.
	When I refer to nine times, they weren't necessarily all for
	educational purposes, but the length of the process normally
	takes one or two years.
	Mr. Romero-Barcelo. One or two years. So, the school would
	have to wait for one or two years until the land would be made
	available to them under the present process.
	Mr. Brouha. That is correct.
	Mr. Romero-Barcelo. The other thing I would like to say:
	You mentioned in your testimony that the taxpayers should be
	reimbursed for this land. Now, if this were being given to
	private purposes, I can see that, but this is also being given
	for taxpayers. I mean they are for the children of taxpayers.
	So, I don't understand taking money from one pocket to put it
	in the other pocket. I don't understand that concept of making
	that fair market value of the land when it is for educational
	purposes. Don't we in the Federal Government have many
	instances where land is given to the States or to local
	communities when they are for educational purposes and for
	health purposes for free?
	Mr. Brouha. We do, in fact, have many instances of those
	conveyances having been made under the existing authorities
	that the BLM enjoys for this current Act. However, the track
	record for the Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture
	is because this was a reservation from the public estate has
	been to require fair market value as provided for under the
	Townsite Act and under the Sisk Act.
	Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I know, that is what the law is now,
	but because that is the law is that fair that the fair market
	value exacted for land that is going to be used for educational
	purposes?
	Mr. Brouha. Again, I think the Congress has made that
	assessment and essentially reinforced that concept over time
	and recently so, in fact.
	Mr. Romero-Barcelo. That is what we are trying to
	reevaluate here.
	Mr. Brouha. Yes, sir.
	Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Well, thank you very much.
	Mr. Hansen. Mr. Hefley.
	Mr. Hefley. Well, you know, my line of questioning would
	fall within the same line of my friend from Puerto Rico's was.
	When States like Arizona and Colorado and many of the western
	States were settled, one of the reasons that we ended up with
	so much Federal land is no one wanted it then. I mean, this
	wasn't land that was good for homesteading, and no one really
	wanted it. So, the Federal Government took it to use for good
	public purposes or at least to hold it and maintain it and so
	forth. And it seems to me that if we find a good public purpose
	for it, that it doesn't make any sense to make a little, poor
	school district somewhere in Arizona have to pay full market
	value, maybe development cost value and that kind of thing, for
	the land. If a better public purpose than just having it sit
	there is to have a school on it, somehow or other it seems to
	me that that is the direction we ought to go. And you are
	saying the Department would resist that kind of change in the
	law? You said that we had established this policy of fair
	market value, but if we want to change that policy based upon
	higher and better use of the public land, not to a commercial
	enterprise but to something like education, would you resist
	that kind of a concept? Would you resist that kind of a change?
	Mr. Brouha. Sir, again, I think it is certainly within the
	prerogative of the Congress to make that assessment. However, I
	might point out that ``camel's nose under the tent'' sort of
	applies here, because while we support education, we also
	support public health, fire and police protection, the citing
	of court houses, and municipal facilities. So, at this point, I
	think you could see how this notion then gets expanded, and the
	point then becomes where do you stop it? And the Congress in
	the past has agreed that fair market value was a requirement,
	and, again, that may be something you wish to reevaluate.
	Mr. Hefley. Well, you might want to look at the base
	closing process where we also have the requirement of fair
	market value, but we do make exceptions many time. We have made
	exceptions during these last three base closing or four base
	closure rounds for other good public purposes. And the
	Department might want to reevaluate that, and this might be a
	kicker to get them to do that. It seems to me that--like my
	friend said--that taking it out of one pocket and putting it in
	the other and particularly a pocket which doesn't have it; a
	poor school district in Arizona which doesn't have the money to
	take out of that pocket, it seems to me this is a way we can
	help them with a good public purpose, and I would hope that the
	Congress and the Department would reevaluate it. Thank you very
	much.
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
	Udall.
	Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to say. I must have
	made a mistake--the same mistake you make at an auction,
	scratching your ear or putting your hand up. So, I have nothing
	to say, I am just listening. Thank you, sir.
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Washington, Mr.
	Inslee.
	Mr. Inslee. I am with Mr. Udall on this, Mr. Chair.
	[Laughter.]
	Mr. Hansen. Okay, thank you. The gentleman from Arizona,
	Mr. Hayworth.
	Mr. Hayworth. I thank the Chairman, and I thank my
	colleague from Puerto Rico and my colleague from Colorado for
	their line of inquiry and their very valid observations. Let me
	thank the witnesses who are here.
	Mr. Brouha, I listened with great interest to your
	testimony, and let me preface my remarks mindful of your
	testimony to make the common observation that any piece of
	legislation at the Subcommit-

	tee and the Full Committee level is a work in progress. And I
	understand the administration's concern about the time period
	involved in reviewing local school districts' applications, but
	I would also just call on you to reiterate or perhaps amplify
	your response to my colleague from Puerto Rico. In the past,
	under the curtain of the current legislation and the ability
	administratively to set aside land for educational purposes,
	would you again repeat the answer you gave to my friend from
	Puerto Rico? How many times has this been utilized in say the
	last 10 years?
	Mr. Brouha. In the last 10 years, the Secretary of
	Agriculture has made National Forest lands available to
	communities adjacent to National Forests in the 11 contiguous
	western States and Alaska in 9 cases. We are currently working
	on an additional six. Of those nine completed cases, six were
	in the Southwest. Of the six ongoing cases, five are in region
	3. And in the last 10 years--that is under the authority of the
	Townsite Act--and in the last 10 years, under the authority of
	the Sisk Act, we have made National Forest lands available to
	States, counties, or municipal governments for publics in 25
	cases. We are currently working on an additional four cases,
	and this doesn't include the exchanges that we have made for
	other appropriate parcels of land.
	Mr. Hayworth. So, with a quick mathematical check,
	combining those two existing avenues of administrative ability,
	under 50 cases--that is fair to say--in under 50 cases has this
	been utilized--I think we can both agree on that observation.
	And if I am not mistaken, in response to my colleague from
	Puerto Rico, you were saying the average time limit to
	effectuate some sort of change of this type has been between
	one or two years?
	Mr. Brouha. That is right, but there is an ability to
	permit those sites for those uses much more rapidly. So, the
	effect is not to, in fact, prevent the use of them.
	Mr. Hayworth. Let me just say this to members of the
	Subcommittee and to you, Mr. Brouha, as you represent the
	Forest Service: If the Secretary of Interior or the Secretary
	of Agriculture or someone needs 90 days to review the
	application, I am not averse to that. What I think we are going
	to hear in subsequent testimony, what I found from personal
	experience--and my colleagues who are new to the Congress might
	be interested in this--when the people of the Alpine School
	District came to me--and what you are going to find in the
	States from the West that you represent--right now, we kind of
	have a crazy quilt process where you have to draw up an
	individual piece of legislation or work administratively over a
	long, long period of time to effectuate the change.
	The good news for the Alpine District, as will be testified
	later, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that we were able to get this
	done literally on the last day of the 104th Congress in a huge
	piece of legislation. It is good news that we eventually got it
	done, but the purpose of the legislation is to set up a uniform
	way to get this done to effectuate the change that my colleague
	from Puerto Rico pointed out, amplified by my colleague from
	Colorado and to serve our children--and I know this is not your
	area, Mr. Brouha, nor will I ask you to try and quantify as we
	talk about fair market value of Federal land. I know there is
	no way to quantify the value of improving education for our
	children especially children, because that comes under the
	category of priceless.
	Just one final question: Do you dispute the finding of the
	Congressional Budget Office which said--as I pointed out in my
	testimony--that HELGA would ``have no significant impact on the
	Federal budget?'' Do you dispute that?
	Mr. Brouha. Given the $3.7 trillion budget, sir, I would
	hardly be able to dispute that.
	Mr. Hayworth. I thank you for your testimony and your
	courtesy, and I thank the Chairman and yield back the balance
	of my time.
	Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentleman from Arizona.
	Mr. Brouha, you find yourself in a position of coming up
	here representing the Forest Service, and we don't mean to be
	unkind or beat up on you, but of all the three bills we are
	looking at, you have the controversial one. And this is my 19th
	year on this Committee. I guess I could give you a list, quite
	a long list, of where we have given and traded and sold land
	that wasn't really market value.
	The other question comes up, determining market value is
	not an easy thing to do. And as the gentlemen have all pointed
	out, public policy has a lot to do with that. What is right?
	For example, myself and Mr. Hefley work on the Armed Services
	Committee and sometimes a mountain home, for example, up near
	Idaho got a bombing range. Maybe it isn't Federal for Federal,
	but this is another thing that the public does, whether it be
	State, and the list just goes on and on of people who don't get
	that.
	So, we don't mean to be unkind to you in any way; please
	don't take it that way, but I think you will find a consensus
	of both sides of the political aisle will beat up on you a
	little bit on this one, because we are a little concerned when
	a school district--and we know how tough it is to raise our
	kids. And, frankly, out in the West, we have this problem. The
	Federal Government owns most of our land, and we have this
	little thing we call payment in lieu of taxes, and myself and
	the gentleman from Montana changed that some time ago, but the
	Forest Service, BLM, and others--I am not blaming them;
	Congress has more to do with it than they do--we don't really
	live up to it.
	So, the Forest Service comes out; the BLM comes out; they
	play on our ground; they bring people out. The people they
	bring out cause fires; they cause trash; they cause accidents,
	and they ask our little broke counties to go fix those things.
	So, we run out and do it, but yet they don't pay their share.
	So, here you are, if you are a county commissioner in any
	one of those western States; you put in your budget payment in
	lieu of taxes, and you are counting on it. Yet, they don't pay
	their share. Rarely do they pay their share. In my 19 years in
	Congress I haven't seen them ever pay their share. In Garfield
	County in Utah, it is 97 percent owned by the Federal
	Government and most of that is Forest Service. So then when it
	comes down to trading some ground, they want their full share,
	and I use that as my example.
	Let me just ask you, I noticed from your testimony I think
	you have three main concerns. Your first concern is that you
	said they have the ability to give land to schools under the
	Townsite and Sisk Act. I just want to make sure I understand
	the situation. Does the Townsite Act or the Sisk Act give the
	Forest Service the authority to sell land to a school at less
	than full market value?
	Mr. Brouha. No, it does not.
	Mr. Hansen. Say it a little louder, please.
	Mr. Brouha. No, it does not.
	Mr. Hansen. So, if Alpine School District needs to buy land
	at less than market value, neither of those Acts will help us,
	is that right?
	Mr. Brouha. Not with the Forest Service, no, sir.
	Mr. Hansen. Second, the administration says it is strongly
	opposed to selling land to schools at less than full market,
	and I guess we could ask why, but that has been pretty well
	handled by my colleagues in what they have talked about.
	And, finally, the Forest Service feels that 60 days is too
	short to make the RPPA decisions. Actually, you probably have a
	good point there, and I would like to get any suggestions that
	Forest Service could give us on how we could alter the bill to
	give your agents here a little more flexibility while keeping
	in mind, of course, the intent of the requirement which is to
	expedite these sort of decisions.
	I want to point out to you basically public policy is to
	try and help American citizens, and military are swapping
	ground around like it is going out of style constantly, because
	we feel the need to protect the security of America. The same
	thing with some States which we did the school trust land with
	BLM not too--last year which was a dramatic change. But I
	honestly feel that in a situation--we are not asking Chrysler
	and Mercedes Benz to put something up there, we are asking a
	rather--if it is like you Don--I think it is--these school
	districts are barely making it; not enough money to do it, and,
	yet there are kids all over the place and somehow we have to
	educate them. Frankly, I feel you are going to find a consensus
	of this House and both political parties will be to make a
	change here. I would suggest very strongly that you work out
	some kind of flexibility or suggestions to us to make a change
	on issues of public policy. Yes, sir, go ahead.
	Mr. Brouha. If I may comment, sir. The fundamental
	difference, I think, is with respect to the Bureau of Land
	Management, we were continuing the disposal of the public
	estate, and it wasn't really until 1976 under FLPMA that we
	actually developed organic purposes which gave the BLM a
	continued reason as an organization and as an agency to exist.
	The Forest Service was made with the reservation out of
	public estate, in most cases, especially in the West, and what
	we have here is a fundamental difference in public land law and
	public land policy, and certainly we do wish to work with the
	Subcommittee and with the members of the Subcommittee and would
	respond to requests that you have made as to some suggestions,
	and we will be pleased to provide those for you in the coming
	weeks if you would like.
	Mr. Hansen. I am sure we would appreciate that. If you
	could give us some suggestions on how to break this logjam.
	Frankly, I don't know of anything more frustrating than trading
	land, selling land, swapping land. It is the most frustrating
	thing we go through around here. So, as you know, we have had a
	number of hearings on how do we trade land. And, frankly--don't
	take this disrespectfully; I know no one in this room has much
	to do with it, and it rests here with Congress--but it is the
	biggest fudge factory in the world.
	Forty years ago, I was a city councilman in Farmington,
	Utah, and we had a piece of Forest Service right in the middle
	of our town, and we grew around it. We were 600 people when I
	was a kid; now it is 16,000 people. And we would say to the
	Forest Service, ``Is there a way--we have got you surrounded,
	is there a way we can get rid of this thing?'' ``Oh, yes, we
	will work on it.'' And it went to Ogden and to Denver and to
	Washington, and nothing ever happened.
	I went to the State legislature and tried to do it. I
	became Speaker of the House and tried to do it. I was back here
	for years, and finally, we put it in an omnibus bill, and I
	think the gentleman from Arizona pointed out occasionally we
	have to go to the Colorados and the Arizonas and the Utahs and
	the Idahos and say, let us put a bill together and we all swap
	land legislatively, because we can't seem to get it done with
	the Park Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Reclamation
	as the case may be.
	So, I am venting my frustrations on you, and I appreciate
	you taking that, but if you would like to come up with some
	recommendations, I would like to do it, because, to me, I don't
	know why we are spending our time on something that seems so
	meritorious that we could just get it over with and take care
	of little school district in a short time.
	Please don't take this personally; we do appreciate you
	being here, and we will excuse this panel and turn to the third
	panel, not the second panel. Mr. Hefley, who is one of the
	busiest men in Congress, serving on the Armed Services
	Committee; he is chairman of the Military Construction
	Committee, and one of the leaders on the Ethics Committee, I
	would like to point out----
	[Laughter.]
	[continuing] has to leave, so we will turn to the third
	subcommittee which is Mr. Jack Valenti, president and CEO of
	Motion Pictures Association of America and Mr. Philip H.
	Voorhees, Director of National Programs, National Parks and
	Conservation Association, and we appreciate both of you
	gentlemen being with us.
	Gentlemen, it is a pleasure to have you before us. You know
	the rules; it is just a red light. We give you five minutes. If
	you just feel in your heart of hearts you have got to speak a
	little longer than that, well, we are not really pushed for
	time; we can give you a few more minutes.
	Mr. Valenti, it is an honor to have you with us today, sir,
	and we will turn to you.

	STATEMENT OF JACK VALENTI, PRESIDENT AND CEO, MOTION PICTURE
	ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.

	Mr. Valenti. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of this
	Committee. When Abraham Lincoln made his first speech, he ran
	for Congress, he said to his constituents ``Politics are short
	and sweet like the old woman's dance.'' So, I will try to be
	Lincolness today, short and sweet.
	First, I want to say that the movie industry supports H.R.
	154, and I want to especially applaud Mr. Hefley and all of his
	colleagues for the design work they did on this legislation. I
	think it is first class. The movie industry is quite willing
	and ready to pay reasonable fees for filming, and I think the
	architecture of the way these fees will be developed takes a
	common sense approach, and that is the number of people in the
	production crew and the number of days of the shoot. That is
	really the only sensible way that you can gauge how to make
	these fees work.
	So, I think the bill is a model of simplicity and clarity
	but most of all it has a clean set of rules which apply to all
	public lands, so that any movie company instantly knows if it
	intends to shoot on that land for, say, 10 days and they bring
	in 12 people, the know instantly what their costs will be, and
	that takes all the burden off the taxpayer, and I vote for
	that.
	I have a couple of suggestions which I offer you that I
	hope you will consider and in your wisdom decide whether or not
	they make any sense. On page 2 of the bill, lines 4 and 5, it
	says something about the Secretary shall determine if the use
	is appropriate. Now, that language has the smell to me of
	script approval. Script approval before the shoot begins, and
	it seems to me that we ought not involve the Secretary in First
	Amendment issues. That is boggy ground, and it ought terrain
	that we should avoid else judicial antagonisms arise.
	My second suggestion has to do page 3, and I think it is
	line 7 which talks about surface disturbances being a part of
	the fee. Well, as members of this Subcommittee know, any
	renovation of surface disturbances is part of what we call cost
	recovery which the movie companies have been paying gladly in
	years past. Mr. Chairman, almost without exception, when a
	production company finishes its shoot on public lands, it
	leaves the landscape in far better shape than when they began
	the shoot, and I have got example after example after example.
	Finally, I want to say that you should know that the
	American movie dominates all the theaters, television screens,
	video stores, and more than 150 countries on this wrapped and
	weary planet, and, indeed, the film industry returns to this
	country annually more than $4 billion in surplus balance of
	trade which is a phrase that is seldom heard in the corridors
	of this Congress when we are today bleeding from trade
	deficits.
	And, moreover, and my final point is that every time
	billions of people--and that is what we are talking about--see
	a American films that have been filmed on U.S. public lands, it
	is the most enticing kind of tourism ad that you can imagine,
	and we are enticing millions of people to come here as kind of
	global free advertising to the American treasury. I know that
	possibly you may be enchanted with what I am saying up here,
	but I think I will stop now, because that is the essence of
	what I wanted to say.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Valenti may be found at end
	of hearing.]
	Mr. Hansen. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Valenti.
	Mr. Voorhees, it is always a pleasure to have you before
	the Committee. We will turn to you now, sir.

	STATEMENT OF PHILIP H. VOORHEES, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL PROGRAMS,
	NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

	Mr. Voorhees. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your scheduling
	this as one of the first things up in this Committee this year.
	Mr. Hefley, I very much appreciate your leadership on the
	issue. We are totally on board with your bill, with your
	approach, and I agree fully with virtually everything that has
	been said about the bill in past witnesses as well as Mr.
	Valenti.
	Of course, there is a long and storied history of filming
	involvement in public lands dating well before the 1948
	prohibition of return of fees to the Park Service and Fish and
	Wildlife Service which comes about by unknown reasons, I think,
	for all of us. Nonetheless, it is time to correct the problem,
	and I am pleased to say that last year in early April, NPCA put
	together a forum to discuss the issue with representatives of
	NPCA as well as virtually all of the other industry sectors to
	sit down for a day-long discussion with congressional staff.
	Virtually everybody who has been involved has an interest in
	the issue to really work out what are the finer points of what
	is needed for legislation. I am very pleased to say that there
	was full cooperation with all the industry sectors, and there
	was a lot of very constructive and useful information
	interchange, both among the industry representatives as well as
	those of us in conservation, the members of congressional
	staff, and all of the land management agencies. With that, we
	came out with a variety of points that are listed in the
	written testimony, and I don't think I need to go through what
	are really ensconced in one way or another in Mr. Hefley's
	legislation, and I very much appreciate that.
	I think if there is only point that I would add to the
	structure of the bill, something which is substantially silent,
	I think, in the legislation as it is written now, and that is
	including as a factor in how you calculate the fee. It is the
	size of the physical footprint. Surely, there is a strong
	metric that you can use in calculating what an appropriate fee
	would be in terms of the number of folks involved in the
	filming, but I imagine there are probably occasions in which
	you have a larger expansive land needed for the shoot but not
	all that many people involved, and if that is the case, I think
	that ought to be a reasonable consideration when you are
	talking about developing a structure for a fee schedule.
	That really is the only point that I would like to make,
	but I will say that in my review of the bill and my involvement
	with the land management agencies and with staff in trying to
	move through what are the points that need to be covered in any
	legislation as it moves forward, the concern about the
	Secretary determining an appropriateness--the concern you
	raised earlier, Mr. Valenti--doesn't strike me that that is the
	intent at all. I think the intent probably--and I don't mean to
	step in front of you, Mr. Hefley--is that the Secretary have
	the ability to determine whether certain kinds of, say,
	pyrotechnic are acceptable or not on certain kinds of public
	lands in certain situations. It doesn't strike me as being
	overstepping the bounds, but I am sure there is no flavor here
	of censorship. I really doubt there is that intent, and from
	our perspective that can be worked out to make it more in line
	with your concerns. I certainly would want to be on board with
	that.
	With that, really, frankly, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hefley, and
	other members of the Committee, I conclude my testimony. I want
	to express my appreciation for your bringing up this
	legislation so early. We were fully on board last year. This is
	yet another example of the direction I think we need to go in
	in terms of having commercial users of public lands pay their
	fair share especially in light of increasing fees being asked
	of the general public for visitation and use. So, I think it is
	fully in line with the direction in which we want to go. On
	concessions reform, Mr. Chairman, you are a leader on that
	issue, and I appreciate that, because it has been a long time
	in coming, and finally it is done. This is another thing that
	should line up behind up, and, again, I want to express my
	appreciation for everybody in the industry who has been
	involved in agreeing that this can and should be done and can
	be done easily with the agreement of all parties in a way that
	is totally fair to all concerned. Thank you.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Voorhees may be found at end
	of hearing.]
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Voorhees.
	The gentleman from Puerto Rico, questions for our
	witnesses?
	Mr. Romero-Barcelo. No questions. I just wanted to take the
	opportunity to say hello my good friend, Jack Valenti, and it
	has been a quite a while. I haven't seen you, and it is nice to
	see you again, Mr. Valenti, and I appreciate your testimony,
	and I don't think there is any controversy about this bill at
	all, so I appreciate also your comments and your suggestions.
	Thank you very much.
	Mr. Valenti. Thank you.
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
	Hefley.
	Mr. Hefley. Yes, I want to thank both of you gentlemen, not
	only for your testimony but for your help. Jack, you and your
	people have been just super as we work through this process. I
	wish all the bills went like this, and, likewise, with the Park
	Department. I think both of you have made some interesting
	suggestions here that we will take note of and see if we can
	clarify that in some way. There certainly was no intent to give
	the Interior Department script approval. That wasn't the idea
	as our friend from the Parks Service said, and we will see if
	we can clarify that.
	Also, when we get this bill out of the House--and we hope
	to do it as soon as possible--we would appreciate your help as
	we get to the Senate. I don't think there is controversy over
	there, it is just a matter of getting them to move, and if you
	will help us with that, we will work hard at it and you will
	too, and maybe we can have this thing out and solved fairly
	early in the year, and we hope so. I thank both of you for all
	your work on this.
	Mr. Hansen. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I hope
	you take those to heart. You have got to realize in 1981 when I
	came here as a freshman Tip O'Neil said, ``The House does all
	the work; the Senate gets all the attention,'' and this
	Committee sent 30-something bills, close to 40 bills, over to
	the Senate last time, and they didn't do zilch with most of
	them. We moved most of them in the last minutes of the last
	days of unanimous consent, and, frankly, there is nothing I
	find more frustrating than to send a good piece of legislation
	over and have those guys sit on it forever. But, of course,
	they are running for President, and we understand how important
	that is.
	[Laughter.]
	The gentleman from Arizona.
	Mr. Hayworth. I thank the Subcommittee Chairman, and just
	to my friends who testified today, thank you, especially my
	good friend, Jack Valenti, sir, we know you have a career that
	supplements what transpires on the silver screen, but your
	performance today was worthy of five stars, and we thank you
	for it.
	Mr. Hansen. We thank you for being here. Mr. Valenti, in
	1981, you took our freshman class to see a show on you called
	``Eye of the Needle'' and I remember that----
	Mr. Valenti. You have got a good memory, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Hansen. We appreciate that and remember that very well,
	and as Mr. Hefley points out, we will move this legislation. I
	don't think there is any controversy with this one except
	getting it out of the Senate. I would hope you just give it all
	the shot you can, and thank you so very much, and we will
	excuse this panel.
	Mr. Valenti. Thank you very much.
	Mr. Voorhees. Thank you.
	Mr. Hansen. Our final panel will be Mr. David Silva, H.R.
	150 he will be talking to. Mr. Silva is the principal of Alpine
	Elementary School from Apache County, Arizona; Mr. Arthur N.
	Lee, supervisor of District 3, Apache County, Arizona, and
	Clarence Bigelow, county manager, Apache County, Arizona. We
	appreciate you gentlemen being with us; that is very kind of
	you.
	As you have seen, the controversial issue today is you
	folks. So, can you handle your testimony in five minutes? You
	know the rules; you have heard what others have said. If you
	have to go over, by all means go ahead.
	Mr. Silva, we will turn to you, sir.

	STATEMENT OF DAVID SILVA, PRINCIPAL, ALPINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL,
	APACHE COUNTY, ARIZONA

	Mr. Silva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
	Committee. First, let me express a word of appreciation to
	Congressman J.D. Hayworth. Through his efforts and the Congress
	of the 104th, 1996, Alpine was the proud recipient of Federal
	land, and the community of Alpine, the elementary school
	governing board, and the students of Alpine expressed their
	appreciation to members who currently serve, who perhaps served
	on the previous Congress that enabled Alpine to acquire the
	Federal land.
	As a principal of the Alpine Elementary School, let me just
	profile quickly the Alpine School District. Alpine Elementary
	School is a small school district in northeastern Arizona, as
	Congressman Hayworth has pointed out. It is completely
	surrounded by Federal land, forest land. The principal economy
	of the Alpine community has been the forest industry and cattle
	ranching. With the demise of the forest, the timber sales
	currently, the minimizing of grazing lands to the cattlemen in
	the area, Alpine is severely, negatively impacted. In addition
	to lack of industry, we are limited in a tax base because of
	the limited private land. Alpine is a community of
	approximately 5 miles square, give or take, and so the economy
	is severely depressed. It was refreshing to hear earlier that
	it appeared on both sides of the aisle that there is a
	sensitivity to the plight of rural schools in America.
	This bill, H.R. 150, as I understand it, seems like a
	reasonable solution to other districts facing similar problems
	as the Alpine school. I say this because having experienced the
	process in previous years, to get an answer to the time frame
	from the initial inception or introduction of the bill to the
	time that it was actually recorded in the county recorders
	office was about 18 months, and there were numerous stumbling
	blocks along the way the school district had to cover, namely
	covering the cost of the appraisal; namely, covering the cost
	of the survey; namely, covering the cost of the environmental
	impact and hazardous waste. So, there were numerous costs that
	were related to the process.
	To give you an idea of the 18 month process and the
	finality of the recording of the bill in October of 1997, there
	is also the development of infrastructure with water,
	sanitation, the utilities, electricity, power, and so the
	process is much lengthier than we would actually imagine going
	into it.
	I see, personally, having reviewed the language of H.R.
	150, that it would provide for benefits without giving order of
	priority but, namely, the youth would be the direct
	beneficiaries of this legislation. Secondarily, there would be
	uniformity. It appears that there would be uniformity in
	processing of BLM and Forest lands. There would be equity to
	schools, and in the equity all students, again, would be the
	direct beneficiaries.
	I would be happy to respond to questions as they arise.
	Congressman Hayworth understands the community of Alpine very
	well. I am sure that he has visited and communicated with each
	of you individually, and, again, we wish to express our thanks
	to you, Congressman Hayworth, for your efforts in the past.
	At this point, I will conclude my remarks, and I will
	answer questions directly as they may arise. Thank you again
	for the opportunity to appear before you.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Silva may be found at end of
	hearing.]
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Silva.
	Mr. Bigelow.

	STATEMENT OF CLARENCE BIGELOW, COUNTY MANAGER, APACHE COUNTY,
	ARIZONA

	Mr. Bigelow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
	Committee. Apache County is very familiar with camels getting
	their nose under the tent. For example, we had a thriving
	timber industry and were promised by the Forest Service it
	would continue. We had a thriving cattle industry and were
	promised that would continue if we would concede and allow some
	dissipation of the forest industry and cattle industry. We now
	have no timber industry. The cattle industry is virtually
	having its last gasp.
	We believe that this bill, H.R. 150, is very essential to
	our county and other counties in our State and adjoining
	States. For example, had Alpine had to purchase that 30 acres,
	the land in the Alpine area is going for roughly around $24,000
	an acre. You can imagine what that would have cost the Alpine
	school district had they tried to purchase that land from the
	Forest Service. No way could they have done it when they have a
	maintenance and operating budget of approximately $340,000. The
	land would have cost them several times more than their annual
	operating budget.
	Vernon, in our county, is in a similar situation. The
	school district there is virtually surrounded by forest land.
	The school district in Gila County up in the timber area has
	the same problem. The Navajo County School District in the
	Pinetop Lakeside area has the same problem. They are on permit
	right now in Navajo County. Permits are like the old proverbial
	statement, ``The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.'' Well,
	the Forest Service does the same thing. We have that classic
	example in the permit of the cattlemen having no longer permits
	or permits cut astronomically below value.
	A permit is nothing but a hope that you can keep the school
	district on that land. Greenlee County has two school districts
	on permit in the Eagle Creek area and in the Blue River area
	which is now being impacted very heavily by the environmental
	concerns. How long will those permits lasts? We don't know, but
	we do know that permits disappear when the pressure is on. The
	land exchange creates a problem; it doesn't really work in our
	county. All of the land exchanges that have occurred with the
	Forest Service eliminate private land in the forest area and
	then the exchange is in the premier land near Tucson, Phoenix,
	and the metropolitan areas, so we then continue to lose tax
	base. Our country right now has approximately 14 percent
	private land in the county, and it is decreasing every time
	land exchange occurs. So, our only hope for education in these
	mountain communities clear across from Flagstaff into New
	Mexico is this bill that J.D. Hayworth has presented to give
	security to our education and to our young people.
	That, basically, is my added comments to my written
	statement which you have, and we implore you to seriously,
	carry this bill and pass it, and, hopefully, the whole Congress
	will pass it, because it is vital to your rural counties in the
	western States. Thank you.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Bigelow may be found at end
	of hearing.]
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Bigelow.
	Mr. Lee.

	STATEMENT OF ARTHUR N. LEE, SUPERVISOR, DISTRICT 3, APACHE
	COUNTY, ARIZONA

	Mr. Lee. Chairman Hansen and members of the Committee,
	thank you for this opportunity just to testify. For the record,
	my name is Arthur N. Lee, supervisor from Apache County. On
	behalf of Apache County and the Coalition of Arizona and New
	Mexico Counties for Stable Economic Growth, I come before you
	today in support of H.R. 150.
	For several years now, our county's mountain community
	schools have suffered economic hardship. Dropping enrollments
	are common as logging, ranching, and mining families are forced
	by regula-

	tions and court decisions to move out of the towns they grew up
	in. In Apache County and Greenlee County alone, at least five
	school districts--Alpine, Blue, Eagle Creek, Vernon, and Round
	Valley--face these problems. The result of losing these
	families is a drop in bonding capacity, school property tax
	revenues, and in-school district revenues. With loss of funds
	and bonding ability, our mountain schools are in many cases
	unable to acquire property critical to the service of their
	students. This happened in the Alpine School District which is
	in my county supervisors district. Fortunately, with assistance
	from my good friend J.D. Hayworth, we were able to get a grant
	of land for them.
	In Round Valley area alone, we just lost the Eagle Sawmill,
	the largest remaining sawmill in the Southwest. Due to the
	forced elimination of timber harvesting, they were forced to
	permanently close the mill and lay off 70 remaining workers.
	When the mill ran at full capacity in 1989, it directly and
	indirectly employed almost 700 people, including mill workers,
	loggers, timber haulers, and so forth.
	While hope remains that good sense will return the
	harvesting of timber in time to save our forests from
	catastrophic fires and save our mill, it is equally important
	to save our cattle industry.
	As a result of the loss of timber and the cattle industry,
	more families will move out of our school district. It will
	force the schools to lay off teachers, cut critical programs,
	and cripple the quality of our children's education.
	Mr. Chairman, the problems I have described to you are
	happening to schools in many rural Arizona and New Mexico
	counties as a result of lawsuits and environmental regulations
	that continue to shut down our economic base industries,
	destroy our way of life, and ruin the education of our
	children. For example, the Blue and Eagle Creek schools in
	Greenlee County are located in public forest lands. The loss of
	ranching and timber families have forced these schools to
	periodically close, and they live on constant fear that their
	schools land leases will not be renewed.
	In Navajo County, Arizona, costs of regulations for schools
	on public lands drives the cost of education up at a time of
	increasing uncertainty. In Greenlee County, Arizona, only 3.8
	percent of the total land base is private ownership. with some
	school districts located in areas with less than 1 percent
	private property. The ability of these schools to receive a
	grant of land would give them more security and improve their
	financial situation.
	The passage of this bill should also help many school
	districts lower their expenses by eliminating those schools'
	need to lease property, lower the cost of building expenses,
	and provide quality outdoor educational opportunities for our
	children. In addition, local governments can benefit from
	greater social stability and expansion on essential community
	services.
	Mr. Chairman, for the sake of our children, our families,
	and our schools, we urge that you pass H.R. 150. Thank you very
	much.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Lee may be found at end of
	hearing.]
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Lee. The gentleman from Puerto
	Rico.
	Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I only wanted
	to thank the witness for their testimony and for giving us the
	living examples of the needs that they have in their
	communities for this land and the lack of land available in
	western areas and western States. I can't think of anybody--and
	the other committee I belong to is the Education and Workforce
	Committee--I can't think of a single member of the House
	Education and Workforce Committee who would not agree with the
	purposes of this legislation, and I don't think of any Members
	of Congress that would not agree with the purposes of this
	legislation. There are still things that we are going to have
	to iron out, but I don't see any problem. I am sure that they
	will be ironed out, and I think that you can rest assured that
	Mr. Hayworth's efforts will be available eventually to all of
	the communities in the West. That is my feeling. Thank you very
	much.
	Mr. Hansen. I appreciate the gentleman's comments and agree
	with them. The gentleman from Arizona.
	Mr. Hayworth. I thank the Subcommittee chairman, and I
	thank my colleague from Puerto Rico for his support of this and
	I especially thank my constituents who are here, Mr. Silva in
	his role so important on the front lines of education offering
	eloquent testimony of the challenges involved in trying to
	envision a project; trying to literally get something done;
	clearing all the hurdles created by the challenges--some would
	be tempted to say almost the persecution of rural communities
	and the livelihoods that have been traditional and very
	practical and I believe help strive to strike a balance in
	these rural communities, but also reminding us of our most
	precious resource, our children.
	To my good friend, Mr. Bigelow, who very eloquently pointed
	out how familiar rural westerners are with the phrase used by
	Mr. Brouha of the Forest Service about the camel's nose under
	the tent. This seemingly relentless march to subjugate those
	who live in western States involved in legitimate entities to
	somehow suspend those economic endeavors; to create hardship
	for those who administer the laws within the counties and I
	felt especially eloquent his notion that the regulatory
	agencies are now put in a position where they giveth and they
	taketh away. And let the record indicate, Mr. Chairman, that
	here we sit in a Subcommittee hearing, and perhaps those who
	joined us from the administration were not required to stay,
	but the Subcommittee Chair pointed out to us the importance of
	public policy, and, yes, as constitutional officers, we are
	accountable, but how far afield in the culture of Washington it
	is for those who are charged with the execution of public
	duties, many of whom are noble and work hard, who come under
	the heading of bureaucrats, how unfortunate it is that our
	friend from the Forest Service who was here could not extend
	the dignity or make the time in his schedule to stay here and
	hear the eloquent testimony of people on the front lines such
	as my colleagues.
	Mr. Lee, you pointed out not only within your supervisory
	district, but throughout the areas of my congressional district
	and throughout the rural West the challenges faced. I think it
	is unfortunate that even as our friend from the Forest Service
	very politely took the suggestion of the Subcommittee Chair,
	for whatever purposes and pressures of scheduling, no one could
	stay and listen to the testimony of my constituents. I know it
	has not fallen on deaf ears within this Subcommittee chamber,
	and I look forward to working with people on what is truly a
	bipartisan aim to improve education for children living in the
	rural West.
	Mr. Hansen. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's
	comments. The gentleman has brought an issue up that has always
	been kind of a sticky point in this Committee, and seeing this
	is our first hearing of the 106th, I didn't think of it, but in
	the past, sometimes we put these folks on first and let the
	Forest Service, BLM, and Park Service sit there, and make sure
	they come on last so they can respond. In fact, if I had
	thought about that, I probably would have done that. It didn't
	cross my mind, but I have asked Mr. Griffith here, my staff, to
	make sure that the Forest Service gets your testimony which
	will going out today to them.
	And let me join with my friend from Puerto Rico and other
	members who have commented on this, I have you have an
	extremely meritorious issue before you here. As far as this
	Subcommittee is concerned, we will move this legislation. I
	think it will probably also move through the full Committee
	without any trouble. I would seriously doubt if there would be
	many problems on the floor. If I was giving anybody counsel
	here today, I would say the problem happens to be over in the
	House of Lords, and if you make sure you go over there and
	petition your Arizona folks and your western senator friends to
	move it, you will probably get something done. They are
	notorious for putting things off.
	I think the hallmark of the Senate is ``When in doubt,
	procrastinate,'' and I say that somewhat respectfully, but not
	much. But, anyway, if I was you--I don't think you are going to
	have any problem on this side, but over there that thing has a
	way of just sitting. You may see that I am the true prophet
	when this happens.
	Anyway, with that said, I thank all three witnesses for
	their excellent testimony, and I think this concludes the
	matter. This Subcommittee stands adjourned.
	[Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
	[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
	Statement of Tom Fry, (Acting) Director, Bureau of Land Management

	Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate
	the opportunity to testify on H.R. 15, the Otay Mountain
	Wilderness Act of 1999. I want to commend the bill's sponsor,
	Congressman Brian Bilbray for introducing this legislation
	which recognizes the unique nature of the area by protecting
	its many outstanding and precious natural resources for
	generations to come.
	The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) strongly supports H.R.
	15. We also recognize and appreciate the Subcommittee's work
	last Congress which amended H.R. 3950, the Otay Mountain
	Wilderness bill, also introduced by Mr. Bilbray. Our only
	objection to H.R. 3950 was the Section 6(b) language on Border
	Enforcement, Drug Interdiction, and Wildland Fire Protection.
	The amended Section 6(b) language, which appears in H.R. 15,
	was requested by the Administration and is in keeping with the
	mandate and intent of the 1964 Wilderness Act.
	I want to comment briefly on Secretary Babbitt's recent
	tour of Otay Mountain. While there, the Secretary met with many
	individuals and local officials committed to preserving the
	special resources of this area. He was very impressed,
	encouraged, persuaded and enlightened by the diverse group he
	traveled with including Representative Bob Filner, San Diego
	County representatives, the staffs to Senators Feinstein and
	Boxer, staff to Congressman Brian Bilbray, the San Diego
	Association of Governments, the California Biodiversity
	Council, the Sierra Club, the Endangered Habitat League, The
	Wilderness Society, the U.S. Border Patrol and BLM officials.
	H.R. 15 would designate 18,500 acres of the Otay Mountain
	area in eastern San Diego County, adjacent to the U.S.-Mexico
	International Border, as BLM wilderness. Otay Mountain is
	located in an extremely unique and diverse area of the country.
	The area is important to San Diego's ongoing habitat
	conservation initiatives which the Department strongly
	supports. BLM currently manages Otay Mountain to preserve and
	maintain its wilderness character and we strongly support its
	continued protection and the wilderness designation envisioned
	in H.R. 15.
	I would like to provide a brief discussion of certain
	aspects of the area's history and resources to help new
	Subcommittee Members better understand the vast array of public
	land management issues in this scenic and ecologically diverse
	area. The Otay Mountain area has long been recognized by the
	public as a unique ecosystem. As early as 1962, the Secretary
	of the Interior created the Otay Mountain National Cooperative
	Land and Wildlife Management Area. Management direction for the
	area has focused on conservation of the area's flora, fauna,
	ecologic, geologic, cultural and scenic values as well as the
	protection of its wilderness values. In the 1980's, BLM
	established the Western and Southern Otay Mountain WSAs and,
	with strong public support (including a 1982 resolution from
	the San Diego Board of Supervisors), ultimately recommended a
	large portion of the WSAs as wilderness.
	In addition to its natural attributes, the area has
	opportunities for solitude, open space and primitive
	recreation, and possesses nationally significant biological
	values. These include stands of rare Tecate Cypress and 15-20
	other sensitive vegetative species. The proposed wilderness
	also contains an Area of Critical Environmental Concern which
	was established by BLM with strong public support. In addition,
	the City of San Diego has identified the region as a ``core
	reserve'' in open-space planning, and the California Department
	of Fish and Game and local universities have had a long
	interest in studying and monitoring the area's flora and fauna.
	Wilderness designation would secure a unique ecosystem in the
	National Wilderness Preservation System.
	Unfortunately, the area has experienced extensive resource
	damage in the last few years as a result of undocumented
	immigrants attempting to cross through the region. In addition,
	an October 1996 wildfire inflicted considerable short-term
	damage. However, with close coordination and onsite work among
	the BLM, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,
	the Border Patrol, the City, County, and other interests, a
	dramatic reduction in illegal traffic has occurred and the area
	appears to be restoring itself.
	Finally, as a result of a recent court decision by the
	United States District Court for the District of Columbia which
	concerned maps that were not on file at the time legislation
	was enacted, we believe that it is essential for the Committee
	to work with the Department to develop a dated and filed map
	prior to the enactment of this legislation.
	This concludes my statement and I would be glad to answer
	any questions you may have.
	------


	Statement of Paul Brouha, Associate Deputy Chief, Forest Service,
	United States Department of Agriculture

	MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:
	Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to present
	the Administration's views concerning H.R. 150, amendments to
	the Recreation and Public Purposes Act to dispose of National
	Forest lands to education agencies. The Administration
	commented on H.R. 2223 regarding this subject during a hearing
	before this Subcommittee last year. I am accompanied today by
	James B. Snow, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Department of
	Agriculture.
	While the Administration supports the objective of making
	Federal lands available in certain circumstances for public
	purposes, the Administation strongly opposes this bill.
	First, the bill is unnecessary because current statutory
	authority exists to make land available for educational
	purposes. Second, the bill would permit the disposal of
	National Forest lands for less than fair market value. Third,
	the deadline requirement to make the conveyance decision within
	60 days is entirely inadequate.

	Concerns about H.R. 150

	The Administration appreciates the efforts the Subcommittee
	has made to address the concern raised last year regarding H.R.
	2223. However, H.R. 150 continues to raise serious problems for
	the Administration.
	First, to include the disposal of National Forest lands for
	public purposes under Recreation and Public Purposes Act of
	1926 (R&PPA) is unnecessary because the Secretary of
	Agriculture has existing authorities to accommodate public uses
	through authorities to permit, lease, exchange, and dispose of
	National Forest lands. For example, under the Townsite Act, the
	Secretary of Agriculture may convey, for fair market value, up
	to 640 acres of land to established communities located
	adjacent to National Forests in Alaska and in the contiguous
	western states. Within certain limits, the Sisk Act of 1967
	authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange lands with
	states, counties, or municipal governments or public school
	districts for lands or lands and money. Moreover, the Secretary
	of Agriculture can exchange National Forest lands with State
	and local governments.
	Second, the Administration objects to H.R. 150 because it
	would permit the disposal of National Forest lands for less
	than fair market value. The taxpayers of the United States
	should receive fair market value for the sale exchange, or use
	of their National Forest lands. Unlike the R&PPA, other land
	exchange laws require the Secretary of Agriculture to obtain
	fair market value for exchanges or sales of National Forest
	lands. Indeed, the Federal policy backed by bipartisan
	coalition in the executive and legislative branches in recent
	decades has moved toward maximizing return to the public for
	the value of lands conveyed out of Federal ownership. The
	Administration objects to legislation that would reverse that
	policy by opening the door to less than fair market value
	consideration for the disposition of National Forest lands.
	Third, the Administration objects to the requirement that,
	within 60 days, a decision on the R&PPA conveyance must be
	made. Decisions about the appropriate uses of National Forest
	lands and resources are accomplished through the forest
	planning process under the National Forest Management Act
	(NFMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under
	NFMA and NEPA, the Forest Service analyzes important
	environmental issues and the public is extensively involved.
	During this process, local Forest Service officials work
	closely with state and local governments to identify their
	concerns, needs for land, and lands appropriate for land
	ownership adjustments.
	These processes take time, and since every land adjustment
	is unique, it would be difficult to predetermine an appropriate
	amount of time necessary to complete the environmental
	analysis. In fact, such a limit would only serve to create
	expectations that the agency could not meet and undermine the
	credibility of its public involvement process and environmental
	analysis. The agency strongly believes that attempts to short
	circuit environmental and public processes will only lead to
	more controversy.

	Closing

	Mr. Chairman, while the Administration supports the general
	objective of making Federal lands available for education
	purposes, the Administration strongly opposes H.R. 150.
	However, the Administration remains open to discussions with
	the Subcommittee on other ideas for this bill.
	This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
	questions you and Members of the Subcommittee might have.
	------


	Statement of Stephen Saunders, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish,
	Wildlife & Parks

	Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of
	the Interior's views on H.R. 154, a bill to provide for the
	collection of fees for the making of motion pictures,
	television productions, and soundtracks on all Department of
	Interior lands and facilities, including those in the National
	Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System units, Bureau of
	Land Management managed lands, and facilities managed by the
	Bureau of Reclamation. The Administration supports this bill,
	which is in accord with the President's FY 2000 Budget.
	H.R. 154 would allow the Secretary of the Interior to
	charge a fee sufficient to provide a fair return to the
	government for filming on lands administered by the Department
	of the Interior. The bill is identical to the version of H.R.
	2993 that was reported out of the House Committee on Resources
	in the 105th Congress and passed the House. H.R. 154 would also
	repeal the present regulations governing the issuance of film
	permits in parks, and refuges. Under existing regulation 43
	CFR. 5.1 (b), the National Park Service (NPS), and the U.S.
	Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are prohibited from charging
	fees for the making of motion pictures, television productions,
	or sound tracks in NPS or FWS units. The regulation does not
	prohibit NPS and FWS from recovering the costs associated with
	administering film permits.
	Units of the park system, the wildlife refuge system, and
	BLM managed lands have played significant roles in many
	different types of motion picture, television productions, and
	commercial advertisements. Over the past three fiscal years,
	more than 1,000 permits were issued for filming on BLM managed
	lands. NPS has issued approximately 4,500 filming permits
	during this time. Many of the permits issued by NPS, BLM, and
	FWS are for small productions, some of which are commercial in
	nature, others of which are educational. However, all three
	agencies issue a significant number of permits to makers of
	major television and motion picture productions.
	Although parks and refuges were created to conserve and
	protect natural resources and wildlife, they have played
	important roles in many high-grossing films. The 400-year old
	fortification known as ``El Morro'' in San Juan National
	Historic Site was used in the movie ``Amistad'' to depict a
	slave-trading market; the white sands of White Sands National
	Monument were used in the movie ``Star Wars'' to depict an
	otherworldly landscape; and the Linville Falls Trail in Blue
	Ridge Parkway was used for the ambush scene in ``Last of the
	Mohicans.'' These are but a few of the hundreds of memorable
	films that have been filmed in national parks over the years.
	The list includes ``Dances with Wolves,'' filmed in part in
	Badlands National Park, ``The Deer Hunter,'' made in part in
	Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, and ``In the Line of
	Fire,'' filmed at several NPS sites throughout the National
	Capital Region. FWS units have also played host to memorable
	motion pictures. The exciting chase scene at the opening of
	``The Raiders of the Lost Ark,'' with Harrison Ford was filmed
	in Hanalei and Huleia National Wildlife Refuges. The movie
	``Uncommon Valor,'' a story about a Vietnam War veteran, was
	filmed in part at the same refuges in Hawaii. Recently, filming
	of the movie ``Random Hearts'' with Harrison Ford occurred in
	part at Patuxent Research Refuge in Maryland.
	It is often the unique nature of public lands that attracts
	filmmakers. In some cases, public lands may be the only option
	for a filmmaker whose story is inextricably tied to something
	that may only exist on public lands. We believe the public has
	the right to be compensated for the commercial use of this
	uniqueness.
	The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) filming policy is
	governed by the 43 CFR 2920 regulations, which allows the
	agency to recover its costs for processing and monitoring
	permits and charge fair market value for filming. Cost recovery
	can be substantial on major productions. The BLM allows each of
	its state offices to set their own fee schedules based on
	market values of filming activities on other lands. The
	California office, for instance, will charge up to $600 per day
	per location for the use of its public lands for filming. The
	BLM's fee schedule does not appear to be a deterrent for
	filming on the public lands managed by BLM, as these lands have
	been used as sites for such films as ``The Horse Whisperer,''
	``The River Wild,'' and ``Maverick.'' The United States Forest
	Service is also statutorily authorized to charge fair market
	value for filming. It allows its regional offices to set fee
	schedules which are similar to BLM's fee schedules. For
	example, the Southern California Regional office of the Forest
	Service charges up to $600 per day per location for filming in
	Forest Service sites in southern California.
	Other land-owning governmental entities charge even higher
	fees than our sister Federal agencies. The Navajo Nation, for
	instance, charges up to $2,000 a day for the use of Monument
	Valley, the site of many memorable films. Similarly, the city
	of Beverly Hills in California charges fees that exceed $2,000
	per day for filming in its city parks.
	Ironically, the NPS and the FWS charged for filming prior
	to November 1948. Prior to 1945, film-permitting policy was
	governed by Secretarial Orders which allowed the NPS to charge
	as much as $500 per day for filming. That is equivalent to more
	than $10,000 in today's dollars. In 1945 a new Secretarial
	Order was put in place that permitted NPS to negotiate even
	higher fees than this for large-scale productions. These fees
	were more than twice the amount that the General Land Office
	(BLM's predecessor agency) was allowed to charge at the time.
	It is unclear why this policy was changed in late 1948, but it
	should be noted that when NPS charged for filming, movies were
	still made in parks. Many films, including 1947's ``Sea of
	Grass,'' starring Spencer Tracy, and filmed in Canyon de Chelly
	National Monument, and 1948's ``Yellow Sky,'' starring Gregory
	Peck, and filmed in Death Valley National Monument, were made
	when NPS charged for filming.
	In late 1948, the precursor to the current 43 CFR 5.1 was
	issued, which prohibited NPS from charging filming fees.
	Another change in this regulation in 1957 prohibited FWS from
	charging fees for filming. We have searched our files but have
	not yet discovered why the regulations on filming fees were
	changed for NPS and FWS.
	NPS and FWS are also concerned that their inability to
	charge fees may be attracting permit applications from
	filmmakers who would seek other lands if fees were charged. The
	mission of NPS and FWS is to protect natural and cultural
	resources and wildlife. These agencies were not set up to
	attract filming business. Yet, by prohibiting these agencies
	from establishing fees the present regulations make these
	public lands more attractive to filmmakers whose films could
	also be made on other governmental or tribal lands. H.R. 154
	would correct this anomaly by repealing 43 C.F.R. 5.1 and
	giving the Secretary of the Interior the authority to charge
	fees that are at least comparable to the fees charged by other
	agencies.
	The authority given to the Secretary would allow the
	Secretary to establish a schedule of rates for fees based on
	such factors as the number of people on site, duration of
	activities, the use of ``special use'' areas including
	wilderness, and any surface disturbances authorized under a
	permit. H.R. 154 would allow the fees collected for filming on
	Interior public lands and facilities to be distributed in the
	same manner as revenue collected under the recreation fee
	demonstration program. Under this program, fees are remitted to
	a special account in the Treasury. Eighty percent of the fees
	in the account go back to the park, refuge unit, or BLM office
	that generated the fees. Twenty percent of these fees are
	available for distribution throughout the NPS, FWS, and BLM
	systems.
	Subsection (b) of H.R. 154 provides that no fee shall be
	charged for any bonafide newsreel or news television film
	gathering, or for still photography that does not include
	product or service advertisements or the use of models, sets or
	props or would not result in damage to resources or a
	significant disruption to normal visitor uses. We support this
	provision.
	The Department is extremely supportive of the goals of H.R.
	154. The public deserves to receive a fair return for the use
	of Department lands and facilities that play an important role
	in motion pictures, television productions, and soundtracks.
	The public will also benefit from a fee distribution system
	that would allow each land management agency to retain the fees
	generated under these permits. We are confident that H.R. 154
	would accomplish this goal without compromising the
	Department's primary mission of protecting the resources under
	its care. Thank you for this opportunity, and I would be happy
	to answer any of your questions.
	------


	Statement of Jack Valenti, President & CEO, Motion Picture Association
	of America

	Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
	allowing me to testify on H.R. 154, which deals with the
	filming of motion pictures in the National Parks and public
	lands. I am here today to add MPAA support for the bill.
	The Motion Picture Association of America is an assembly of
	the seven largest producers and distributors of movies,
	television programs, and home videos in the world: The Walt
	Disney Company, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Metro Goldwyn-
	Mayer, Viacom, Twentieth Century Fox Films, Universal Studios
	and Warner Bros. In an era when the specter of ``deficit''
	balance of trade haunts the Congress, the U.S. film/TV/home
	video industry is a robust contributor of billions of dollars
	of ``surplus'' balance of trade. It is a confirmed fact that
	the American movie is the most wanted export of the United
	States.
	There's a wonderful world of grand vistas in the public
	lands. Such splendor imprisoned on film attracts audiences,
	which in turn beckon to producers, who are willing to pay
	uniform and reasonable fees for that privilege. Currently,
	whenever one of the major film companies wants to film in the
	National Park, they face different rules and regulations in
	different locations. The standards and requirements which they
	confront are sometimes so burdensome it makes filming in the
	parks quite unenticing. Result? Oftentimes producers seek
	private lands and state parks, as well as locations outside the
	United States. These alternatives grow more alluring when the
	parks make it difficult to film. Establishing a reasonable,
	predictable fee schedule could eliminate one source of
	uncertainty and help forge a positive, cooperative partnership
	between the producers and the parks.
	Our films are received joyously and hospitably on all the
	continents where people of varying cultures and creeds reside.
	Billions of people watch American movies every year. Therefore,
	in cinemas and homes throughout the world scenes of American
	parks are avidly viewed and admired. It's fair to say, then,
	that not only is park filming beneficial to the parks for the
	revenues it could produce, but also for the huge global reach
	of movies which captures the landscapes of the parks and
	enthralls international audiences, as well as the citizens of
	our own land. It's a kind of ``free global advertising''for the
	National Parks.
	The objective of H.R. 154 is to encourage filming in the
	parks in return for reasonable fees, which will provide new
	revenues to the parks without burdening the taxpayers. We
	support that goal. I am here today to declare our enthusiasm
	for the aim of this bill and perhaps offer some suggestions we
	believe will add to the benefits the bill confers on the parks.
	Right now, the National Parks Service cannot charge fees
	for filming. Although the parks can be reimbursed for costs of
	filming (Ranger time, parking, use of campgrounds, et cetera)
	these reimbursements don't provide real financial support to
	the parks. As a result, park administrators can become
	indifferent to filming, or even hostile because their efforts
	to promote movie making in the park don't produce for them any
	direct return. What happens is that film producers do regularly
	make contributions to non-profits associated with the parks,
	but it's all a grab bag of unpredictable and wildly
	inconsistent levels.
	Last Congress, we came to this Committee with suggestions
	for bringing discipline to the fee process, attracting
	producers to the parks, and enlarging benefits to the parks. I
	would like to thank the Committee, and in particular,
	Congressman Joel Hefley for working with all the interested
	parties and coming up with the reasonable approach embodied in
	H.R. 154.
	We support H.R. 154 for several reasons:
	FIRST, because the fee is based fundamentally on the number
	of people in the crew and the number of days of the shoot. Why
	is this the most sensible approach? Size of the crew is the
	best indicator of the complexity of the shoot.
	LETHAL WEAPON IV might have 35 people on the special
	effects crew alone. TITANIC had 45 people in its costuming
	segment. A smaller film group might not have that many people
	in its entire crew. A TV commercial crew might number only 10
	people.
	This approach is simple, clear, and predictable. Every
	producer knows immediately what the costs will be.
	SECOND, the Hefley bill applies the fee schedule uniformly
	to all of Interior's lands, not just the national parks. Out of
	the current rag-tag fee process will come a clean set of rules
	applied across the board.
	THIRD, in H.R. 154, the land where the filming occurs
	retains most of the fees (80 percent) collected. Not only does
	this relieve some taxpayer burden, but also it will surely
	enliven park administrators' interest in being hospitable to
	film producers and that they will reap the rewards that come
	from responsible filming in the parks.
	FOURTH, we appreciate the work this Committee did in the
	last Congress to clarify the meaning of the statutory phrase
	that requires the Secretary of Interior to determine that the
	use of the filming permit is ``"appropriate.'' On page 3, of
	report 105-678 accompanying H.R. 2993, I quote ``The word
	`appropriate' is included to ensure this legislation tracks
	with other fee structures and as a common sense guide for the
	Secretary in issuing permits under this bill. The Congressional
	intent of the word `appropriate' should not be construed by nor
	does it confer rights upon the Secretary for script approval or
	censorship. The word `appropriate' means that permits should
	not be issued at sights where filming activity will result in a
	gross disruption of public use of the site.''
	Last Congress we came to you with suggestions to make this
	legislation workable, and we thank you for listening. In fact,
	we are so pleased that you listened that we have a further
	suggestion . . .
	Streamline the fee structure by limiting the factors for
	deriving the fee to the (1) number of people on site and (2)
	duration of activities under a permit. Surface disturbances are
	actually a ``cost'' and thus would be reimbursed to the local
	parks as such. ``Streamlining'' is a popular word in Congress
	and by limiting the factors, the process would be even simpler
	and more predictable for all.
	We applaud the efforts of Mr. Hefley and of the Committee.
	Film producers want to film in the national parks. They want to
	pay fees which are reasonable, sensible, certain--and
	expeditiously determined. Most of all, they are pleased that
	their films, exhibited in over 150 countries, advertise to the
	world the unduplicatable beauties of our national parks,
	irreplaceable treasures which belong to the American citizenry.
	We look forward to working with you.
	------


	Statement of Philip H. Voorhees, Director of National Programs,
	National Parks and Conservation Association

	Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, my name is
	Phil Voorhees. I represent the National Parks and Conservation
	Association (NPCA) whose testimony I present today. NPCA is
	America's only private, non-profit citizen organization
	dedicated solely to protecting, preserving, and enhancing the
	National Park System.
	I am delighted to appear before you to testify in support
	of Mr. Hefley's filming fee reform legislation.
	NPCA supports the Subcommittee's intent to charge
	reasonable and fair fees for commercial filming and recording
	activities in areas administered by the National Park Service
	and Fish and Wildlife Service. We appreciate the opportunity to
	present our views on this small, yet important aspect of
	commercial use of our Federal lands. I will focus my remarks on
	the legislation as it relates to the National Park System.

	Background

	The relationship between Hollywood and the national parks
	is long and storied. From ``Star Trek'' to ``Star Wars'' to
	``Robinson Crusoe on Mars,'' national parks have provided the
	backdrop for both box office blockbusters and forgettable B
	movies, to say nothing of thousands of filmed commercials. The
	list of movies filmed in the parks runs tens of pages long and
	includes such films as ``Thelma and Louise,'' ``Maverick,''
	``Forest Gump'' and ``Gettysburg.''
	The films and commercials run the gamut of genre types from
	westerns to science fiction, but one thread remains common
	throughout. Every one of the films, whether it made money or
	not provided almost nothing to the parks in return for the
	privilege of using public lands. As the law now stands, the
	National Park Service is authorized to recoup only the cost of
	monitoring the filming, a negligible application fee and the
	cost of any damage remediation. For example, when Mister Spock
	needed to beam down to the planet Vulcan for the film ``Star
	Trek,'' Hollywood chose the geothermal terraces of Yellowstone.
	In return, we understand the Park Service received the grand
	sum of $300, while the film went on to gross more than $50
	million.
	By comparison, if the same scene were filmed on private
	property, the production company would have had to pay up to
	$8,500 per day as a location fee. This issue boils down to a
	question of fairness. It is simply unreasonable to ask the
	visiting public to pay increased entrance and use fees while at
	the same time fees for commercial uses of the national parks--
	from concessions to commercial filming--have remained
	astonishingly low, or even free. When it passed S. 1693 (the
	National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998) last year,
	Congress took a significant step toward ensuring that the
	government would receive a fair return from concessioners
	operating in the parks. It is time to take that same step with
	the film industry.
	To the extent that the commercial filming industry has
	openly announced its willingness to correct this imbalance, the
	Committee has a rare opportunity to craft a solution that both
	addresses the problem fairly and reflects the support of both
	the conservation community and the affected industry. Before
	continuing, I want to voice NPCA's appreciation to the many
	facets of the commercial filming industry, for their openness
	and cooperation in finding a solution to this problem.

	Opportunities for Legislative Solution

	Rather than addressing the specific language of H.R. 154, I
	will focus on some of the principles that need to be reflected
	in any piece of legislation if it is to address the needs of
	the parks while incorporating the reasonable desires of the
	filming industry.
	On April 8 of last year, NPCA invited representatives of
	the commercial filming industry, the National Park Service,
	Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest
	Service and congressional staff to a workshop session to
	discuss the dynamics of commercial filming on Federal lands and
	parks in the U.S. We were interested in identifying the
	advantages and problems associated with commercial filming
	activities, identifying the needs and differing approaches of
	the land management agencies in hosting these activities, and
	arriving at a common understanding of facets necessary for
	improvement of the current situation in the eyes of both the
	industry and the land management agencies.
	After a day-long discussion, all parties arrived at an
	understanding that the following characteristics must be
	reflected in any legislation, if that legislation is to improve
	upon the current situation and provide more equitable fees for
	the use of the parks:

	<bullet> The National Park Service should recover all
	``direct'' and ``indirect'' costs associated with commercial
	filming projects within the National Park System.
	<bullet> In addition, the National Park Service should charge a
	fee for use of Federal property. Such fee should provide a
	``fair return'' to the Park Service.
	<bullet> All fees collected (cost recovery and site) should be
	retained by the Park Service, and should be available for
	expenditure without further appropriation.
	<bullet> The filming industry needs to have certainty in the
	permitting and fee determination process.
	<bullet> Nonetheless, the industry recognizes that there will
	be different standards for filming on the various public lands
	due to the differing resource protection and use mandates among
	the land management agencies.
	<bullet> A set fee schedule, based on the impact (footprint) of
	the filming activity is an appropriate method for determining
	site fees.
	<bullet> Still photographers who are not using ``models or
	props'' should neither be required to obtain a permit nor
	required to pay a separate fee for commercial filming
	activities.
	<bullet> Legislation should avoid the use of the term ``fair
	market value.''

	Problems with Fair Market Value

	Last year, NPCA testified in support of House legislation that also
	would have allowed the Park Service to charge a fee for filming
	activities in the parks. That legislation proposed using a ``fair
	market value'' approach for determining the fee the Park Service would
	charge those filming in the parks. However, after hosting last year's
	workshop, we became convinced that, while conceptually fair, in
	practical terms, a fair market valuation would be extremely difficult
	to calculate.
	The central issue, as identified and discussed in the workshop, is
	what is the ``market'' that would be used for the purposes of
	comparison? States do not provide an adequate comparison because of the
	perceived side benefits flowing to the state and local communities from
	increased exposure, general commerce (food service, lodging, et cetera)
	associated with commercial filming, and potentially increased tourism
	revenues. Because of these factors, many states provide the access for
	free or at very low rates. Another complicating factor in determining
	fair market value is the difficulty in finding comparable locations.
	There is only one Statue of Liberty, Devils Tower, or Crater Lake in
	the world, and the uniqueness of the geologic and cultural features of
	the national parks are frequently the very reason the industry is
	attracted to that location. There may be no comparable setting on state
	or other lands.
	For these reasons, we would recommend against an approach that
	specifically identifies ``fair market value'' as the yardstick to
	assess commercial filming fees. Although it sounds good and is the
	principle we have supported with respect to park concessioners and
	other private companies making a profit through their use of the parks,
	in this circumstance the practice of assessing fair market value may
	create problems too difficult to overcome.

	Additional Concerns

	As currently written, H.R. 154 does not adequately reflect the
	primary need and responsibility of the NPS to protect the resources,
	first and foremost. If NPS specific commercial filming requests are
	likely to place park resources at risk, they must deny the permit
	outright, or insist on changes to provide the protection needed. Adding
	such an explicit provision does not imply that the commercial filming
	industry has an extended record of running roughshod over park
	resources. Rather it recognizes that problems have arisen in the past.
	Above all, park resources must be protected. Such language provides a
	necessary--if seldom invoked--safeguard against contingencies.
	Another concern is for the level and distribution of the fees that
	result from this legislation. As with all use fees, whether derived
	from visitor entrance and use of the resources or commercial uses of
	the parks, it is vitally important that the Congress be mindful of the
	risk of creating perverse incentives for filming and other park
	activities. No matter the origin, fee streams should not be allowed to
	drive or otherwise influence park management decisions. Congress should
	be wary of ``incentivizing'' commercial filming fees for park managers
	to the degree that the attraction of the additional revenues colors
	decision making.

	NPCA's Recommendation

	The points of agreement reached during NPCA's workshop with the
	land managers, industry representatives and congressional staff
	represent a significant portion of our general recommendation for
	legislation as it continues to evolve. The need for certainty in
	building a schedule approach is compelling. We would recommend
	therefore that a base schedule be developed for assessing fees on an
	individual park basis that includes the following considerations: (1)
	physical footprint of the proposed filming event; (2) size of the crew
	required for the filming; (3) length of use of the park; and (4) the
	level of disturbance, both in terms of inconvenience to the visitor and
	intrusiveness of the use. All of these factors can be arranged in a
	schedule that would allow the industry certainty in the cost, and would
	allow the Park Service to streamline the process for consideration. In
	addition, all such fees should be assessed as supplementary to the
	direct and indirect cost of managing the use of the parks by the
	commercial filming industry, and separate from any bonding or insurance
	requirements.
	Thank you again for the opportunity to present NPCA's views on
	commercial filming in the national parks.
	------


	Statement of Clarence A. Bigelow, Manager-Clerk, St. Johns. Arizona

	Chairman Hansen & Members of the Committee:
	Thank you for this opportunity to testify. For the record,
	my nane is Clarence Bigelow. I currently serve as the County
	Manager for Apache County, Arizona.
	On behalf of our children, our parents and our schools, I
	offer the following in support of House Resolution 150.
	<bullet> The government and schools of Apache County, as well
	as other Eastern Arizona Counties, face increasing economic and
	fiscal hardship at a time of increased service demands. Small
	schools in our County are especially hard hit by dropping
	enrollments, which result in lower student revenues from the
	state at a time of high per student costs and increasing
	regulatory mandates.\1\ Drops in student enrollment can be
	attributed in large part to the 1990-1998 reduction in
	workforce, and January, 1999 closure of the Eagar, Arizona
	sawmill, as well as the decimation of the ranching industry.
	The timber and ranching industries are the traditional economic
	base of Apache County.
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	\1\ Mandates come from several areas, including evolving health and
	safety rules, facilities standards, nutritional requirements, and
	student performance criteria
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	<bullet> Smaller schools in Eastern Arizona Counties are
	located in communities surrounded by public lands, making it
	too expensive for these schools to acquire needed land in areas
	of limited tax base. For instance, the Alpine school in Apache
	County is surrounded by forest lands, which drives the full
	cash value of the limited private lands in its school districts
	to an average of $24,000 dollars per acre. Assuming that a
	minunum of ten acres is needed for buildings, expansion,
	parking, and playground facilities, it could cost Alpine
	$240,000 just for needed land. In comparison, the entire 1998/
	99 maintenance, operations, and capital tax levy for Alpine is
	$324,000.
	Fortunately, thanks to the diligent efforts of Congressman
	J.D. Hayworth, Alpine recently received a land conveyance to
	assist its efforts to upgrade. Unfortunately, other schools
	such as Vernon in Apache County continue to face high annual
	student costs, unsatisfactory land space, and unsafe conditions
	for students.\2\ This legislation would help schools such as
	Vernon to relocate away from high traffic areas, develop safe
	and adequate facilities, and ensure the school's future; it
	will also be very beneficial to the Round Valley School
	District in Apache County, which is bordered by the U.S.
	Forest.
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	\2\ Annual student costs in Vernon are approximately $894,000
	dollars for 77 students.
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Schools and other local government facilities located on
	leased public lands are also a serious concern for Eastern
	Arizona Counties. Navajo County, Arizona, for example, is faced
	with the possible expensive purchase of 640 acres of public
	lands that schools are located on. Greenlee County, Arizona has
	at least two schools (Blue and Eagle Creek) located on leased
	forest lands, with only 160 private parcels in their collective
	tax base.\3\ One of Gila County, Arizona's major schools is
	located in a County Supervisor's district that has less than 1
	percent of private property within the Supervisor's district,
	with the rest being untaxable public lands.
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	\3\ 72 private parcels for Blue and 94 for Eagle Creek
	---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Faced with these challenges, it is clear that passage of this
	legislation would help these Counties immensely in their
	efforts to ensure the stability of their schools, and create
	the ability for poor school districts to generate needed
	revenues from school owned lands.
	Apache County has obligations to maintain over 930 miles of
	roads on our public lands and over 900 miles of roads on the
	Navajo Nation for school bus routes and emergency vehicle
	access. Hopefully, passage of this legislation may make it
	possible for local governments to receive assistance to
	maintain these roads.
	In conclusion, as you deliberate on the passage of House Resolution
	150, please keep in mind the economic and fiscal devastation facing
	rural Counties as a result of too many regulations, and an overwhelming
	volume of lawsuits related to the environment and endangered species.
	While we feel that this bill is critical for schools and local
	governments, it is our hope that you will also address in separate
	actions the more serious issues of regulation, litigation, and
	Endangered Species reform.
	Thank you.
	______

	Statement of Arthur N. Lee, County Supervisor, Apache County, Arizona
	Thank you for this opportunity to testify. For the record, my name
	is Arthur N. Lee, County Supervisor from Apache County, Arizona.
	On behalf of Apache County and the Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico
	Counties for Stable Economic Growth, I come before you today in support
	of House Resolution 150. For several years now, our Counties' mountain
	community schools have suffered economic hardship. Dropping enrollments
	are common, as logging, ranching, and mining families are forced by
	regulations and court decisions to move out of the towns they grew up
	in. In Apache and Greenlee County alone, at least five school districts
	(Alpine, Blue, Eagle Creek, Vernon, and Round Valley) face this
	problem.
	The result of losing these families is a drop in bonding capacity,
	school property tax revenues, and in-school student revenues. With this
	loss of funds and bonding ability, our mountain schools are in many
	cases unable to acquire property critical to the service of their
	students. This happened to the Alpine school, which is in my County
	Supervisors District. Fortunately, with the assistance of Congressman
	J. D. Hayworth, we were able to get a grant of land for them.
	In the Round Valley area, we just lost the Eagar sawmill, the
	largest remaining sawmill in the Southwest. Due to the forced
	elimination of timber harvesting, they were forced to permanently close
	the mill and lay off the 70 remaining workers. When the mill ran at
	full capacity in 1989, it directly and indirectly employed almost 700
	people, including mill workers, loggers, timber haulers, etc. While
	hope remains that good sense will return the harvesting of timber in
	time to save our forests from catastrophic fire and save our mill, it
	is equally important to save our cattle industry.
	As a result of the loss of the timber and cattle industries, more
	families will move out of our school districts, which will force the
	schools to lay off teachers, cut critical programs, and cripple the
	quality of our children's education.
	Mr. Chairman, the problems I have described to you are happening to
	schools in many rural Arizona and New Mexico Counties, as a result of
	lawsuits and environmental regulations that continue to shut down our
	economic base industries, destroy our way of life, and ruin the
	education of our children. For example, the Blue and Eagle Creek
	schools in Greenlee County, Arizona are located on public forest lands.
	The loss of ranching and timber families has forced these schools to
	periodically close, and they live in constant fear that their schools'
	land leases will not be renewed. In Navajo County, Arizona, costs of
	regulations for schools on public lands drive the costs of education up
	at a time of increasing uncertainty. In Gila County, Arizona, only 3.8
	percent of their total land base is private property, with some school
	districts located in areas with less than 1 percent private property.
	The ability of these schools to receive a grant of land would give them
	more security, and improve their financial situation.
	The passage of this bill should also help many school districts
	lower their expenses by eliminating those schools' need to lease
	property, lower the cost of building expansion, and provide quality
	outdoor educational opportunities for our children. In addition, local
	governments can benefit from greater social stability, and expansion of
	essential community services.
	Mr. Chairman, for the sake of our children, our families, and our
	schools, we urge that you pass House Resolution 150.
	Thank you for your time.
	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.001

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.002

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.003

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.004

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.005

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.006

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.007

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.008

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.009

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.010

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.011

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.012

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.013

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.014

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.015

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.016

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.017

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.018

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.019

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.020

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.021

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.022

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.023

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.024

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.025

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.026

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.027

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.028

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.029

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.030

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.031

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.032

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.033

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.034

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.035

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.036

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.037

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.038

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.039

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.040

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.041

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.042

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.043

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.044

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.045

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.046

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.047

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.048

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.049

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.050

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.051

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.052

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.053

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.054

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.055

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.056

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.057

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4691.058

	<all>
	</pre></body></html>