[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:
The National Park Service should recover all
``direct'' and ``indirect'' costs associated with commercial
filming projects within the National Park System.
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.
All fees collected (cost recovery and site) should be
retained by the Park Service, and should be available for
expenditure without further appropriation.
The filming industry needs to have certainty in the
permitting and fee determination process.
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.
A set fee schedule, based on the impact (footprint) of
the filming activity is an appropriate method for determining
site fees.
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.
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.
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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