Young holds House Resources Committee field hearing

Testimony provides mixed, but predictable response to two House bills

Tom Hall

PNA Staff Writer

Alaska Congressman Don Young came to Anchorage March 31 seeking comments and suggestions — from three panels of invited witnesses — on his Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 (H.R. 701), and another bill, the Resources 2000 Act (H.R. 798), sponsored by Rep. George Miller, D-Calif.

Miller’s proposal would “guarantee approximately $2.3 billion every year for the acquisition of public lands by the federal and state governments, restoration of national and urban parks, preservation of farmland and open space, preservation of historic buildings, and restoration of depleted fish and wildlife resources.”

Young’s bill proposes to “share federal outer continental shelf revenues with impacted states and support national conservation and wildlife education funding.” Young estimates that if his bill is enacted into law, Alaska stands to receive $149 million in Fiscal Year 2000 — $110 million for outer continental shelf impact assistance; $16 million for state land and water conservation fund projects; and $23 million for state wildlife conservation and education programs.

Federal distribution of revenues derived from OCS mineral leasing is at the core of both bills, but they differ in philosophy. Miller’s bill weighs in heavily for federal control and environmental protection, while Young’s gives more discretion to the states and requires two-thirds of funding for federal land acquisition to be spent east of the 100th meridian.

The 12 witnesses, 11 of whom gave oral summaries of written testimony, represented a cross section of interest groups in the state as well as the executive and legislative branches of state government. Understandably, the various interests backed the bill that supported their particular goals.

• Environmentalists and conservationists favored the Resources 2000 Act over Young’s bill (although they praised his efforts) because of the generous authority granted to the Interior Secretary and the stronger emphasis on environmental concerns;

• private landowners (especially inholders) and the state House and Senate leadership roundly rejected Congressman Miller’s bill and gave grudging support to Young’s bill (with changes to the federal and state land acquisition provisions);

• speaking on behalf of the Alaska Federation of Natives, Nelson Angapak, referring to the federal sharing of OCS funds with the most affected states, called Young’s bill “a step in the right direction,” but he also urged protection of subsistence resources for rural resources;

• Alaska State Senator Robin Taylor submitted personal testimony and testimony on behalf of majority of the Alaska House and Senate membership. Rejecting H.R. 798 outright, they criticized Young’s legislation because funds went straight to the governor.

• Taylor, and other inholders, took Young to task on the federal and state land acquisition provisions saying that only one-third of 1 percent of Alaska’s lands are privately owned and, if anything, the state and federal governments should be selling off some of what they now own;

• and, the strongest support for Young’s bill came from the state and BP Exploration (Alaska).

While Young’s bill has broad bipartisan support and enjoys the prospect of safe passage through his House Resources Committee, the fate of Miller’s H.R. 798 is less certain. Young in his opening remarks cautioned that although well intentioned, the Resources 2000 bill did not contain a direct revenue sharing component. “This is absolutely vital to any legislation which ultimately must move through my (House Resources) committee,” said Young.