Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 12:17:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Competitive Enterprise Institute To: Recipients of the CEI List Subject: CEI List: Oct. Round-up LAND RIGHTS WASHINGTON ROUNDUP -- October Jonathan H. Adler The debate over Endangered Species Act (ESA) reform is heating up. Reps. Richard Pombo (R-CA) and Don Young (R-AK) introduced their long-awaited Endangered Species Act (ESA) reform proposal (HR 2275) to mixed reviews on September 7. As was to be expected, environmentalists and the administration are strongly opposed. Industry groups, for the most part, have been supportive, citing the fact that Young-Pombo contains a takings compensation provision, unlike the bill introduced in the Senate by Slade Gorton (R-WA). Inside-the-Beltway lobbyists believe that the Young-Pombo proposal is the strongest bill that could pass the House. Nonetheless, property rights folk have been lukewarm about the bill. The Grassroots ESA Coalition, the largest coalition active on any side of this issue, has withheld its support of the bill. Activists are concerned about the bills 20 percent threshold for regulatory takings (they prefer zero) and its continued reliance on land-use regulation for species conservation. In September hearings on the bill, the Coalition testified that it is still aiming for a non-regulatory approach to species conservation that would put an end to regulatory takings by the Fish and Wildlife Service. A non-regulatory bill (HR 2364) has been introduced by Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) with several co- sponsors, including House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) and the influential freshman David McIntosh (R-IN). On the other side, both Reps. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) and Jim Saxton (R-NJ) have pledged to introduce a more "moderate" reauthorization package. However at the moment it is not clear whether they will produce a single proposal together or work independently. Both feel that Young-Pombo is too extreme and oppose the inclusion of property rights protections in an ESA rewrite, however drafts of Gilchrest's proposal are too statist for Saxton. The news is worse on other fronts. Despite strong opposition from the property rights community, it appears that the push to create national heritage areas is picking up steam. Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO) has been working to get a bill through the House that would establish a standard procedure for designating heritage areas. A similar proposal was pushed by Rep. Bruce Vento (D-MN) in the last Congress. On September 12, Hefley's bill (HR 1280) was approved by a House Resources subcommittee by a vote of 6 to 4. The bill received the complete support of the subcommittee's Democrats. Voting in favor of the bill were Reps. Hefley, James Hansen (R-UT), Wayne Allard (R-CO), Peter Torkildsen (R-MA), Dale Kildee (D-MI), and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY). Voting against were Reps. Richard Pombo (R-CA), Barbara Cubin (R-WY), Helen Chenoweth (R-ID), and Wes Cooley (R-OR). Interesting to note is that heritage areas are likely to be designated in the districts of Reps. Allard, Torkildsen, and Hinchey, and some have suggested that this was the cause of their support. Rep. Hefley may be enraging property rights activists with his heritage proposal, but his National Park Service reorganization bill is more popular among property rights advocates. This bill would standardize the park service's operations and, more importantly, call for an inventory of the park service's land holdings and recommend what units should be sold or transferred to states. Returning some federal lands back to the states and the people is important if Congress is truly going to relimit the size of government. Rep. Hefley's proposal appeared to have strong support. A slightly less ambitious version of the proposal passed unanimously in the 103rd Congress. However partisan politics seem to be getting in the way in the 104th. Despite the support of influential Resource Committee Democrats like Rep. George Miller (D-CA) and Vento, the proposal has been opposed by the administration and environmental groups. On September 19, the bill failed to receive the necessary two-thirds vote required for passage under a suspension of the rules. However, Reps. Hefley, Hansen and others believe the bill will be revived and passed later this year. In other interesting news, several Senators, including Ted Stevens (R-AK), are very upset with James Lyons, Agriculture undersecretary for natural resources in the Clinton administration. Apparently Lyons has refused to fully implement the provisions included in the rescissions bill calling for increased salvage logging in national forests. Although President Clinton did sign the bill into law, the administration has been dragging its heels. To punish Lyons, Stevens proposed amending the 1996 agriculture appropriations bill to zero out Lyons' salary. Stevens backed off in the end, but it should be noted that such proposals are not unprecedented. Similar threats were made to Reagan administration officials in the 1980s. As a final note, expect the Senate to finally begin serious consideration of a property rights bill in October. The new-and- improved Dole bill (S 605) will be the subject of Judiciary Committee hearings and could be reported out of committee before the month is out. Jonathan H. Adler is Director of Environmental Studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. (202) 331- 1010; e-mail: cei@digex.com Washington Roundup is a monthly feature of the Land Rights Letter, a national newsletter dedicated to educating landowners about private property rights issues. It is published by the Land Rights Foundation, Inc., a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) educational corporation. (518) 725-1090; fax (518) 725-8239; e-mail landrights@aol.com