I have had the occasion to talk with members of the county boards of two of the counties that are involved-substantial holdings right now by the Department of the Interior in our State-Tuesday of this week, the day I left to come to Washington, and discussing the alternatives that we are thinking about here. They felt that particularly the either/or option feature, and there was not a House bill in existence at the time, was a substantial aiming at this thing. They said, "We like this." I interpret this to mean that as far as they are concerned, and probably the thinking of their board is that they would be removing their objection to the acquisition of land. The point still remains, though, where we would be with section (d). There still is a little bit of concern in the overall. I would like to extend, Mr. Chairman, if I may, my remarks at this point to answer Mr. Lennon's question one step further. Our concerns in the State association in the State of Minnesota, are two, the either/or option and the removal of section (d). So it is pretty obvious that as to the first half of this, the option situation, were this enacted into law, it would remove as to this point, the objection of our association, the united voice of the counties in our State. We cannot still the objection that might come from an individual person in the community affected, and that sort of thing, but our united voice would not be in opposition to that. Mr. THOMPSON. Would the gentleman from North Carolina yield? Mr. LENNON. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. I wonder how great a problem it would be in considering this 11008 recently introduced, how hard it would be for someone to make a poll, a qualified poll, among the counties involved, and there are three States at least-yours and the Dakotas-to furnish to this subcommittee qualified information as to the attitudes of the governing bodies there, under the bill as written? Mr. KEYES. Mr. Chairman, I can answer that only for Minnesota, because we do not have communication and the type of relationship we have in our State in the two Dakotas. I do not know whether they have central offices for their county associations. In our State, I understand 12 or 13 counties would be involved in the prospect of this whole program. Not only those where the land is being held now, but in the plans of the Department to acquire additional lands. This would not pose an impossible problem. The timetable probably is the major part of that question. How soon would the subcommittee have to have an answer? The county boards do not ordinarily meet in our State on a regular basis where I would be assured of an answer to our office in terms to communicate here until the early part of the month. Mr. THOMPSON. Would you then, from your own experience, indicate to this committee whether or not such legislation would remove nearly all of the objectionable points to such land acquisition? Mr. KEYES. I have to be a little bit conditioned in my answer to this respect, the removal of section (d) does pose a little problem, but as to the either/or situation, this is a major step forward in reducing the opposition of the counties in Minnesota to the acquisition of land. Mr. THOMPSON. You think that would be the same reflection observed in, say, the two Dakotas and similar Mr. KEYES. To the extent of my knowledge, I would say, yes, but it is measured by that. Mr. THOMPSON. Any further questions? Mr. DINGELL. I have a question. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Lennon has the floor. Will you yield to Mr. Dingell? Mr. LENNON. Yes. Mr. DINGELL. It was my understanding from Fish and Wildlife that under either of the two proposals, either H.R. 11008 or any of the other bills before us, that for the foreseeable future it is not anticipated that the payments to counties would exceed 50 percent of the total refuge receipts. Now, if this is so, do you gentlemen from the counties object to section (d)? Mr. KEYES. Mr. Chairman, attempting to answer your question, Mr. Dingell, I think our answer has to be involving a subtlety here, endorsing 11008, with section (d) in it. If we endorse it, we may have waived a concern and objection of ours, for the record. Mr. DINGELL. I say, if, within the foreseeable future, I am not talking about a hundred years hence, I am talking about the foreseeable future. We cannot anticipate the payments to the counties under these proposals will exceed 50 percent of refuge receipts, so do you still assert strong objections to section (d)? Mr. KEYES. I think we are speaking in relative terms, Mr. Dingell Mr. DINGELL. In other words, what I am saying is if under any logical assumption that this committee can make, there is going to be plenty of money to pay the counties, than how can you good gentlemen down there object to section (d)? Mr. LENNON. Now, will the gentleman yield back to me? Mr. DINGELL. I will be happy to. Mr. LENNON. That is why I say I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. Mr. DINGELL. I am only quoting what the Department of the Interior told us yesterday. All I am doing is acting on the assumption that the Interior Department knows what they are talking about and they told us yesterday that payments will not exceed 50 percent. I do not want to engage in argument. To me the answer is simple. If we can anticipate not enough money being available under this legislation to pay to the counties the moneys authorized, then obviously we are not being fair to the counties and I do not think I could support section (d), because it would be a deceitful practice for this committee to report that kind of legislation out. But if we are going to have enough money, and money that would meet the obligations of the Federal Government under any of this legislation, then I can see no objection to section (d) on the part of any of you gentlemen. Now, am I correct or incorrect? Mr. KEYES. There is a substantial part of your reasoning that I would endorse, Mr. Dingell. Mr. DINGELL. I am trying to deal fairly with you, but I want you to deal fairly with the committee. Mr. KEYES. We are trying to, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, and I was here yesterday and heard the testimony of the Department and my recollection is they anticipate $3 million of total receipts after Mr. DINGELL. The total disbursement under the other bills was about a million and a half dollars. Mr. KEYES. Yes, sir; and of that we are still considering that in the receipts would be, I believe, $1,100,000 that are coming from the gas and oil receipts attributable to the State of Louisiana. Mr. DINGELL. Yes. Mr. KEYES. You take this off the top, should anything happen to this, and I do not know whether it would happen or not. I am a prophet of doom at this point, sir. Mr. DINGELL. Here we are straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Now, that $1,100,000, I understand, is the figure you are going to take away. That still leaves $2,400,000. That is over a million in excess of the amount Interior anticipates is going to be paid to the counties in 10 years on a yearly basis. If that be so, how can you good gentlemen come forward and complain about section (d)? Mr. KEYES. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I think the differential is less than your figures, sir. Mr. DINGELL. I will tell you, Mr. Janzen is back there, and we can resolve this right now. Mr. Janzen, will you tell this committee how my mathematics is? Maybe I am wrong? Supposing you tell us now, Mr. Janzen, so we can get this issue straightened out right now. STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL H. JANZEN, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE; ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES T. McBROOM, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL SERVICES, BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE; ALBERT J. RISSMAN, CHIEF, DIVISION OF REALTY, BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE; WILLIAM E. ACKERKNECHT, ASSISTANT CHIEF, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE, BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE; AND DAVID B. FINNEGAN, ATTORNEY ADVISER, DIVISION OF LEGISLATION, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR-Resumed Mr. JANZEN. Mr. McBroom has the figures right here. Mr. McBROOM. Mr. Dingell, I have a table here which I can offer for the record if you would like to have that. Mr. DINGELL. I think it would be desirable. Mr. THOMPSON. We will have the table inserted in the record at this point, but if you will address yourself to the specific matters in the question of Congressman Dingell. (The table referred to follows:) Estimated land acquisition, cost, and refuge receipts as of June 30, 1968 (option plan) Estimated cost of 7-year program after June 30, 1963 Less 15 percent operating costs-- Cost of land____ Acres to be acquired--- Refuges___. Waterfowl production areas—fee----. Total fee.. Total fee easements. $122, 000, 000 18, 300, 000 103, 700, 000 2,503, 000 $835, 000 $1, 391, 000 79, 200, 000 Cost of fee purchases_. Estimated refuge receipts on lands acquired to June 30, 1963, for Estimated total refuge receipts for fiscal year 1968--- Estimated county payments (three-fourths of 1 percent value + 25 2, 350, 000 650, 000 3, 000, 000 1,077, 460 594, 000 Estimated total payments to counties for fiscal year 1968--- 1, 671, 460 Mr. McBROOM. Yes, sir. In fiscal year 1963, Mr. Chairman, our net receipts from the refuge system were $2,350,000. We estimate that the receipts from new lands henceforth to be bought in the next 4 years will be another $650,000, making a total of $3 million net receipts from those lands. The estimated county payments of three-quarters of 1 percent plus 25 percent of the receipts from public domain, or 25 percent of receipts, whichever is higher, the optional plan, on the acreage as of June 30, 1963, would be $1,077,460. We estimate that three-quarters of 1 percent on the value of our additional expenditures would be another $594,000, which would make a total estimated payment to the counties, after the 7-year program, of $1,671,460. I will repeat that we expect net revenues of $3 million. Mr. DINGELL. That is the best prognosis that the Department of Interior has. Do you gentlemen still strongly object to section (d)? Mr. KEYES. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, now can we apply to that one additional figure which is the heart of our concern? Mr. DINGELL. You are talking about the possibility of a loss of about $1,500,000 due to litigation which has impaired the Department of the Interior? Mr. KEYES. Yes, sir; or something happening to the production, either of them. Mr. DINGELL. Well, I think we are getting very far afield here. Mr. THOMPSON. If you reduce $3 million by that possibility you are still within bounds. Mr. DINGELL. You still have better than $600,000. Now, you gentlemen are as good at mathematics as I think I am, and understand these circumstances, it would appear to be as simple to you as it is to me, and it would appear, to me, that you have no honest objection that you can assert to this. Mr. KEYES. Mr. Chairman, let me try to state it once again. I think it results in only one thing, whether we ask for section (d) in, or we ask for section (d) out. If it is the opinion of the committee and the Congress that section (d) should be in, we still are going to support it ultimately. We cannot ask for section (d) to be in, sir. Mr. THOMPSON. The determination of this committee would then rest in confidence or lack of confidence in the figures given us by the Department of the Interior. Mr. MORTON. Mr. Chairman, the important thing here is the nature of this revenue. We are regarding this revenue as being something that is permanent and fixed. I wonder if we could get into the record here what the nature of the other fraction of the revenue is, outside of the other $1 million involved in this particular oil resource. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. McBroom, will you address yourself to that question? Mr. McBROOM. Yes, sir; I have figures here. I can also put this table in the record showing all of the receipts for the years 1959 through 1963. Mr. THOMPSON. Do these specifically show the type of receipts there are? Mr. McBROOM. Yes, sir. Mr. THOMPSON. Hunting, trapping, or farming? Mr. McBROOM. Yes, sir. Mr. THOMPSON. That should be made part of the record at this point without objection. (The table referred to follows:) Receipts From National Wildlife Refuge System Mr. THOMPSON. If you would, please, give Congressman Morton just what the nature of these receipts are and your opinion as to whether or not they will be continuing on about that scale. Mr. MORTON. I am trying to develop how good the revenue is. |