19 



stood historically by the way we make land use decisions in this 

 society. 



The real issue, I think, is the perception of fairness, whether it 

 is a State government or local government or whether we are deal- 

 ing with wetlands or whether we are dealing with endangered spe- 

 cies or whatever else it may be, a sense that the regulatory burden 

 is reasonably related to a common objective that has benefits for 

 all landowners and the larger society. I think that is an area where 

 we need to spend more attention, and I believe you will see that 

 response forthcoming or at least, from my department, on the regu- 

 latory side. 



Land use has traditionally been a responsibility of State and es- 

 pecially local governments, and I think that is just a way of saying 

 that the best place to work these problems out really is by defer- 

 ring as much as we possibly can and working with State and local 

 officials. 



Mr. GiLCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. 

 Chairman. 



Mr. Studds. Thank you. 



The gentleman from North Carolina. 



Mr. Taylor of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am just taken 

 aback. I am sitting here nearly speechless. 



Mr. Secretary, I did not realize that you were going to get into 

 such deep philosophical areas, the meaning of life and the Judeo- 

 Christian ethic as it relates to environment. The questions and an- 

 swers coming forth here today could be inserted in the synopsis for 

 the great books. I am almost in awe of what to ask. 



I am ashamed. I mean, I have been sitting here thinking about 

 such mundane things as private property rights and the scientific 

 understanding of environments. 



Mr. Studds. You should be totally relieved to know these pro- 

 ceedings will be published. 



Mr. Taylor of North Carolina. I will have to say that I was 

 on a different level. I have been exposed to the Secretary, and I ap- 

 preciate his coming; we have had good conversations, but I had not 

 seen this side of you, as when you were President of the League 

 of Conservation Voters and you had to deal with more, shall we 

 say, political and mundane things. 



But I appreciate the Act, and I appreciate what you have said 

 about it and what Chairman Dingell said about it. I think it is the 

 approach we should be taking. There may be specific things that 

 I have to ask about, and I may do that now in writing, but I think 

 it is an approach that is good in the sense that it does bring in par- 

 ticipation of local communities rather than the bureaucratic-struc- 

 tured approach. I hope it can be done with limited Federal funds 

 working together with private and local funds that are obtained, so 

 that the Federal Government does not overwhelm it, that it is such 

 a good idea we have to start throwing so much money into it that 

 we forget about the voluntary sale of property and the focus on get- 

 ting meaningful lands in the program — the Government is prone to 

 do that. When something works they just love it to death with bil- 

 lions. I think that is something to be concerned about. But by and 

 large I appreciate what you have said about this approach toward 

 protecting wildlife. 



