and Hollings accepted the invitation and testified.118 In addition, at Senator Jackson's invitation, witnesses were asked to address, by testimony or written response, a series of questions regarding policy issues that were raised in discussions on S. 632.119 In all, 41 witnesses testified including governors, state legislators, experts in land use, conservationists, business leaders, members of the administration and academics.120
There was little discussion during the hearings involving whether or not a national land use policy was desirable; most witnesses acknowledged that the policy was necessary. Instead, the debate focused on specific issues such as the need for national policy guidelines, the desirability of sanctions, the appropriate level of funding, the allocation of funding to the states, property rights protection and the federal review of state plans.
One of the central issues addressed during the hearings dealt with the need for national policy guidelines.121 Three basic arguments were raised in favor of national land use guidelines. First, without guidance, states might adopt land use programs that could frustrate issues of national interest such as environmental protection and energy supplies. Second, without guidance, the defacto land use policy of the nation would be the equivalent of fifty different state land use
(Id. at 85.
(Background Papers II, supra note 64, at 81, 82.
(See, for example, statement by John Loftis, Jr., Vice President, Exxon Co., USA. "The federal role should not be to participate directly in land use planning ... but should be to provide broad guidelines or establish national goals to inform state land use planners of national needs." Hearings on S. 268 Before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 93d Congress, 1st Sess., at Part, 87 (hereinafter Senate Hearings S. 268).