[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 154 (Thursday, November 6, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11856-S11857]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to chat very briefly in 
morning business concerning a matter that has come before the Senate 
from time to time that is of great interest to those of us in the 
Western States. That is the national issue of what is termed ``Teaming 
With Wildlife.''
  The Teaming With Wildlife initiative has grown, and those of us in 
the West recognize that we are very fortunate in having probably the 
best area on Earth to fish, hunt, and explore the great outdoors. I 
know the occupant of the Chair from the State of Oregon, and myself 
from the State of Alaska, are great boosters of that great outdoors 
with unsurpassed natural beauty and wildlife, particularly the Western 
States. I am not suggesting other States don't have the same. But 
perhaps ours is a little larger and the magnitude is a little greater. 
But we have extraordinary natural beauty, wildlife, and I particularly 
look forward every time I am back home in Alaska to enjoy the outdoors.
  As chairman of the committee with jurisdiction overseeing our public 
lands in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I am well aware 
that this bounty we enjoy doesn't come free. It takes huge sums of 
money to acquire and maintain our legacy of public lands which we 
enjoy. That is why I support providing additional funds to the States 
for all outdoor recreation programs, including fish and wildlife 
conservation.
  This brings me to the goals associated with the Teaming With Wildlife 
proposal, which I support along with many Alaskans, and I know many of 
my colleagues in this body. But I would like to point out some of the 
concerns because in the enthusiasm for Teaming With Wildlife some of 
these things are overlooked. So let me share a few of them with you.
  Mr. President, the proposal advanced by the International Association 
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies would impose a new tax on the American 
people where that connection between the products being taxed and the 
use of the tax revenue in some cases is tenuous, to say the least.
  Mr. President, for decades hunters and anglers have worked very well 
in contributing to the management, conservation, and restoration of 
wildlife habitat and fisheries resources through an excise tax imposed 
at the manufacturing level. These targeted taxes have been a resounding 
success for one reason. That reason, Mr. President, is there is a 
direct link between the items taxed and the use of the tax revenue.
  The Pittman-Robertson Act, for example, imposes an excise tax on 
sporting arms, on handguns, on ammunition and archery equipment. The 
Wallop-Breaux fund does basically the same thing with fishing equipment 
and motorboat fuel. Money raised from this generates revenue that goes 
directly back in enhancing fishing and motoring in our various lakes 
and waterways. So States use the resulting tax revenue for the purchase 
and restoration of public wildlife habitat, and wildlife management 
research. Hunters like myself don't mind at all paying the extra tax on 
rifles and shells because we know that the revenue will be spent on 
increasing and improving habitat where we can hunt and recreate.
  Yet, the direct link--this is the key, Mr. President--between the 
items taxed and the use of the resulting tax revenue is broader in the 
Teaming With Wildlife proposal. That legislative proposal would result 
in a tax being imposed on virtually everything from backpacks to tents, 
from hiking boots to sports utility vehicles, from film to binoculars. 
The revenue would be used by States for a worthwhile purpose, which I 
support, of wildlife research planning, fishing and wildlife-associated 
recreation, and research projects.
  But the facts are that while many of the items being taxed would be 
used in the great outdoors to benefit the expanded use of the outdoors, 
many of these products would not. We looked at a 1995 survey by the 
Sports Market Research Group that indicates that 69 percent of all 
backpacks sold--you might think they are going for camping--are used by 
schoolchildren while 27 percent of all sleeping bags sold are for 
indoor use. Is that a fair tax to those consumers?
  Some suggest a new tax is not needed when an existing program could 
meet many of the needs for outdoor recreation resources throughout the 
Nation. Over 30 years ago, we created in Congress the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, the LWCF, for the sole purpose of meeting America's 
needs for outdoor recreation, including the acquisition of property for 
fish and wildlife conservation purposes. Money in the fund would come 
from offshore oil and gas royalties--OCS activities off the shores of 
our various coastal States.
  Up to 60 percent of the $900 million annually available is to be 
passed on to

[[Page S11857]]

the States. Unfortunately, the States have not received any money from 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the past 4 years. And many in 
this body have even forgotten the benefits of the program. What we have 
done with that money is use it to reach our budget objectives, solely 
ignoring the purpose of the program. I think we should do more to 
encourage the States to support offshore oil and gas development in a 
responsible manner using our science and technology. As evidence is the 
tremendous development occurring in the Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana, 
Texas, and other areas. Perhaps we could by guaranteeing States some 
portion of the revenue from OCS activities. That would instill a sense 
of belonging and a sense of interest that those States currently don't 
have.

  Further, a portion of the Federal mineral receipts perhaps could be 
set aside in a dedicated permanent fund and the income generated from 
the fund could be passed on to the States in the form of matching 
grants for outdoor recreation. In many State parks in the West, 
including my State of Alaska, land was purchased with money from the 
land and water conservation Fund. And much of what Teaming with 
Wildlife seeks to accomplish should be done with funds generated from 
such areas. I think offshore oil and gas development would gain us a 
broader support necessary to pass legislation such as Teaming with 
Wildlife, and I think we must explore fully using existing funding 
resources to help meet these laudable goals because I fear that we are 
going to have a hard time differentiating just what portion is a 
legitimate tax on this broad area, as I have indicated before that we 
have identified, including sleeping bags, film, binoculars, hiking 
boots, and so forth.
  I encourage those who are interested to help us as we address 
responsibly how to fund equitably for this purpose of Teaming with 
Wildlife that, indeed, addresses those who are active in utilizing the 
great outdoors and purchase legitimate items that can be legitimately 
attached without getting into the situation where we are in dispute 
over the portion and the formula and the use.
  So as chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 
I am committed to help bringing the States together to meet the growing 
demand for fish and wildlife habitat, for outdoor recreation resources, 
and I certainly encourage all Alaskans to join me in providing input on 
what we think is a fair and workable method to raise funds for the 
great outdoors and not overlooking the intention of the land and water 
conservation fund which has been, I think it is fair to say, observed 
by the budgeteers as a place to pick up significant funding to meet 
some of our budget obligations.
  So I thank my colleagues for their indulgence and encourage everyone 
to work in a positive manner to meet the challenges associated with 
Teaming with Wildlife for a fair and equitable funding mechanism.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________