[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 139 (Wednesday, October 7, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11700-S11704]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
        Breaux, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Cochran, Ms. 
        Mikulski, and Mr. Sessions):
  S. 2566. A bill to provide Coastal Impact Assistance to State and 
local governments, to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 
Amendments of 1978, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 
the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act, and the Federal Aid in 
Wildlife Restoration Act (commonly referred to as the Pittman-Robertson 
Act) to establish a fund to meet the outdoor conservation and 
recreation needs of the American people, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


         reinvestment and environmental restoration act of 1998

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I begin by thanking my colleague from 
Louisiana Senator Breaux, a cosponsor on this measure, as well as 
Senator Murkowski, Senator Lott, Senator D'Amato, Senator Cleland, 
Senator Johnson, Senator Cochran, Senator Sessions and Senator Mikulski 
as cosponsors of this measure, and also thank the many leaders on the 
House side that are today introducing this bill on the House side.
  Surely, with the time so short, we will not be considering this bill 
in this session, but we plan for a very lively debate as the 106th 
Congress meets in January on this very important piece of environmental 
legislation for our country.
  I will take a few minutes to outline in a highlighted form what this 
bill will attempt to do, something that we have worked on, a group of 
us, earnestly and very excitedly for the last year. Then my colleague 
from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, will say a few words about the bill.
  This is the Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act of 1998. 
It is going to attempt to take 50 percent of the moneys that are now 
flowing into the Federal Treasury from offshore oil and gas revenues--
which have been very significant; $120 billion since 1955--and 
redistribute those revenues in a smarter way, in a better way, and in a 
way that our country can be proud of.
  We are going to ask that 27 percent of those revenues be distributed 
to coastal States for coastal conservation impact assistance, 16 
percent to fund more fully the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and 7 
percent to fund the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Act. These 
are the major titles of this bill. Let me very briefly hit on each one.
  I am from Louisiana, a State that has supported, proudly supported, 
oil and gas drilling and exploration. It has created many jobs in our 
State. We try to do it in a more environmentally sensitive way each and 
every year, and every decade we make tremendous progress. Other States 
like Texas, Mississippi, and to a certain degree, Alabama, although not 
as much, and Alaska, join in that effort.
  There are many States that do not have drilling and many States that 
have a moratorium on drilling. This bill is not a pro-drilling bill or 
anti-drilling bill. The purpose is to say that the production of those 
resources off the shores of our States, although they are offshore, 
have tremendous impact--both positive and negative--on the States that 
host drilling.
  Louisiana has contributed since the 1950s over 90 percent of these 
revenues that I spoke about, the $120 billion, and we have gotten less 
than 1 percent back. It is time to correct that inequity. That is what 
the first title of this bill does. It says to Louisiana, thank you for 
your commitment to our energy security and for the way that you have 
contributed to this oil and gas drilling. We believe that some of this 
money should go back to help your State and the coastal areas to shore 
up our wetlands and to reinvest in our environment. That is Title I of 
this bill. It will distribute funds to all coastal States, whether they 
have drilling or not.
  As I said, there are no incentives; there are no disincentives. It is 
a revenue-sharing bill to all the coastal States. These revenues are 
collected from a nonrenewable resource. One day these oil and gas wells 
will be dried up. It might be 10 years from now or 20 years from now, 
but some day they will be dried up, and we want to make sure that a 
portion of this money is reinvested back into our States for 
environmental infrastructure and wetland conservation so that we have 
something to show for it.
  The second part of this bill amends the Land and Water Conservation 
Act in an attempt to restore this fund, or to more fully fund it. I 
will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an excerpt 
from an editorial from the New York Times on this subject.
  I will read the first short paragraph of this editorial.

       More than 30 years ago, Congress passed a quiet little 
     environmental program that offered great promise to future 
     generations of Americans. Conceived under Dwight Eisenhower, 
     proposed by John F. Kennedy and signed into law by Lyndon 
     Johnson, the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund was 
     designed to provide a steady revenue stream to preserve 
     ``irreplaceable lands of natural beauty and unique 
     recreational value.'' Royalties from offshore oil and gas 
     leases would provide the money, giving the program an 
     interesting symmetry. Dollars raised from depleting one 
     natural resource would be used to protect another.

  The problem is, this promise was never fulfilled. That is what the 
second title of this bill will do. It seeks to make this promise real 
for our families, for our children, and for the next generation. It 
will take, as I said, 16 percent of these revenues to almost fully fund 
the State side and the Federal side of the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund. It will provide a reliable and steady stream of revenue to do 
just that.
  Let me share with you that on the Federal side in only 6 out of the 
last 33 years have we really lived up to the promise that we made to 
the land and water conservation side. On the State side, the funding 
record has been even more dismal. Only 1 year out of 33 years since 
this Land and Water Conservation Fund was enacted did we live up to 
that promise. So title II happens to fully restore funding so that we 
can plan and count on these moneys to help expand our parks and our 
recreation for our children and families in rural and urban areas 
around this great country.
  Finally, title III is a new title, a new chapter, but an attempt to 
sort of weave together some of the attempts by my colleague, Senator 
Breaux, and others to improve the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration 
Act. I believe it makes little sense to spend all of our money in this 
area on the back end, after species have become endangered. Then we 
have problems not only

[[Page S11701]]

with the species in question but with property rights. We have 
questions with economies that can be very negatively affected when 
industries have to move out or can't proceed because of this.
  So we believe it is time to start investing some money on the front 
end. That is what this title does--helping species, helping States to 
give educational and technical assistance to stop these species from 
becoming endangered, and therefore saving the taxpayers a lot of money 
and local economies a lot of anguish, and to give some much-needed 
revenue to our State wildlife agencies around this country.
  So those are generally the titles of the bill.
  I just want to say that it is high time that we live up to the 
promise made 30 years ago, and we can do that by more wisely spending 
this money. It makes no sense to take 100 percent of these revenues and 
spend them on Federal operating expenses that have nothing to do with 
our environment, or with this promise that was made, or with our 
investments in future generations. It is time not just for Louisiana, 
Texas, Alaska, and Mississippi, who have contributed so much to this 
industry, but also it is high time for all of our States to benefit in 
a more direct way than they are currently. This is a wiser fiscal 
policy, it is a much wiser environmental policy, and it most certainly 
is an idea whose time has come.
  To reiterate, the Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act of 
1998 will go farther than any legislation to date to make good on 
promises that were made to the people of this country decades ago. In 
addition, it will begin to right a wrong endured by oil and gas 
producing states for over 50 years, particularly for the states along 
the Gulf of Mexico, and my state of Louisiana.
  The Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act first provides a 
guaranteed source of funding equal to twenty-seven percent of all Outer 
Continental Shelf revenues for Coastal Impact Assistance to states to 
offset the impacts of offshore oil and gas activity, as well as to non-
producing states for environmental purposes. This funding goes directly 
to States and local governments for improvements in air and water 
quality, fish and wildlife habitat, wetlands, or other coastal 
resources, including shoreline protection and coastal restoration. 
These revenues to coastal states will help offset a range of costs 
unique to maintaining a coastal zone. The formula is based on 
population, coastline and proximity to production.
  Second, the bill provides a permanent stream of revenue for the State 
and Federal sides of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as well as 
for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program. Under the bill, 
funding to the LWCF becomes automatic at sixteen percent of annual 
revenues. Receiving just under half this amount, the state side of LWCF 
will provide funds to state and local governments for land acquisition, 
urban conservation and recreation projects, all under the discretion of 
state and local authorities. Since its enactment in 1965, the LWCF 
state grant program has funded more than 37,000 park and recreation 
projects throughout the nation, including in Louisiana the Joe Brown 
Park Development in New Orleans, the Baton Rouge Animal Exhibit, the 
Veterans Memorial Park in Point Barre and the Northwestern State 
University Recreation Complex in Natchitoches. The Urban Parks program 
would enable cities and towns to focus on the needs of its populations 
within our more densely inhabited areas with fewer greenspaces, 
playgrounds and soccer fields for our youth. Stable funding, not 
subject to appropriations, will provide greater revenue certainty to 
state and local planning authorities.
  A stable baseline will be established for Federal land acquisition 
through the LWCF at a level higher than the historical average over the 
past decade. Federal LWCF will receive just under half of the amount in 
this title of the bill. And, nothing in this bill will preclude 
additional Federal LWCF funds to be sought through the annual 
appropriations process. Some very worthy national projects that have 
received funding in the past include the Atchafalaya National Wildlife 
Refuge in Louisiana, the Mississippi Sandhill Crane Wildlife Refuge, 
the Cape Cod National Seashore, Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota 
and the Sterling Forest in New Jersey. Federal LWCF dollars will be 
used for land acquisition in areas which have been and will be 
authorized by Congress. The bill will restore Congressional intent with 
respect to the LWCF, the goal of which is to share a significant 
portion of revenues from offshore development with the states to 
provide for protection and public use of the natural environment.
  Finally, the wildlife conservation and restoration provision includes 
guaranteed funding of seven percent of annual OCS revenues for wildlife 
habitat protection, conservation education and de-listing of endangered 
species. Moreover, this funding may be used by states for habitat 
preservation and land acquisition of wintering habitat for important 
species, therefore preventing listings under the Endangered Species 
Act.
  While we are proud of the accomplishment represented by the 
introduction of this bill, I feel compelled to mention other interests 
that are not included in the legislation, but for which I maintain a 
strong level of support and commitment. The National Historic 
Preservation Fund is an important authorized use for Outer Continental 
Shelf revenues. In fact, I introduced legislation earlier this year to 
reauthorize the fund for its continued viability and vitality. We see 
the Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act as a starting point 
for debate and consideration of additional issues. I would like to work 
with proponents of historic preservation over the course of the year to 
see their needs addressed in the future. This would include similar 
consideration for Historic Battlefield Preservation, which is important 
to other members in this body. I also wish to work with other groups to 
address their concerns about other provisions in the bill having to do 
with formulas. Indeed, this is a measure that should enjoy broad 
support, and I want to continue to work with groups to that end.
  Mr. President, all three portions of the bill will effectively free 
up State resources which in turn may then be used for other pressing 
local needs. The Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act is a 
perfect opportunity to reinvest in our nation's renewable resources for 
the benefit of our children's future and our grandchildren's future. It 
is an idea whose time has come. I urge my colleagues to carefully 
consider this proposal.
  Mr. President, I thank Chairman Murkowski, and I thank the majority 
leader, Senator Lott, for all of their help in making this legislation 
possible.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill and New York Times editorial be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
  [The bill was not available for printing. It will appear in a future 
issue of the Record]

                [From the New York Times, June 16, 1997]

                      Revive the Conservation Fund

       More than 30 years ago, Congress passed a quiet little 
     environmental program that offered great promise to future 
     generations of Americans. Conceived under Dwight Eisenhower, 
     proposed by John F. Kennedy and signed into law by Lyndon 
     Johnson, the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund was 
     designed to provide a steady revenue stream to preserve 
     ``irreplaceable lands of natural beauty and unique 
     recreational value.'' Royalties from offshore oil and gas 
     leases would provide the money, giving the program an 
     interesting symmetry. Dollars raised from depleting one 
     natural resource would be used to protect another.
       Since its inception, the fund has helped acquire seven 
     million acres of national and state parkland and develop 
     37,000 recreation projects. Its notable triumphs include the 
     Cape Cod National Seashore, the New Jersey Pinelands National 
     Reserve and Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota. But the 
     program fell apart during the Reagan Administration and has 
     yet to recover. Of the $900 million that has flowed to the 
     fund from oil and gas royalties each year since 1980, 
     Congress has seen fit to appropriate only a third, and in 
     some years far less. The rest has simply disappeared into the 
     Treasury, allocated for deficit reduction.
       The biggest losers have been the states. Over time, 
     appropriations have been split about evenly between Federal 
     and state conservation projects. But for two years running, 
     not a dime has gone to the states--again for budgetary 
     reasons. This has been hard on New York, which needs Federal 
     help to buy valuable open space threatened by development in 
     the Adirondacks and elsewhere.

[[Page S11702]]

       Now, quite suddenly, this legislative stepchild has 
     acquired a bunch of new friends. As part of the recent budget 
     deal, Republican leaders agreed to add $700 million to the 
     $166 million that President Clinton has requested for the new 
     fiscal year. The Republicans had been getting heat from 
     governors back home and saw a chance to polish their 
     environmental image. For his part, Mr. Clinton needed about 
     $315 million to complete two important Federal purchases, 
     both strongly supported by this page--$65 million to develop 
     on his pledge to buy the New World Mine on the edge of 
     Yellowstone National Park, the rest to acquire the Headwaters 
     Redwood Grove in California from a private lumber company.
       That would still leave several hundred million dollars for 
     other Federal projects and for the states--but only if the 
     House and Senate appropriations committees honor the outlines 
     of the budget deal and commit to sizable share of the money 
     to state projects. State officials have been descending upon 
     Washington in recent days to plead their cased. Gov. George 
     Pataki has written every member of Congress and, last week, 
     the New York State Parks Commissioner, Bernadette Castro, 
     testified at hearings convened by Senator Frank Murkowski of 
     Alaska.

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana and 
congratulate her for all the effort she has put forth in bringing this 
legislation to this point.
  I have been in Congress for a long time--something like 26 years now, 
in the House and in this body--and I have never really seen a first-
term Member who has been so dedicated to a major legislative effort as 
has the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, in bringing this 
legislation to the floor of the U.S. Senate. Many Members, on their 
first day, have come in and introduced a bill, issued a press release, 
and then forgotten about it. This has been an effort by the Senator 
from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, of very carefully prodding and very 
carefully studying and working with Members on both sides of the aisle 
to put together a bipartisan coalition to bring this legislation to the 
floor of the Senate.
  While this is brought to the floor of the Senate in the last days of 
this session, we all know that there will be another day. The 
groundwork that she has laid in putting this package and this coalition 
together is going to be here in the next Congress. So in the next 
Congress we will start not from scratch but from the groundwork that 
she has laid in bringing this legislation to the point it is today.
  I congratulate her for the way she has done it. It is something that 
I have not seen by a new Member of the Congress in all of the years 
that I have been here. It is a major accomplishment on her part. I am 
very pleased to participate in it.
  Just a brief word on the legislation. I think it is a fair thing to 
do. Many non-coastal States have Federal property, owned 100 percent by 
the Federal Government, within their borders. When minerals are 
extracted or oil and gas are found on those Federal lands, the State in 
which those lands are located gets as much as 50 percent of the 
revenue. Coastal States, however, get nothing. That is clearly not 
fair. Offshore mineral development operations have a major impact on 
coastal Louisiana. These operations impact our roads, bridges and other 
infrastructure, our freshwater supply, our housing and other vital 
public resources. It is only fair that there be a reasonable sharing of 
those revenues with states that bear these kinds of burdens. The impact 
coastal states suffer is a burden borne for the good of the whole 
country and, without it, the whole country would suffer.
  Therefore, to share in a true partnership with the coastal States is 
certainly something that this Congress should favorably consider, and I 
think that we will because of what the Senator has been able to do in a 
bipartisan fashion. So while it is late this year, it is early for next 
year. The work that she has done this year will pay off next year.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators 
Landrieu and Lott, to introduce the Reinvestment and Environmental 
Restoration Act of 1998.
  This important piece of legislation remedies a tremendous inequity in 
the distribution of revenues generated by offshore oil and gas 
production by directing that a portion of those moneys be allocated to 
coastal States and communities who shoulder the responsibility for 
energy development activity off their coastlines. It also provides a 
secure funding source for state recreation and wildlife conservation 
programs.
  The OCS Impact Assistance portion of this bill is similar to 
legislation I have introduced in prior Congresses and is an issue I 
have worked on for my entire Senate career.
  Title 1 of the bill directs that a portion of the revenues generated 
from oil and natural gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf--or 
OCS--be returned to coastal States and communities that share the 
burdens of exploration and production off their coastlines.
  Offshore oil and gas production generates $3 to $4 billion in 
revenues annually for the U.S. Treasury. Yet, unlike mineral receipts 
from onshore Federal lands, OCS oil and gas revenues are not directly 
returned to the States in which production occurs.
  This legislation remedies this disparity. States and communities that 
bear the responsibilities for offshore oil and gas production will 
share in its benefits.
  This legislation would, for the first time, share revenues generated 
by OCS oil and gas activities with counties, parishes and boroughs--the 
local governmental entities most directly affected--and State 
governments.
  The bill also acknowledges that all coastal States, including those 
States bordering the Great Lakes, have unique needs and directs that a 
portion of OCS revenues be shared with these States, even if no OCS 
production occurs off their coasts.
  Coastal States and communities can use OCS Impact Assistance funds on 
everything from environmental programs, to coastal and marine 
conservation efforts, to new infrastructure requirements.
  In Alaska, local communities could use OCS funds to participate in 
the environmental planning process required by Federal laws before OCS 
development occurs.
  Other rural coastal communities in Alaska will use the money for 
sanitation improvements. While still others, like Unalakleet, will use 
the money to construct sea walls and breakwaters or beach 
rehabilitation--efforts which will combat the impacts of coastal 
erosion.
  This is money that will be used, day-in and day-out, to improve the 
quality of life on coastal State residents--money which comes from oil 
and gas production.
  Further, as the Federal OCS program expands in Alaska, this 
legislation will mean even more revenues to the State, boroughs and 
local communities.
  This is a true investment in the future.
  As Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I know all 
too well that offshore oil and gas production is a lightning rod for 
environmental groups who will go to great lengths to disparage an 
activity that is vital to the long-term energy and economic security of 
this country.
  These groups will likely say that this bill creates incentives for 
offshore oil and gas production because a factor in the distribution 
formula is a State's proximity to OCS production.
  Let us remember, this is an impact assistance bill--revenue sharing, 
if you will.
  States only will have impacts if they have production. The States 
with production, obviously, have greater needs and are most deserving 
of a larger share of OCS revenues.
  Mr. President, let me also remind everyone, that OCS production only 
occurs off the coasts of 6 States--yet the bill shares OCS revenues 
with 34 States.
  There are 28 coastal States that will get a share of OCS revenues 
which have no OCS production. In fact, in all areas except the Gulf of 
Mexico and Alaska there is a moratorium prohibiting any new OCS 
production.
  It is in the long-term best interest of this country to support 
responsible and sustainable development of nonrenewable resources.
  We now import more than 50 percent of our domestic petroleum 
requirements and the Department of Energy's Information Administration 
predicts, in ten years, America will be at least 64 percent dependent 
on foreign oil.
  OCS development will play an important role in offsetting even 
greater dependence on foreign energy.
  The OCS accounts for 24 percent of this Nation's natural gas 
production

[[Page S11703]]

and 14 percent of its oil production. We need to ensure that the OCS 
continues to meet our future domestic energy needs.
  I firmly believe that the Federal Government needs to do all it can 
to pursue and encourage further technological advances in OCS 
exploration and production.
  These technological achievements have and will continue to result in 
new OCS production having an unparalleled record of excellence on 
environmental and safety issues.
  Additional technological advances with appropriate incentives will 
further improve new resource recovery and therefore increase revenues 
to the Treasury for the benefit of all Americans who enjoy programs 
funded by OCS money.
  I will do all I can to ensure a healthy OCS program, including new 
OCS development in the Arctic.
  A number of challenges face new developments in this area--I am 
confident that we can work through them all.
  History has shown us that in the Arctic, and in other OCS areas, 
development and the environmental protection are compatible.
  This bill also takes a portion of the revenues received by the 
Federal Government from OCS development and invests it in conservation 
and wildlife programs.
  Thus, Titles II and III of the bill share OCS revenues with all 
States for such purposes.
  Title II of this bill provides a secure source of funding for the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund. The LWCF was established over three 
decades ago to provide Federal money for State and Federal land 
acquisition and help meet Americans' recreation needs.
  Over thirty years ago, Congress had the foresight to recognize the 
ever growing need of the American public for parks and recreation 
facilities with the passage of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
Act.
  That landmark piece of legislation was premised on the belief that 
revenues earned from the depletion of a nonrenewable resource need to 
be reinvested in a renewable resource for the benefit of future 
generations.
  This rationale is as valid today as it was in the mid-1960's.
  To accomplish this goal, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 
directs that revenues earned from offshore oil and gas production 
should be spent on the acquisition of Federal recreation lands by the 
land management agencies.
  The act also creates a state-side matching grant program.
  The state-side matching grant program provides 50-50 matching grants 
to States and local communities for the acquisition and construction of 
park and recreation facilities.
  The state-side program has a truly unique legacy in the history of 
American conservation by providing the States with a leadership role in 
the provision of recreation opportunities.
  Through the 1995 fiscal year, over 3.2 billion in Federal dollars 
have been leveraged to fund over 37,000 State and local park and 
recreation projects.
  Yet, despite these successes, the President had not requested any 
money for the state-side program for the last 4 years.
  This is a program supported by this Nation's mayors, Governors, and 
the recreation community.
  The state-side matching grant should not have to justify annually its 
existence with congressional appropriators.
  Title II makes this program self-sufficient and provides secure 
funding from OCS revenues.
  Title III of this bill provides funding for State fish and wildlife 
conservation programs.
  In Alaska, with its unparalleled natural beauty, fishing and hunting 
are two of the most popular forms of outdoor recreation.
  The bill directs that a portion of OCS revenues should go to the 
States for wildlife purposes.
  The money would be distributed through the Pittman-Robertson program 
administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Services.
  With the inclusion of OCS revenues, the amount of money available for 
State fish and game programs would nearly double.
  This is a no-tax alternative to the Teaming with Wildlife proposal.
  States will be able to use these monies to increase fish and wildlife 
populations and improve fish and wildlife habitat.
  States also could use the money for wildlife education programs.
  I am proud of this proposal which is a win-win for the oil and gas 
industry, the States, environmental and conservation groups, and all 
Americans.
  This bill will ensure not only that Coastal States have money to 
address the effects of OCS-activities but that all States have funds 
necessary to provide outdoor recreation and conservation resources for 
all of us today to enjoy.
  As we end the 105th Congress, I can pledge, as Chairman of the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee, that the enactment of this bill will 
be one of my highest priorities next year.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I join my 
colleagues, Senators Landrieu and Murkowski, in introducing the 
Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act.
  Mr. President, since the inception of the oil and gas program on the 
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), states and coastal communities have 
sought a greater share of the benefits from development. And why 
shouldn't they? These communities provide the infrastructure, public 
services, manpower and support industries necessary to sustain this 
development.
  Currently, the majority of OCS revenues are funneled into the Federal 
Treasury where they are used to pay for various federal programs and to 
reduce the deficit. While funding programs and reducing the deficit are 
certainly important, I believe that some percentage of the revenues 
should be reinvested in that which makes them possible.
  Our bill does that. The Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration 
Act diverts one-half of the OCS revenues from the Federal Treasury to 
coastal states and communities for a multitude of programs: air and 
water quality monitoring, wetlands protection, coastal restoration and 
shoreline protection, land acquisition, infrastructure, public service 
needs, state park and recreation programs and wildlife conservation.
  This bill allows states and communities to use these funds in 
whatever manner they deem appropriate. In Pascagoula, for example, 
authorities might choose to restore and secure the shoreline where 
years of sea traffic have taken their toll. Further north in Vancleave, 
they may choose instead to refurbish the roads and bridges that carry 
the heavy machinery coming and going from the coast. This bill provides 
a framework within which these localities can make the right decisions 
for their citizens and environment.
  Mr. President, I have been working on this issue for many, many 
years. As a coast dweller myself, I know the impact that the oil and 
gas industry can have on communities and the importance of reinvestment 
in these areas. This is not to say that the industry mistreats the 
states; on the contrary, they work very hard to comply with stringent 
environmental regulations and to take care of the community as best 
they can. The OCS Policy Committee said in 1993 that, despite the oil 
industry's best efforts, ``OCS development still can affect community 
infrastructure, social services and the environment in ways that cause 
concerns among residents of the coastal states and communities.''
  I know that there is no way to totally eliminate this impact on 
coastal communities. I also know that, while the benefits of a healthy 
OCS program are felt nationally, the infrastructure, environmental and 
social costs are felt locally. Our bill would put money back into the 
communities that need it most.
  It would also put money back into the environmental resources of the 
area. Exploration for non-renewable resources and stewardship of 
coastal resources are not mutually exclusive, but must be carefully 
balanced for both to be sustained. It is important that our wetlands, 
fisheries and water resources are taken into consideration and afforded 
adequate protection.
  In addition to propping up the states and coastal communities, our 
bill also provides funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
(LWCF). Over 30 years ago, Congress set up this fund to address the 
American public's

[[Page S11704]]

desire for more parks and recreational facilities. This bill makes the 
program self-sufficient, providing secure funding from the OCS 
revenues. This is an investment in our future--our land, our resources 
and our recreational enjoyment.
  Mr. President, our bill makes yet another investment with these OCS 
revenues--an investment in fish and wildlife programs. With the 
inclusion of OCS revenues, the amount of money available for state 
programs would nearly double. This is money that can be used to 
increase populations and improve habitat for fish and wildlife. It 
could even be used for wildlife education programs.
  Mr. President, this bill was carefully crafted to strike a balance 
between the needs and interests of the oil and gas industry, the 
states, and the environmental and conservation groups. It's a good 
package that will benefit all Americans, not just those who live and 
work in coastal areas. It will benefit hunters and anglers. It will 
benefit bird watchers and campers. It will benefit all Americans who 
take solace in the fact that the oil industry is taking care of the 
communities that support it.
  I appreciate the hard work of my colleagues and look forward to 
advancing this important legislation in the 106th Congress.
                                 ______