[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 140 (Thursday, October 8, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1954-E1956]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   H.R. 4717: DRAFT OF THE CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. DON YOUNG

                               of alaska

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, October 7, 1998

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, since July 17, 1998, Congressman 
John Dingell, W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Richard Baker, Chris John, and I 
have been circulating a discussion draft and asking for comments to 
help further this legislative proposal. Our proposal is based on the 
idea that funds derived from outer continental shelf or OCS activities 
should be shared with coastal states impacted by the development, as 
well as reinvested into conservation. Today, we, along with several of 
our colleagues, will be introducing H.R. 4717.
  To set the stage we must digress to the topic of oil and gas revenues 
paid to the Federal Treasury by companies involved in producing the 
federal mineral estate. Currently, would-be oil and gas operators on 
our public lands, and in federal waters, must bid for a

[[Page E1955]]

lease at auction, pay rent on this tract if successful with their bid, 
and pay a royalty on each cubic foot of natural gas and barrel of oil 
produced. The receipts from oil and gas development onshore, in states 
like New Mexico and Wyoming, are shared with the state which hosts the 
federal lease. Generally, half of the revenues the federal government 
receives from mineral development is shared with these public and land 
states.
  However, oil and gas produced in the federal waters of the OCS is not 
shared in this manner with adjacent states. There have been numerous 
attempts to address this inequity. Most have failed at the hands of 
large states like California and Florida with the help of the 
environmental community opposed to OCS revenue-sharing because they 
perceived it as incentive for new oil and gas production. One of the 
first negotiations took place between Louisiana Governor Earl Long and 
President Truman. Governor Long has a long history of quotable and 
embellished stories, but this one is told as follows: Governor Long 
approached President Truman regarding the issue of revenue from 
offshore drilling with his state of Louisiana. President Truman, 
sympathetic, came back with an offer of 50% of the revenues to be 
shared with impacted adjacent states, such as Louisiana. Governor Long, 
in typical Earl Long style replied that if Louisiana could not get its 
due of 100%, it wanted nothing at all. And since that day Louisiana and 
the other coastal states received just that.
  Which brings us to where we are today. With more than 90% of the 
offshore federal production occurring off the coast of Louisiana, no 
state is more energized when this issue of revenue sharing is brought 
up. Past proposals had formulas which favored producing coastal states 
such as Louisiana and Texas, which have been supportive of responsible 
development of OCS oil and gas resources. Some previous proposals even 
penalized states like Florida and California who annually seek a 
moratorium on OCS leasing. Not so, this time. We all realize the 
necessity of keeping our large states supportive of in order to have 
major legislation passed into law.
  It seems appropriate to thank those individuals and groups involved 
with this bill introduction. The proposal has been a process-driven, 
seeking input from a diverse array of individuals and groups. Countless 
meetings and information exchanges occurred throughout the summer and 
into the fall. Any success realized today, with this bill introduction, 
came from the diversity of the participants and our determination to 
stay true to an open process and dialogue. Today, you find Congressman 
that run the spectrum of ideology and geography together supporting 
this bill. You see the same with the groups who have come out to 
support this endeavor and I look forward to continuing this 
collaboration.
  Since July, when Congressman Dingell, Tauzin, Baker and John  and I 
began circulating a discussion draft, posted it to the House Resources 
Committee website, we have been affirmatively seeking comments on the 
specifics of this idea. I can't stress enough our desire for critical 
input. Most of our discussion draft ideas were based upon existing 
reports or programs. Your input has been critical to making this 
proposal realize it's legislative potential. Today, we are moving into 
the next step in our process by introducing this bill. Yes, the 105th 
Congress is nearly finished, but we felt it worthwhile to formally 
introduce a legislation for thorough scrutiny until the 106th Congress 
meets. And the citizens of Alaska so willing, I intent to come back and 
re-introduce the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 early next 
year. Please understand, today's introduction does not signal the end 
our dialogue. I am committed to working with all interested individuals 
and groups to improve this bill next Congress, should compelling 
arguments for further amendments. I am dedicating myself to continue 
the dialogue begun four months ago into the 106th Congress, and working 
together, we can build a coalition sufficient to enact the 
``Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999'' into law.***HD***Title I
  The first title of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act will 
redistribute 27% of the total OCS receipts in a given year and is based 
on a Minerals Management Service's advisory committee's report. This 
report was prepared by the Administration and local government 
officials, and oil and gas industry representative, and conservation-
community interests. The panel took a pragmatic approach, by suggesting 
only revenues from new oil and gas development be considered. While 
this reduces Budget Enforcement Act-induced concerns, it was 
troublesome to the environmental community because of the 
implementation that such revenue-sharing would be a strong incentive 
for new development. Hence, our bull utilizes all revenue, from both 
existing production and new leases. With this change not only will the 
funding levels increase to benefits the programs included in our bill, 
but we wanted to address the environmental community concerns from the 
outset.
  Let's be candid about the perception that this bill includes 
incentives for oil and gas production. The only true incentive for a 
company to produce oil and gas, onshore or offshore, is the price of a 
barrel of oil or cubic foot of gas. A company examines the economics 
when making its development decisions. Companies will not decree to 
place a billion-dollar rig offshore based on a state or local 
government official's desire to increase their share of the fund our 
legislation would establish. They invest in the OCS if, and only if, 
they have reasonable expectations of making a profit. Obviously, even 
in today's oil & gas price environment, many companies have decided to 
compete in our OSC--especially in the Gulf of Mexico, but also in the 
Beaufort Sea, and even on existing leases off California.
  Would they like to know their royalties are put to noble purposes for 
the good of taxpayers throughout the Nation? Well, of course, The Land 
and Water Conservation Fund primarily fueled by OCS receipts does just 
that, and has since 1965. But, no one believes LWCF has been an 
incentive for oil and gas drilling, rather its just been a good idea to 
reinvest some of our oil and gas dollars in the acquisition of lands 
and conservation of our renewable resources by both state and federal 
entities.

  In addition, we have asked the Minerals Management Service to prepare 
data to show the amount of new production which would be necessary to 
increase a state's allocable share by 10%. Preliminary data shows that 
if all existing leases were to begin producing offshore California, 
there would be an increase in California's allocable share of only 1 
percent, or about $1 million annually. I strongly doubt the people of 
California would abide new development off their coast simply to gain 
this revenue for coastal impact assistance.
  I argue that this issue of incentives is a ``red herring.'' When a 
rational person examines the funding distribution, released today, they 
will see states like Florida and California as some of the largest 
recipients of impact assistance, despite the current and likely future 
leasing moratoria. Nevertheless we wish to address the perception of 
incentives. We are and have always been committed to keeping this bill 
free of drilling incentives as this is revenue-sharing legislation, 
pure and simple. To date, we have not received one comment which 
provides an adequate alternative to funding distribution to areas 
impacted by OCS development. But, we will work with individuals and 
groups in finding alternative which accomplishes the goal of providing 
funds to areas impacted by development which factors in the amount of 
development adjacent to a given state.***HD***Title II
  The second title of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act reinvests 
23% of the OCS funds into land-based conservation efforts, with a focus 
on the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). More than 30 years ago, 
the LWCF Act created a unique partnership between Federal, State and 
local governments by authorizing matching grants for the acquisition 
and development of recreation and conservation resources. Similarly, 
the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR), created in 
1978, provided Federal funds to distressed urban areas to rehabilitate 
and construct recreation areas. Together, these programs strived to 
develop a national system of parks that would, day-in and day-out, meet 
the recreation and open-space demands of the American public. Our 
proposal recognizes the noble potential within these programs and 
provides the stable funding they have been lacking.
  LWCF monies have helped fund over 37,500 State and local projects 
including campgrounds, trails, playgrounds, and parks throughout the 
country. UPARR grants have been used to rehabilitate and develop nearly 
1,500 urban recreation and park projects in more than 400 local 
jurisdictions. Yet, with the ever increasing demands of Americans for 
accessible recreation facilities, State and local governments have 
identified nearly $3 billion in capital investment needs nationally 
over the next five years for land acquisition and new construction. 
Nonetheless, despite the successes of the state-side LWCF matching 
grant and UPARR programs and the continuing demand for recreation and 
conservation resources, neither program has been funded over the past 
three years.
  Title two of our bill would revitalize the LWCF and UPARR programs by 
providing matching grants to federal, state, local, and urban 
governments for the acquisition and development of conservation and 
recreation resources. Our bill provides annual funding which in many 
years provides funding at full $900 million levels. This bill will 
recommit Congress to the vision that revenues earned from the depletion 
of a nonrenewable resource should be invested in permanent assets that 
will serve the conservation and recreation needs of all Americans.
  The 23% for land-based conservation would be distributed as follows:

[[Page E1956]]

  42% to be utilized for Federal LWCF;
  42% to State and local conservation and recreation projects; and
  16% to fund UPARR programs.
  It is important to point out that the funds allocated for State and 
local conservation and recreation projects only could fund one-half of 
the projects' costs and all expenditures would have to be consistent 
with the States' comprehensive outdoor recreation plans. Also the 
stated, territories, the District of Columbia, Indian tribes, and 
Alaska Native Village Corporations would all be eligible to receive 
matching grant funds.***HD***Title III
  For over six years, some segments of the conservation community have 
advocated the creation of an excise tax to provide funding for non-game 
wildlife projects and conservation education. Included in this bill is 
funding for wildlife conservation and education. Conservation education 
is critical to ensuring that people understand the interdependence 
between man and the environment. We are losing the idea that people and 
the environment that surrounds them not only can coexist, but must 
coexist. As the urban sprawl envelops more of the public geography and 
ideology, we must work to educate with the principles of sustainable 
use. Hiking, biking, bird-watching, canoeing, mountain climbing, and 
hunting are all sustainable and acceptable uses of our lands and 
resources. Education by using sound scientific principles is the only 
way to ensure that our use of our resources will be sustainable for 
future generations.
  Another void this legislation helps to fill, is the issue of game vs. 
non-game funding. This issue divides the sporting community who need 
unity to accomplish our common goals. The excise tax initiative, while 
well intentioned, was divisive as it created segmented funding for a 
particular species of wildlife. Our bill provides funding for both 
species of wildlife, game and non-game through the existing mechanism 
of Pittman-Robertson.
  Pittman-Robertson currently allows for the flexibility to address the 
needs of non-game species, as well as game species. We all realize that 
Pittman-Robertson is currently focused on funding game species. 
However, our bill will create a new subaccount, named the ``Wildlife 
Conservation and Restoration'' subaccount. The conservation and 
Reinvestment Act of 1998 will provide funding at higher levels than any 
other federal source for wildlife. Above levels proposed by the excise 
tax initiative. This will provide wildlife funding to help move the 
conservation community beyond the debate of game versus non-game 
funding and provide for conservation education. This funding is 
provided with the knowledge that many states will utilize them for non-
game and watchable species and these functions can take place with the 
bill as drafted. However, we allow the flexibility for individual 
states to maximize their digression.
  I am very active in the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus and am 
currently the chairman of the Executive Council. The Sportsmen's Caucus 
is the largest Caucus in the Congress and sportsmen's champion. Far too 
often, our sportsmen and women are criticized for their outdoor 
recreation. The mass public does not understand our role in the economy 
or appreciate our heritage. The sporting community, represented by 
those who enjoy and utilize the outdoors are a huge segment to our 
Nation's economy. Members of the Caucus leadership, like Saxby 
Chambliss often incorporate our significance in their speeches. We 
should take a moment to realize how much our sportsmen contribute to 
the economy and environment.
  If hunting and fishing were a corporation, it would rank 10th on the 
Fortune 500 list. This is ahead of giant corporations like AT&T.
  Sportsmen activities support more than twice the number of workers 
employed by Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart, incidently, Wal-Mart is the largest 
Fortune 500 employer.
  Sportsmen's assets equal, $60 billion in retail sales, 1.9 million 
jobs supported, and $8.7 billion in state and federal tax revenues. 
Economists estimate that these factors create a $169 billion ripple 
effect in our country's economy.
  Some additional facts related to the taxes the sporting community 
pays are also interesting:
  Tax revenues generated by sportsmen are greater than the box office 
total of all United States movie theaters. Also, exceed the combined 
box office earnings of the all-time top ten grossing films.
  Federal tax revenues generated by sportsmen could pay for the 
combined budgets of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered 
Species appropriation, Bureau of Land Management, National Biological 
Service, and National Park Service. For two years!
  Federal tax revenues from New York sportsmen alone could pay for the 
entire U.S. Forest Service fish and wildlife budget. Pennsylvania 
sportsmen could pick-up the same tab.
  Sportsmen's sales tax revenues generated in North Dakota, South 
Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia could pay for their state's entire 
parks and recreation budgets.
  All of you are well aware that the sporting community, especially 
those who engage in hunting and fishing, have been supporting the 
larger community of outdoor recreation for decades. Their generous 
contributions through the sportsmen trust accounts of Dingell-Johnson 
and Pittman-Robertson have immeasurably benefitted wildlife and their 
habitat. With that success in mind, I look forward to working with all 
individuals and groups to see this new subaccount passed into Law.

                          ____________________