[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 156 (Monday, November 8, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14280-S14283]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few important things 
to say tonight. I will try to fit that in with the time that has been 
allotted to me.
  There are many important issues that need to be resolved in the next 
few days in order for us to wrap up this year and move on. The minimum 
wage debate is clearly a very significant issue for us. I am glad we 
will be voting on it and, hopefully, come to a resolution tomorrow. 
There are other issues pending that have yet to be resolved. That is 
why I rise tonight to speak for a few minutes about one of them that is 
very important to the people of my State, the State of Louisiana.
  I say at the outset as respectfully as I can that I am going to 
object to proceeding to any additional actions of the Senate until this 
issue is resolved, or until there is an answer in terms of what our 
options are. Some of us are not party to some of the discussions that 
are going on behind closed doors and some being reported. There is some 
information that I am very interested in receiving, and many people in 
Louisiana are interested in the information because it has to do with 
money

[[Page S14281]]

that our State is producing. It has to do with the kinds of investments 
we are either going to make or not make to the environment of our 
Nation, to the coast of Louisiana, which is critical to preserve and 
help restore that coastline.
  It is a very important issue to the American people in terms of our 
opportunity to use a small percentage of the non-Social Security 
surplus to invest in the Land and Water Conservation Fund to fully fund 
it, to invest in some extraordinarily successful wildlife conservation 
programs, to invest in historic preservation, and to invest in 
coastal restoration and impact assistance for States that produce oil 
and gas and for States that do not.

  This is an issue that we have now been debating actually for many 
years. This debate has gone on for 30 years in terms of funding for 
land and water. It has gone on for over 50 years in terms of what 
percentage would be fair for Louisiana, the producing State, to 
receive. Texas is in that position. Mississippi is in that position to 
a certain degree. Alaska could be in that position. So there are a few 
States that are producing States. This debate has raged on, in my 
opinion, for too long.
  In my opinion, there is broad bipartisan support for a concept that 
would take a portion of these revenues. They are estimated to be about 
$3 billion a year; $120 billion has been generated off the coast in 
offshore oil and gas production in taxes that the companies are already 
paying and many continue to pay. These are not new taxes. These are not 
new revenues. These are revenues that are coming into the Federal 
Treasury. There is bipartisan support for taking a portion of those 
revenues and investing in the things that I have just outlined.
  Let me tell you why it is important for me to respectfully object to 
moving on to any further business.
  I know that I am going to be the skunk at the garden party because 
Louisiana is not a huge State such as California or Texas or Illinois. 
We have a small delegation.
  Sometimes, because our numbers are smaller, we aren't able to get all 
the attention I think we need and the people of our State deserve. 
Fortunately, the rules of the Senate allow each Senator to be able to 
speak at length, to be able to express their will and their opinion. As 
respectfully as I can, I am going to object to any further business 
until some of these things can be resolved.
  Let me begin by telling a story that is not well known. I think 
Americans are very interested judging from all of the correspondence my 
office has received over the last year and a half from thousands of 
individuals and groups who seem to be very sympathetic about this 
issue.
  Let me read from a brochure called ``Coast 2050,'' discussing 
sustaining coastal Louisiana. I will read a few pages that tell a story 
about a great and mighty river.

       At the end of Old Man River, the mighty Mississippi, lies 
     the largest expanse of coastal wetlands in North America. 
     This dynamic and bountiful landscape was literally built and 
     sustained by the sediment-laden waters that drain to the 
     river from 31 states and three Canadian provinces.

  This is not a river that just drains a few States. This is a river 
that drains our entire Nation. The economy of our Nation depends on the 
taming of this river and this ecosystem. The future of our Nation 
depends on how well we manage the resources of this great river.

       The Louisiana coast is home to 2 million Americans. The 
     wetlands, bays, and islands of the coast constitute an 
     enormously productive ecosystem and resource base that 
     support the livelihood and well-being of the Nation. The 
     statistics are awesome: the ecosystem contributes nearly 30 
     percent by weight of the total commercial fisheries harvest 
     in the lower 48 states and provides overwintering habitat 
     for 70 percent of the migratory waterfowl using the 
     Central and Mississippi Flyways; 18 percent of U.S. oil 
     production and 24 percent of U.S. gas production * * * 
     Louisiana's ports rank first in the Nation in total 
     shipping tonnage.

  Again, not a river that just serves Louisiana or serves Mississippi 
but a river that serves the entire Nation. It would be all for naught 
for the Midwestern States to produce any agricultural product if they 
couldn't get it to market. That is the great benefit and strength of 
this Mississippi River--and we sit at the mouth--in terms of the 
transport of goods for hundreds of years.

       The unique human culture and beautiful setting of southern 
     Louisiana is world-renowned.

  We are losing it at an enormous and frightening rate. Since 1930, 
Louisiana has lost over 1,500 square miles of marsh. The State is still 
losing 25 to 30 square miles each year, nearly a football field of 
prime wetlands every 30 minutes. Environmentalists should be alarmed.
  There are great needs in California, the West, and in the Everglades, 
but there is a tremendous need that should call us to arms, call 
citizens to action, to help preserve and restore the south Louisiana 
coast and this tremendous ecosystem not just for the benefit of 
Louisiana and the 4 million people who live in our State but for the 
benefit of the 260-plus million population of this Nation.
  There is no one reason for this land loss. Some of our coastal 
wetlands have always been subsiding, but in the past the river built 
and sustained the wetlands and built new ones, which offset the natural 
losses.
  Since Europeans came to Louisiana, we have been building levees to 
protect against the floods. Levees keep homes, businesses, and farms 
safe, but they prevent the sediments from flooding to refurbish the 
marsh. In addition, levees were built to tame the route and flow of the 
Mississippi River to allow for the great transport and trade on which 
this Nation is dependent to grow and prosper. Canals were dug through 
the marshes to promote navigation and to recover petroleum resources 
that have helped fuel this Nation, to turn the lights on, to run our 
machinery, to run our factories.
  We are happy to make that contribution, and we are trying to do it in 
a more environmentally sensitive way. This ecosystem supports a 
tremendous amount of commerce, and I don't think I should have to 
explain it much more. However, we are losing it.
  Today, Louisiana has 3,800 square miles of marsh and over 800 square 
miles of swamp. Even at the current pace of restoration efforts--which 
have been, by the way, successful, albeit minimal because we don't have 
the financial resources that we deserve, that we should get for this 
restoration--we will lose more than 600 square miles of marsh and 
almost 400 square miles of swamp by the year 2050 if we do not take 
action. Consequently, nearly 1,000 square miles of Louisiana wetlands 
will become open water. The Nation will lose an area the size of the 
State of Rhode Island if we fail to act.
  That is why I come to the floor tonight to speak about this issue. I 
know some colleagues think perhaps there is nothing we can do or we 
just can't make this happen. I am compelled to speak again because of 
this story, because of this great resource, and because I know what the 
serious consequences will be for my State and for the entire Nation if 
there is no solution. It is not a difficult solution. It is not even an 
expensive solution. It is a real solution that has been laid on the 
table in this Congress.

  If we do nothing, we face significant reductions in the $20 billion-
per-year shipping and export industry in addition to our ports, our 
commercial fisheries, and oil and gas, and leave ourselves open to 
serious hurricane damage.
  There is a consensus about what we can do. We have learned two 
things: We already know how to fix most of the problems; second, 
coastal recovery will require much more effort than has been undertaken 
so far. We know what it will take to fix the problem. We just need to 
get the job done. That is why I am here tonight to try to get this job 
done because it is most certainly something that is within our grasp.
  I want to read for the record a letter from over 800 environmental 
organizations circulated last week. I want to take the time to read it. 
It is a good letter using good common sense that is within the grasp of 
the Interior appropriations bill that is now being debated. We have the 
opportunity to make this happen. Without adding any new money, we can 
make this happen.

       As the 20th century draws to a close, Congress has a rare 
     opportunity to pass landmark legislation that would establish 
     a permanent and significant source of conservation funding. A 
     number of promising legislative proposals will take revenue 
     from nonrenewable offshore oil and gas resources and reinvest 
     them in the protection of renewable resources such as 
     wildlife, public lands, our

[[Page S14282]]

     coast, our oceans, our cultural resources, historic 
     preservation, and outdoor recreation. Securing this funding 
     would allow us to build upon the pioneering conservation 
     tradition that Teddy Roosevelt initiated at the beginning of 
     this century. The vast majority of Americans recognize the 
     duty we have to protect and conserve our rich cultural and 
     natural legacies for future generations, a diverse array of 
     interests including sports men and women, conservationists, 
     historic preservationists, outdoor recreationists, the faith 
     community, the business community, State and local 
     governments. Over 40 Governors, Democrat and Republican, have 
     supported this initiative, and they support conservation 
     funding for this legislation because they recognize it is 
     our obligation to make these commitments for future 
     generations.

  So this letter goes on to call on our body here, the Senate and the 
House, to:

       * * * seize this unprecedented opportunity to pass 
     legislation that would make a substantial and reliable 
     investment in the conservation of our Nation's wildlife, 
     public lands, coastal and marine resources, historic 
     treasures, urban and rural parks, open spaces * * * design a 
     bill that provides significant conservation benefits free of 
     harmful environmental impacts to our coastal and ocean 
     resources, and one that does not unduly hinder land 
     acquisition programs.
       We have this within our grasp.

  It says:

       We look to Congress to make this a reality.

  I hope, as I slow down this process, perhaps we can get some answers 
from the White House, from the negotiators, about the real 
possibilities of this taking place. There are some on the right who say 
we do not need any more public land. There are some on the left who say 
if we do anything that might encourage drilling, no matter how great 
the benefits, we are not for it.
  Let me say, in a markup that is being done, hopefully this Wednesday 
in the House, many of those criticisms will be put to rest. In the 
markup that is being considered on the House side on this bill, there 
are no incentives for oil and gas drilling. We can fight that battle 
another day. There is an incentive and language that will help us spend 
this money for coastal restoration in ways that are environmentally 
sensitive and that do not encourage drilling. There is language, on the 
other hand, that is going to suggest that Congress has a legitimate 
role to play in the purchasing of lands, along with the 
administration--whether it is this administration, President Clinton, 
or whether it is a future President--that it is right that this 
Congress and the President would make decisions about the purchases of 
land, how much, and when, and where.
  Those differences could be worked out. So there is bipartisan 
agreement we should take a portion of these revenues.
  I want to show a graph, because people think, Why does Mary keep 
speaking about this issue over and over again? It is because the 
revenues that are being considered for this come from basically one 
State. I know you would be able to guess what that State is. This is 
Louisiana. I know this is a very small sheet, but I think the camera 
can pick this up. This red represents the contribution Louisiana 
makes to offshore oil and gas revenues which totaled, in this 
particular year, $4.8 billion. The average is about $3.5 billion. But 
Louisiana contributes over 90 percent.

  When we talk about taking this money and funding programs I have 
outlined--and I am for all the things I have just suggested--we need to 
be fair to the producing States. Louisiana produces the most, then 
Texas; Mississippi contributes; Alabama is a contributor. Of course, 
California did contribute. There is a moratorium there. This bill does 
nothing to upset that political decision, but it does save, for the 
States that are producing, a portion.
  Let me talk about a portion because I believe in fighting for your 
State. But I also believe in being fair. If I did not think my State 
was correct, I would be the first one to stand up and say we should do 
it another way; we simply do not have an argument. But it is widely 
known the interior States in our Nation get to keep 50 percent of the 
revenues they produce. States such as Wyoming and New Mexico get to 
keep 50 percent of their revenues, and they can spend it basically as 
they wish, with few restrictions.
  I am not coming to this body, nor have I introduced a bill, to give 
Louisiana 50 percent of this offshore oil and gas revenues. It is not 
on our land, but it is right outside of our coast. If it were not for 
our land, this industry simply would not exist. Very few can dispute 
that because I don't know where you would launch the helicopters, 
Honduras or Guatemala; or where you would build the machinery, the 
canals, the barges, the railroads, or highways that allow this industry 
to exist. I do not know if a good option would be Honduras or 
Guatemala, but if you don't do it from the coast of Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and Texas, you do not have many options.
  But I did not come here to ask for 50 percent. I am asking the 
President and the administration and this Congress to give Louisiana 
not even 30 percent. I am not even asking for 25 percent. I have simply 
said to the producing and coastal States, let us keep at least 10 
percent of the dollars for Louisiana and the producing States, and 
share with all the other coastal States, whether they produce or not, 
to give them moneys from this source of revenue because it does not 
just belong to us, it belongs to everyone.
  But surely we should, since we produce 90 percent of the money, get a 
fair share as we try to distribute this money. Whether we do it for 1 
year--we have been doing sort of hit or miss over the last 30--or 
whether we try to take the step and do it permanently, recognizing the 
needs and legitimate concerns of the Western States and some others 
that are concerned about purchasing land--then clearly Louisiana 
deserves its fair share. So do the other coastal States.
  For the record, we have produced over $120 billion since 1955 and 
have received less than 1 percent. I guess that is worth it, to me, to 
be a skunk at the garden party, because it is just not fair. One of the 
things about the Senate and about Congress and about this whole body, 
and about America and the debate, is trying to pass legislation the 
American people care about. The American people can understand 
fairness. Whether they are from a Western State or California or 
Washington, or from a Southern State, I think they would say: Senator 
Landrieu, you are correct. It is not fair for your State to produce 90 
percent and get virtually nothing when we have a bill that will share 
this with everyone and do something the American people want to do.
  Let me talk about that for just a minute. Sometimes we come to 
Washington and I think we have the tendency to forget, or maybe just 
temporarily lose our memory, about some of the things we promised to do 
when we came. Sometimes we get busy with the talk in Washington and we 
forget about what the talk at home is.
  There was research done just recently, in fact a couple of months 
ago, by Luntz Research Companies, one of the foremost pollsters in 
America. He said some things that really brought this issue home to me. 
Even though I knew this was important to people, I frankly did not 
think to take a survey which would have been a good thing, but the 
environmental groups did. The results are staggering.
  I am just going to read the overview:

       What matters to Americans most these days is ``quality of 
     life'' and ``peace of mind.'' Our nation's prosperity has 
     brought with it the need both to think beyond simple hand-to-
     mouth economics and to address the anxieties posed by 
     perceived threats to our own health and safety. The public's 
     mood on the environment speaks to the opportunity to deliver 
     positively on a rising public priority.
       More than 50% of Americans tell us they will head to the 
     outdoors on vacation this year. What they expect to find when 
     they get there is part of the legacy they most want to pass 
     along to the next generation.
       There is an emotional intensity to issues that define the 
     legacy of what this generation will leave to the next. At the 
     turn of the Millennium--as we enter the 21st Century focused 
     more than ever on the future and rapid change--what drives 
     people's attitudes on protecting the great outdoors may be 
     the need to identify and carry with us those defining ideas 
     and principles that have made America the great pioneer.
       To deliver on the call for preservation and progress, 
     policymakers can succeed by focusing more on the benefits the 
     public wants and expects and by spending less time talking 
     about the process that the public really doesn't care to 
     follow in a debate.
       And no issue speaks more directly to Americans' 
     environmental ``quality of life'' than their ability to enjoy 
     open spaces, parks, and wilderness areas. Whether they want a 
     place to visit alone or with their families on vacation--or 
     just having the peace of mind that those places will still 
     exist (for

[[Page S14283]]

     themselves, for future generations, and for the plant and 
     animal species that assure diversity)--this desire presents 
     an opportunity to deliver on a political priority. Anyone who 
     wants to close their own ``credibility gap'' on environmental 
     issues can do so by talking about conservation of open 
     spaces. . . .

  And by actually doing something about it, not just speaking about it.
  Let me give some of the findings:

       People like to spend their time outdoors. Over half of 
     Americans polled cite an outdoor location like a national 
     park, forest, wilderness areas, beach, shoreline, lake, 
     river, or mountain as their preferred place to spend a 
     vacation this year.
       Ninety-four percent would justify spending more on Land & 
     Water Conservation because ``Parks, forests, and seashores 
     provide Americans a chance to visit areas vastly different 
     than their own.''
       Those who think the overall quality of the environment is 
     deteriorating outnumber those who think things are improving. 
     Eighty-eight percent of all Americans agree that ``we must 
     act now or we will lose many special places, and if we wait, 
     what is destroyed or lost cannot be replaced.''

  They also say this poll defies a myth that some people think of as 
real, too much public land.
  That meant, according to this survey which was conducted by a 
Republican pollster, it does not hold even in mountainous Western 
States where over 90 percent, in some places of the land is already 
owned by the Government. This poll indicates that even in places in the 
West where lots of land is already owned by the Federal Government, 
people still want us to make the effort and the small investment it 
will take to preserve these precious resources to provide wilderness, 
parks, and forest for our children and grandchildren.
  Let me finally read one very startling result because all of us voted 
for the highway trust fund. We thought we should apply our gasoline 
taxes to improve the highway system which has been an extraordinary 
benefit for the growth of this Nation. We did it because we knew it was 
popular at home, because it was the right thing to do. In my State of 
Louisiana, and probably in your State, Mr. President, Illinois, people 
overwhelmingly support it.
  Let me share this:

       In a head to head between land and water and highway, the 
     wildly popular highway and airport funds head to head was 45 
     percent for the conservation of land and water and 37 percent 
     for highways.

  We know how popular that highway bill was, but people in America--in 
Louisiana, in Illinois, in Mississippi, in other places, in Washington 
State--want us to take some of these revenues--not new taxes, not 
raising taxes, not robbing it from other places--but taking it from the 
Federal Treasury where it has gone into sort of a nondescript fund and 
reinvest it into the environment and to do that in a way that shares 
with the States and local governments--not a Federal land grab, not a 
Federal takings, but in partnership with local and State governments, 
and that is what our bill does.
  In conclusion, there are over or close to 200 Members of the Senate 
and the House, Republicans and Democrats. It is the only environmental 
initiative--there are others that have been filed and talked about and 
are being debated in committee, outside of committee, in the 
negotiations taking place right now--but there is not a single proposal 
that has Democrat and Republican support except for this one.
  I urge the White House, I urge the President, I urge the negotiators, 
whatever is in the bill, if we can afford $300 million, fine. If we can 
afford $500 million, fine. If we can afford $1 billion, whatever the 
offset is, I am not asking for more money. But I am asking if we are 
going to spend offshore oil and gas revenues for 1 year or permanently, 
that it be done giving Louisiana and Mississippi and Texas and Alabama 
and the other producing States their fair share; that it will fund to 
the degree that is possible the coastal initiatives we have outlined.
  Yes, there are authorized programs to fully fund land and water 
conservation and to fund wildlife conservation, historic preservation, 
and urban parks, which is a package that makes sense. Do my colleagues 
know why? Because it is fair. It is fair to the east coast; it is fair 
to the West; it is fair to the South; it is fair to the North; it is 
fair to the Great Lakes States that do not have an ocean or a gulf, but 
because they have the Great Lakes, they similarly have situations that 
need attention.
  We have not written a bill that is selfish. We have written a bill 
that is generous. We have written a bill that we can afford.
  I urge the President not to move to take a portion of the revenues 
that two of the poorest States in the Nation contribute--Mississippi 
and Louisiana--and give them away without giving us a fair chance at 
preserving our coastline, helping us restore a tremendous ecosystem 
that not only benefits our State and the 4 million people who live 
there, and the 2 million people who live on the coast but literally 
serves as a treasure for this Nation--an environmental treasure and a 
commercial base--without which this country could not possibly continue 
to grow and prosper without.
  I am sensitive to the Florida Everglades. I have been to the 
redwoods. I believe in the preservation of the great lands of the West. 
I want to be fair to many places in this Nation, but I cannot in good 
conscience represent the State that is contributing 90 percent of the 
money and allow these negotiations to go on knowing there is some 
intention to take this money permanently away from us and give it to 
everyone else without sharing this with us to help us in our quest to 
restore this coastline for the benefit of the entire Nation.
  I thank my colleagues for their patience. I hold up our plan: ``Coast 
2050.'' It is a beautiful picture of Louisiana's coast. I ask my 
colleagues to be sensitive to our great needs. I am sorry to have to 
object, but I do it respectfully, and I do it because I know this is 
the right thing for our country and the Nation at this time.
  I yield back the remainder of my time, if I have any.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

                          ____________________