[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 116 (Tuesday, September 26, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9256-S9257]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to call the attention of this 
body to some very important negotiations that are underway.
  We have debated many important subjects in this Congress as it comes 
to a close. Some of those larger subjects have been attempts to create 
a prescription drug benefit for the Nation, how should we go about 
doing that. We have had a long and intense debate on education. We have 
had debates on the privacy issue, on bankruptcy reform.
  One of the debates in which we have engaged that has captured the 
attention of many people around the Nation--Governors and mayors, local 
elected officials, chambers of commerce, outdoor enthusiasts, 
environmentalists across the board--is our debate about how we should 
allocate a small portion of this surplus; what is the proper way to 
allocate that to preserve and enhance the environment of our Nation.
  As we begin this century, this is a debate worth having because if we 
make the wrong decision, it will set us on a path where we will not be 
happy to end up. We need to make a good decision now. We are in the 
very crux of making that decision, as appropriators on both sides 
debate the final outcome of this year's Interior appropriations bill.
  I urge Senators to pay attention, as carefully as they can, to the 
ongoing debates on how to allocate this funding.
  On the one hand, there is a group saying: Let's just do more of the 
same. As it comes to our environment, we don't need to do anything 
differently. Let's just do more of the same. Let's just give a little 
more money to some Federal agencies to allocate the funding, and let's 
just come every year and decide year in and year out if we want to or 
if we don't, and how that money should be allocated.
  There is a group of us called Team CARA, representing the 
Conservation and Reinvestment Act, which has been negotiating since the 
beginning of this Congress for a better way--a way that will bring more 
money to States on a guaranteed basis, money that Governors and mayors 
and local elected officials can count on--a revenue sharing bill, if 
you will, for the environment. It is something that will turn in a 
direction that will set us on a new and bold and exciting course.
  I thank the President for his tremendous statements in the last 
couple of days urging Congress to move in this direction. He is urging 
us to do everything we can to make CARA--the Conservation and 
Reinvestment Act--the model. For the Record, I will submit something in 
which some States would be interested. I will be handing out this form 
later today.
  For instance, if we stick with the old method, Colorado would receive 
$3.6 million. It is a beautiful State with wonderful environmental 
needs. They would get $3.6 million. Under CARA, if it is passed, 
Colorado could receive $46 million a year, and the Governor and local 
elected officials would have input into how it was spent.
  Let's take Georgia. Under this bill, this year they would get a 
measly $500,000. Under CARA, they would be guaranteed a minimum of $32 
million a year.
  Let's take Kentucky. Again, they would get a measly $500,000 in this 
year's environmental bill. Under CARA, they would get a guarantee of 
$15 million a year for the preservation of open spaces, for wildlife 
conservation, and for the expansion of our parks and recreation.
  Let's take Minnesota. Minnesota gets nothing in the bill being 
negotiated. Under CARA, they would get $29 million a year.
  I will be submitting the details because I am here to say let's allow 
the best proposal to win in this debate. Let us fight it on its merits. 
Let us discuss the benefits of CARA. These are some of the benefits 
that I am outlining.
  New Jersey is one of our most populated States--the Garden State, a 
State that has just levied on its people a billion dollar bond issue to 
preserve open spaces. People in New Jersey feel strongly about this. 
Under the old way, the way the negotiators are carving this up, they 
get a measly $875,000. Under CARA, they would receive $40 million a 
year.
  Let's take New York, another large State. They would get $2.8 million 
in the bill being negotiated, but if we stick to our guns and fight 
hard for CARA, New York could get $17 million a year. Most certainly, 
the population deserves those kinds of numbers.
  Finally, Washington State is a beautiful State, one that has a 
history of leading us in the environmental area. Washington gets fairly 
well treated in this bill with $12.7 million. Under CARA, if we hold 
true to the principles, Washington State could get $47 million a year. 
That is a big difference for the people of Washington State--from $12.7 
million to $47 million. I could go on.
  Under CARA, we have a guarantee. Under the current negotiations, the 
same that has gone on for the last 25 years, there is no guarantee. I 
am saying that under CARA we can have full

[[Page S9257]]

funding for the land and water conservation, help coastal States such 
as Louisiana that produce the necessary revenues. Under the old way--
the way that has been going on for 25 years--it has failed to meet our 
obligations and we get shortchanged. Under CARA, it is a real legacy. 
Under the negotiations, the stage is set.
  I thank the Senator from Utah for giving me his remaining time. I see 
another Senator on the floor who may want to speak on this issue. Let 
me conclude by urging the Members of the Senate to focus on these 
negotiations, and I will be back later to give some more information on 
this important issue. I yield back whatever time I have remaining.

                          ____________________