[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 110 (Wednesday, September 15, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9269-S9271]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONSERVATION ROYALTIES
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Tennessee is
again on the Senate floor, and it is my pleasure this afternoon to
spend a few minutes with him marking the 40th anniversary of the
creation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a fund that has been
extraordinarily helpful and useful to Governors, mayors, local elected
officials, and advocates for conservation and for preservation for
these 40 years.
When it was passed and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson,
it was a very farsighted and bold legislation that acknowledged that
one of the great characteristics that separates America from the rest
of the world, particularly the old world represented by the European
countries. The essence of America, having such great expanses and great
outdoors, separates it from an old world that was relatively small
geographically and somewhat cramped. The United States of America has
many special characteristics about it, but the one that really stands
out that people of all political persuasions and from all geographic
areas really appreciate and grasp is the value of the vastness of our
land and the great open spaces. Our mighty rivers, our deep canyons,
our extraordinary lush forests and green spaces, our breathtakingly
beautiful deserts are all the things that make this country what it is.
Although the country was created this way and a great gift to all of
us from the Creator, it is not going to stay this way unless we take
some affirmative actions to preserve what we can, to give our people
and our population places to grow, expand, earn livings, and create
jobs. We have an obligation, as stewards, as the Senator said earlier,
not just to our constituents but actually we have a moral obligation to
the Creator who created this beauty to be good stewards of the land and
the gift that has been given.
Looking at the 40th anniversary of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, while we have done a good job, while we have made a fine effort,
while we can point to many success stories of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, I stand today on the 40th anniversary with the
Senator from Tennessee to say that we must do better. There are
terrible gaps in funding that are leaving beautiful States such as
Tennessee and magnificent States such as Louisiana and other States
throughout our Nation desperate for Federal help to finish the good
work that was started late in the last century.
President Roosevelt, who is even credited today with being such a
great visionary conservationist, was an advocate of the preservation of
special places in America. That is what we come today to talk about,
how important it is to recommit ourselves, on this 40th anniversary, to
setting aside the proper amount of money, not more than we need but an
adequate amount of money to help our Governors and our mayors and
support a new effort for wildlife preservation and support our coastal
areas in light of the original vision of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
So the Senator from Tennessee and I have introduced the Americans
Outdoors Act of 2004. I commend the chairman, Pete Domenici from New
Mexico, who, in this very challenging year, has already allowed us a
hearing on this bill. We look forward to working with the members of
the Energy Committee, which has jurisdiction, of course, and the
Department of Interior as we move this great legislation through
seeking a more reliable source of funding.
We propose in our legislation to basically establish the same
conservation royalty that the Federal Government now gives for onshore
production of oil and natural gas. This bill will create a conservation
royalty for offshore production of oil and natural gas and have it
distributed in a way that complements and fulfills the promise of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund. It is like saying the great wealth of
this resource, of oil and natural gas, should be invested, as the
Senator said, in the Federal Treasury to help economic development and
building highways and the space program and should support our
military.
A large percentage of these tax dollars should go for general uses,
but a small percentage, 25 percent of these billions of dollars that
are generated, should really go to a conservation royalty to
acknowledge the creation that we have inherited, to acknowledge the
[[Page S9270]]
great land and water that we have inherited, and to say on this day we
believe it is wrong to take and never to give back. We believe it is
our political and moral responsibility to be good stewards of the
wealth that is generated and to turn back a portion of that money for
conservation. It is our responsibility to give to our grandchildren and
great grandchildren the great gift and the great land that was given to
us by our forefathers and our Presidents, both Republican and Democrat,
who have argued and established this great fund.
So it is my hope, with the Senator from Tennessee, that we will be
joined by other Senate leaders as we pursue this effort to find a
reliable stream of revenue to create a conservation royalty that will
fully fund the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a
robust coastal program for the States in our Nation, and a wildlife
restoration fund, as well as the urban parks component of the State
side of the bill.
I think we should explore and try to look for opportunities to find a
reliable stream of money for the Federal side as we continue to build
and expand on public lands in the United States.
Let me say there is no one in this Senate who understands the great
value of private property more than do I and the Senator from
Tennessee. I go all over the world doing a lot of work on economic
development and lifting people out of poverty. I have been probably to
more orphanages and homes for poor children than most. Many Senators do
that great work. I am well aware that, in order for countries to create
wealth, owning private property and building equity in a home or
getting a mortgage for a farm is essential. That is the founding
essence of America. This bill we intend to reinvigorate today is not a
threat to private property. It complements the great commitment we have
to private property, by saying that some lands, a small portion of
lands, should be in public hands. The majority should be in private
hands. It is an extraordinary partnership that gives value to both.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund envisions that strong
partnership making all of our land more valuable, cleaner, more user
friendly, open and beautiful for us to give to future generations.
I see the Senator from Tennessee, who may want to add a few
additional words. But I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record the distribution of money to the Land and Water Conservation
Fund. It is not blown up, but I think the cameras at least can zoom in
to see how volatile the funding has been, up and down, up and down,
since 1965. Our bill attempts to equal this out by creating a
conservation royalty so we can rely on these dollars and we can make
good plans, spend taxpayer money well and wisely, creating beautiful
bike paths and trails, helping to make more robust our park systems and
our public lands for the benefit of our grandchildren in a way that
complements the private sector, private property, and the economic
development efforts that will continue to be underway for generations
to come in this great Nation.
I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a news
release that was issued by the Department of Interior, saying how proud
they are to have distributed some money, royalties, for conservation to
interior States.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
States Receive More Than $1 Billion From Share of Federal Mineral
Revenues
Washington.--Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton
announced today that 36 states received more than $1 billion
during 2003 as part of their share of federal revenues
collected by the Department's Minerals Management Service.
The $1,096,699,888 distributed to states during the year,
was nearly 46 percent more than 2002 payments to states that
totaled $753 million.
``Responsible energy development on public lands and
offshore areas contribute greatly to states and local
governments,'' Norton said. ``The money enables local
governments to fund important projects for the betterment of
communities and the lives of Americans.''
The nearly $1.1 billion distributed through December of
last year represents the states' cumulative share of revenues
collected from mineral production on federal lands located
within their borders, and from federal offshore oil and gas
tracts adjacent to their shores.
``In many cases states share their revenues with counties,
which apply the money to meet needs like infrastructure
improvements and school funding,'' MMS Director Johnnie
Burton said.
During calendar year 2003, the state of Wyoming again led
all states by receiving more than $503 million as its share
of revenues collected from mineral production on federal
lands within its borders, including oil, gas and coal
production. New Mexico's share was more than $318 million,
while $62.7 million was received by the state of Colorado.
Other states sharing revenues included Utah with more than
$54.4 million; Louisiana with $31.5 million; Montana at $26.9
million; and California with more than $25.3 million.
(Complete table provided below.)
A state is entitled to a share of the mineral revenues
collected from federal lands located within that state's
boundaries. For the majority of onshore federal lands, states
receive 50 percent of the revenues while the other 50 percent
goes to various funds of the U.S. Treasury, including the DOI
Reclamation Fund. Alaska receives a 90 percent share as
prescribed by the Alaska Statehood Act. States may also
receive appropriations from the offshore royalty-funded
Land and Water Conservation Fund to help them with park
and land acquisitions.
In addition, coastal states with producing federal offshore
tracts adjacent to their seaward boundaries receive 27
percent of those mineral royalties. Remaining offshore
revenues collected by the Minerals Management Service are
deposited in various accounts of the U.S. Treasury, with the
majority of those revenues going to the General Fund.
MMS is the federal agency in the U.S. Department of the
Interior that manages the nation's oil, natural gas, and
other mineral resources on the outer continental shelf in
federal offshore waters. The agency also collects, accounts
for, and disburses mineral revenues from Federal and American
Indian lands. Between 1982 and 2003, MMS distributed more
than $135 billion in revenues from onshore and offshore
lands, an average of more than $6 billion per year, to the
Nation, States and American Indians. Nearly $1 billion from
those revenues goes into the Land and Water Conservation Fund
annually for the development of State and Federal park and
recreation lands.
Alabama.....................................................$14,601,401
Alaska.......................................................13,126,183
Arizona.........................................................128,474
Arkansas......................................................4,379,518
California...................................................25,336,757
Colorado.....................................................62,703,158
Florida.........................................................387,298
Georgia..............................................................54
Idaho.........................................................1,880,786
Illinois........................................................100,822
Indiana...........................................................6,438
Kansas........................................................1,928,091
Kentucky.........................................................55,782
Louisiana....................................................31,561,211
Michigan........................................................425,844
Minnesota........................................................17,427
Mississippi...................................................1,231,716
Missouri........................................................169,832
Montana......................................................26,906,699
Nebraska.........................................................15,125
Nevada........................................................5,015,687
New Mexico..................................................318,768,793
North Carolina......................................................118
North Dakota..................................................5,139,095
Ohio............................................................301,952
Oklahoma......................................................3,541,950
Oregon...........................................................30,608
Pennsylvania.....................................................22,312
South Carolina...................................................20,602
South Dakota....................................................413,977
Texas........................................................19,069,085
Utah.........................................................54,443,508
Virginia..........................................................2,099
Washington......................................................815,708
West Virginia...................................................379,821
Wyoming.....................................................503,771,957
________________
Total...............................................1,096,699,888
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND--STATE AND FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Federal Total
Fiscal year appropriation appropriation appropriation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1965......................................................... $10,375,000 $5,563,000 $16,000,000
1966......................................................... 82,409,000 38,428,349 122,114,349
1967......................................................... 56,531,000 36,206,591 95,006,591
1968......................................................... 61,520,000 39,902,359 103,940,359
1969......................................................... 44,938,000 63,991,000 111,500,000
1970......................................................... 61,832,000 66,156,000 131,100,000
1971......................................................... 185,239,000 168,226,000 357,400,000
1972......................................................... 255,000,000 102,187,000 361,500,000
1973......................................................... 181,800,000 117,721,000 300,000,000
1974......................................................... 65,767,000 5,480,000 76,223,000
1975......................................................... 179,880,000 121,700,000 307,492,000
1976......................................................... 175,739,000 135,587,000 316,986,000
1977......................................................... 175,315,000 356,286,000 537,799,000
1978......................................................... 305,694,000 490,880,000 805,000,000
1979......................................................... 369,602,000 360,776,000 737,025,000
1980......................................................... 299,703,000 202,540,000 509,194,000
1981......................................................... 173,745,000 108,282,000 288,593,000
1982......................................................... 0 175,546,000 179,927,000
1983......................................................... 110,819,000 220,093,000 335,093,000
1984......................................................... 72,919,000 226,890,000 301,890,000
1985......................................................... 71,853,000 213,130,000 286,612,000
1986......................................................... 45,993,000 120,646,000 168,209,000
1987......................................................... 32,700,000 175,656,000 210,626,000
1988......................................................... 16,567,000 150,478,000 170,464,000
1989......................................................... 16,700,000 186,233,000 206,233,000
1990......................................................... 29,843,000 211,719,000 231,481,000
1991......................................................... 19,748,000 308,446,000 341,671,000
1992......................................................... 19,748,000 294,148,000 317,392,000
1993......................................................... 24,788,000 255,437,000 283,652,000
1994......................................................... 24,750,000 227,498,000 255,551,000
1995......................................................... 24,703,000 188,848,000 216,795,000
1996......................................................... 0 136,573,000 138,073,000
1997......................................................... 0 227,498,000 159,379,000
1998......................................................... 0 270,098,000 271,098,000
Title V*..................................................... 0 699,000,000 699,000,000
1999......................................................... 0 328,467,000 328,467,000
2000......................................................... 40,000,000 419,000,000 459,000,000
2001......................................................... 90,500,000 445,500,000 536,000,000
2002......................................................... 144,000,000 429,000,000 573,000,000
[[Page S9271]]
2003......................................................... 97,000,000 313,000,000 410,000,000
2004......................................................... 95,500,000 177,000,000 242,500,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 3,663,220,000 8,819,816,499 12,498,986,299
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Title V Funds are supplemental to the FY 98 Appropriation.
Ms. LANDRIEU. We ask the same, that the same process that is in the
law for onshore oil and gas drilling be in the law for off-shore oil
and gas drilling. The onshore revenue provision has been in place since
the early 1920s.
The record is clear. This, basically, is the essence of what our bill
does to mark the 40th anniversary of the creation of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. Let's actually find a way to fund it. That is what
our bill will do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I commend the Senator from Louisiana. She has worked
hard for 6 years on legislation like this. I am proud to join her on
the 40th anniversary of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to
continue its bipartisan support.
If I may ask through the Chair a question to the Senator from
Louisiana. She mentions that for 50 years we have had a tradition in
this country of a State royalty. In other words, if you drill for oil
in Wyoming, for example, there is a royalty paid to the State of
Wyoming, which is 50 cents out of every dollar of revenues.
I wonder if the Senator from Louisiana knows what amount of money
that royalty produced for the State of Wyoming this year?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, I do. I happen to have that document right here.
I understand the State of Wyoming, according to this document, has
received over $500 million. Yes, $503,771,000 this year, which was the
State royalty for Wyoming.
For the record, New Mexico received this year $318,768,000 in the
same account.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Louisiana.
The Senator and I understand that those concerned about the
appropriations process in the Senate have to deal with this issue.
Today, under our budget rules, if we were to create a conservation
royalty for offshore oil drilling and made it identical to what we have
been doing for 50 years with onshore oil drilling, that would require
us to treat it in a different way today than they did 50 years ago when
they started it. We know that. But what we are trying to suggest is
there is no real difference between creating a royalty on oil drillings
or gas drillings onshore and oil or gas drillings offshore. In fact,
there is a better argument for creating a conservation royalty than for
creating just any old royalty for the State of Wyoming or the State of
New Mexico or Arizona or Montana.
The logic is this. I am one who votes for more drilling for oil and
gas because I don't like us relying so much on the Middle East for it,
so I vote for that. But I don't know why we cannot agree that, if we
have an environmental burden on the one hand, we cannot create an
environmental benefit on the other hand.
This is a subject the Senator from Louisiana and I hope to talk over
with our Members and say yes, this is an issue. We understand that. But
for 50 years we have been taking 50 cents out of every dollar that
comes from drilling on Federal lands onshore--90 cents in Alaska--and
leaving it in the State where the drilling is done. What we are
suggesting is we take about 25 cents of every dollar from offshore
drilling and create a conservation royalty for the State to fund these
programs the Senator talked about. We think that makes good sense, and
that it is in the 40-year bipartisan tradition of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
I am convinced there is a bipartisan conservation majority in the
United States of America, and that on this legislation there will
eventually be a bipartisan conservation majority in support of the
Americans Outdoors Act.
I 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. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________