[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.

                          ____________________