[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16670-16675]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



             THE CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 1999

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am delighted to engage in a colloquy now 
that will involve a number of other Senators but particularly Senator 
Landrieu of Louisiana. I hesitate to even begin until she is present on 
the floor, but I presume she will be here momentarily.
  In her absence, I will praise her for her work on this particular 
legislation, S. 25, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999. Her 
persistence, her willingness to work with all parties involved--I don't 
mean political parties; I mean those who are interested in this type 
legislation--has made it possible for us to have this bill put together 
and have it before the Energy Committee and have not only the 
cosponsorship of her colleague from Louisiana but also of the chairman 
of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Murkowski. It 
has a broad spectrum of support, and I think a lot of the credit goes 
to the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu.
  I must say, it is a delicately balanced piece of legislation. If 
amendments start being added or changes start developing, then it could 
get out of control. And even though I am a cosponsor, I would have 
problems with that, even though clearly every piece of legislation can 
be improved as it goes forward.
  I bring to the attention of my colleagues S. 25. The American public 
has an exciting opportunity for this Congress to enact landmark 
legislation that will make a long-term commitment to natural 
conservation initiatives. We have the opportunity to begin the next 
century with the same major commitment to conservation that the Nation 
had at the beginning of the century under the visionary leadership of 
President Teddy Roosevelt. I believe this legislation will serve our 
Nation well for generations to come. I intend to be involved in its 
process through the committee and, hopefully, we will be able to bring 
it up for consideration in the full Senate before the year is out.
  This legislation would dedicate a portion of the annual reserves 
received from the production of Federal oil and gas revenues on the 
Outer Continental Shelf to a variety of initiatives that will conserve 
and enhance our Nation's sustaining and renewable resources. I am 
pleased to be a sponsor, joining a broad spectrum of my colleagues. The 
legislation, which is modeled after the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, 
will reinvest 50 percent of the revenues from the Federal OCS oil and 
gas production annually in coastal impact assistance and coastal 
conservation, in funding national, State, and local parks and 
recreation opportunities, and in conserving our Nation's wildlife 
resources before those wildlife fall into threatened or endangered 
status under the Endangered Species Act.
  It does have the support of various groups. I have felt for years 
that those of us who live along the coasts and who take whatever risks 
are associated with offshore oil and gas exploration should get some 
benefit from that activity and from the risks associated and that we 
should have the funds that are necessary to deal with such things as 
beach erosion, to preserve some of our delicate estuaries along the 
coastal areas. We have not been getting our fair share.
  So for the first time, I think this bill would move us in that 
direction. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House of 
Representatives, H.R. 701, introduced by Congressman Don Young, 
chairman of the House Resources Committee, with the cosponsorship of 
Congressman Dingell and Congressman Tauzin and others. I believe they 
have some 80 cosponsors.
  This important legislation will affect not just my State or not just 
the coastal regions but the whole Nation. We are facing a continuing 
shortage of funds in wildlife conservation initiatives, for State and 
local parks and recreation initiatives, for conservation initiatives 
with respect to the peculiar problems that confront our coastal 
regions, but also there are great concerns in the West and the areas 
that are a long way from the coast.
  Under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, one-half of the revenue from 
Federal mineral resources that are developed in a State are shared with 
that State by the Federal Government. Unfortunately, a similar 
provision does not exist with regard to Federal oil and gas resources 
that are produced off the coast of a State, even though the adjacent 
coastal area could suffer impacts from that activity. Not until 1986 
did the Federal Government share any of the Federal OCS oil and gas 
revenues

[[Page 16671]]

with the coastal States, and then only a small portion of that revenue 
from those offshore activities occurring in the first 3 miles of the 
OCS. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 will correct this 
inequity while also reinvesting a portion of the funds in conservation 
initiatives in all 50 States.
  The concept of reinvesting a portion of the revenue from the Nation's 
nonrenewable resources in renewable resources of the Nation has 
attracted the support of Governors, mayors, county governments, 
conservation groups, sports groups, and others around the Nation. The 
congressional hearings have created a record of great and broad 
support.
  Some of the highlights of that testimony include Mr. Hurley Coleman, 
director of Wayne County, MI, Division of Parks. He testified:

       You have the chance right now to take the place of the 
     visionaries of the past and support a process that will 
     provide for development, renovation and enhancement of 
     critical recreation resources in important living spaces 
     throughout the country.

  He went on to say this was a moment of destiny. Obviously, he was 
very supportive of the bill.
  Mr. Mark Van Putten, President and CEO of the National Wildlife 
Federation, testified that it presented an ``historic opportunity to 
enact permanent and meaningful conservation funding that would benefit 
wildlife, wild places, and generations of Americans to come.''
  We had support from the commissioner of Santa Fe County in New Mexico 
on behalf of the National Association of Counties who endorsed the 
principles of this act that would reallocate Outer Continental Shelf 
oil and gas revenues to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a coastal 
State revenue sharing program, and add funding to the Urban Park and 
Recreation Recovery Program and establish an innovative procedure for 
adding funding for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program.
  That is a very important thing. In my State, and a lot of States 
where the Federal Government owns a large amount of land--in my State, 
timberlands--and because, in my opinion, of bad national forest 
policies, those funds have been reduced. We are not cutting the trees 
that need to be cut. We had a disaster last year; a hurricane went 
through that affected two or three States. And because of resistance 
from certain environmental groups, the downed timber could not be 
removed. Now it is basically useless. Who benefits from that? Nobody. 
The timber that was downed wasn't used for the benefit of the lumber-
timber industry. And by allowing it to just lay there on the ground and 
die raises the prospect of insects that would then infest other trees. 
It makes no sense whatsoever. So the idea that we would get some more 
money for the payments in lieu of taxes is very attractive to me.
  Governor Tom Carper of Delaware, on behalf of the National Governors' 
Association, testified in support of this legislation. Governor 
Christine Todd-Whitman of New Jersey also supported it. Mayor Victor 
Ashe, the mayor of Knoxville, came and testified about how helpful this 
legislation could be.
  I know there are some concerns about how this money will be used. 
There has been some concerns expressed by the Farm Bureau and by the 
Loggers Association. These are two groups that are very important in 
this country and in my State in particular. I listened to them.
  If they have concerns about how these funds would be used in 
connection with land use, I would want to hear them out and make sure 
there is not a problem technically with the bill or make sure this bill 
does not further discourage and dissipate our resources from farming 
and from timber in this country. I also don't want this to become an 
opportunity for public land use groups to try to grab more land.
  While there are some public lands we want to have access to, we want 
to preserve, that is fine. But I think this administration, in 
particular, has been exceeding what the law allows and is still trying 
to tie up more Federal lands when, in fact, we are providing proper 
stewardship of the lands we already have. One example is the Park 
Service. Many of our national parks are deteriorating. Bridges are not 
passable, monuments eroding. Yet the Park Service seems to be more 
interested in adding more land to the parks before we take care of what 
we already have.
  This bill may help deal with that problem because it would make these 
funds more equitably available to go for not only coastal preservation 
but also could go to the national and State parks.
  I think we have a good idea here. It is one of those conservation 
bills that I think could be of benefit to everybody in this country, 
all States, and particularly my own State of Mississippi. I don't 
generally go on bills of this nature because I am very leery that these 
conservation efforts sometimes become--let's see, what is the word I am 
looking for--``confiscation'' efforts rather than conservation. I don't 
believe that is what this bill does. This could lead us to some real 
good policies that could bring together divergent groups in a way that 
we have not had the opportunity in the past.
  I am pleased to be here and point out to my colleagues this 
legislation, S. 25. I encourage them to take a look at it. I thank the 
chairman of the committee for his good work, and I look forward to 
working with Chairman Murkowski as we move forward on this very 
important Conservation and Reinvestment Act.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, who controls the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader and the Senator from 
Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask if the Senator will yield me 3 minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I join with the majority leader in 
congratulating the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Louisiana 
for putting forward this excellent proposal on land and water 
conservation. This is long overdue. I think it is an extraordinarily 
positive step.
  The chairman of the key committee, Chairman Murkowski, has decided to 
put forward this proposal, to support it, and to have the support of 
the majority leader.
  Those are two pretty powerful figures in this Senate pushing forward 
on this extremely positive conservation initiative. From the view of 
the State of New Hampshire, the stateside land and water conservation 
fund is something in which we are very interested. There are places in 
this country today where I think their representative Senators maybe 
think that the Federal Government owns enough land. Maybe the Member in 
the Chair is from one of those places, being from Wyoming. But those of 
us on the eastern seaboard still see critical pieces of land we would 
like to have protected. We have a huge population, a megalopolis, 
running from Washington to Boston, that is always moving north.
  In New Hampshire, there are critical elements of natural resources 
that need to be protected as we go through these massive expansions and 
these growth spurts, which are inevitable. The land and water 
conservation fund, over the years, has always been a positive force for 
protection and for allowing communities to do things they think are 
critical to making those communities better places to live--whether it 
happens to be building a park or a recreational area. Therefore, to 
refund or replenish the land and water conservation fund using the 
Outer Continental Shelf is absolutely appropriate and is absolutely 
critical if States such as New Hampshire, which are, unfortunately, in 
a wave of population growth, are going to be able to maintain their 
characteristics of being a rural environment and a pleasant place in 
which to raise a family.
  I support Senator Murkowski's bill, and I certainly appreciate the 
Senator from Mississippi, the majority leader, also being in support of 
this legislation. That bodes well for it.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
chairman of the committee. I see Senator Landrieu here, and I know she 
will want to speak.

[[Page 16672]]


  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. I don't want to 
interrupt the flow on this bill, but I wanted 5 minutes to talk about 
the 30th anniversary of the landing on the Moon. I wonder if I could 
have 5 minutes at the end of the colloquy.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have no objection.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of my friend and colleague, 
Senator Landrieu, let me briefly comment on the status of the OCS 
revenuesharing legislation that we introduced some time ago. This is a 
significant addition to a much-needed reform and, as a consequence, it 
has been termed as the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999.
  The bill itself reinvests OCS revenues. When I say ``reinvests,'' I 
am specifically noting the reality associated from where this revenue 
comes. It comes from OCS activities of some States. It could include 
other States if indeed they wanted to have OCS activity exploration and 
production off of their individual shores. Some of the States have 
chosen not to. I appreciate and recognize their reluctance. But let's 
be realistic and recognize that in order to have a successful 
Conservation and Reinvestment Act, we have to have a continuation of 
OCS revenues occurring off the shores of some of our States--Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and other States.
  My State of Alaska has a very small OCS activity; most of our 
activities are on land. But it is interesting to note the breadth of 
support for this legislation, which is related, to some extent, to 
those States that see an opportunity to generate a source of revenue. 
That is fine. That is the way Senator Landrieu and I constructed the 
legislation. Make no mistake about it, in order for it to be 
successful, we have to have, and encourage, OCS revenuesharing, as we 
have off the coast of Texas, and other States that I could mention.
  This is a coastal impact assistance and State coastal program funding 
mechanism for the land and water conservation fund, including 
fulfilling a long-delayed promise of support for State, local, and 
urban park and recreation facilities, as well as State wildlife 
programs.
  We have tried to cover a broad area of need, and I commend the 
Senator from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, for her extraordinary ability 
to encompass, if you will, the various broad interest groups.
  S. 25 gives States and local governments--and this is important--not 
the Federal Government, the responsibility for determining the 
conservation needs of their citizens and provides funding to help meet 
those needs.
  Now, that is where we have a difference with the administration. The 
administration proposes that it is the Federal Government's 
responsibility to make these decisions, and we say no. There are some 
other bills floating around that also propose to give the Federal 
Government the authority. We think responsible citizens know what their 
needs are, and these funds should be provided so they can make the 
decisions to help meet those needs, not a one-size-fits-all Federal 
Government.
  I encourage my colleagues to recognize the significance that the 
local people at the local level know what their needs are. A number of 
bills spending OCS revenues, and the administration's bill, which has 
been put forth, identifies the Lands Legacy Initiative. The Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, which I chair and Senator Landrieu is a 
member of, has had a series of hearings on all these proposals. We have 
learned about the need for coastal impact assistance. We are aware of 
the unavoidable social and environmental impacts on States that host 
OCS development. The State of Louisiana, for example, and the State of 
Texas, host, if you will, the impact because the activity is off their 
shores. It is an unavoidable social environmental impact, so they 
should receive additional consideration.
  Coastal impact assistance helps mitigate these burdens, even in 
States that prohibit oil and gas activity off their coast, such as the 
State of Florida, where there is a unique coastal and marine need 
associated with their set of priorities. We appreciate that and 
understand that.
  We have also learned about the widespread support in this country for 
State park, recreation and wildlife programs from the hearings. We have 
heard from the mayors, Governors, easterners, residents of the Great 
Plains, soccer coaches, hunters, environmentalists, and farmers. As 
evidenced by the witnesses we have heard in the hearings and the 
hundreds of letters the committee has received, we understand that 
Americans want meaningful conservation legislation. That is what we 
have attempted to do. But don't forget from where it comes. It comes 
from OCS oil and gas activity. We have to have a continuation of 
support for those States that foster and recognize the contribution of 
OCS activities. But those States have to be recognized for the impact, 
and they have to share in this as well.
  Now, their concerns have been expressed. We have had bills to provide 
money for Federal land acquisition. This may sound great to the Eastern 
States, where there is no public land. But for those of us out West, it 
is a little difficult to suggest that we are going to fund Federal land 
acquisition when many of us out West think the Federal Government owns 
enough of the land out there. If they want to fund the Eastern States, 
why, that is something different. This is a problem that has to be 
rectified.
  Residents of States with significant Federal land are worried that 
these bills will lead to a massive Federal land grab. The Federal 
Government owns about 70 percent of my State of Alaska. I can 
understand the fears. Fortunately, when Texas came into the Union, they 
made sure the Federal Government didn't own any. If we had it to do 
over again, I can assure you we would do it differently. Nevertheless, 
when we talk about the bill providing money for Federal land 
acquisition, the people in my State of Alaska, and in many of the 
Western States--to suggest that they would become unglued is an 
understatement. They fear this legislation will result in a Federal 
land acquisition grab, not where it is needed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from Louisiana has 20 minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may have 
2 minutes to finish.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, that is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator from Louisiana.
  At the risk of understating the importance of this bill, what we have 
attempted to do is find a balance, develop a compromise; but each time 
we accommodate one group's special interest associated with this, there 
is a reaction from another group that perhaps gave us support and is 
concerned that we have gone too far in any one area.
  As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, my goal 
and objective in working with Senator Landrieu is to report a bill to 
the Senate floor. We must have a bipartisan bill. The bill is going to 
have to remedy the existing inequity in the distribution of OCS 
revenues. It is going to have to provide funds for State conservation 
programs. It is going to have to provide guarantees for a role of 
Congress in Federal land acquisition. In other words, Congress is going 
to have to have something to say about Federal land acquisition and 
purchases. Finally, it is going to have to assure westerners that there 
will be no gain of Federal land in their States--no gain of Federal 
land in the Western States.
  This isn't going to be easy, but I think, working with Senator 
Landrieu and others, it is going to be worth the effort. Therefore, I 
look forward to working with my colleagues on this exciting 
opportunity, this exciting legislation. Previously, all of the OCS 
revenue has gone into the general fund. Now we have an opportunity to 
address this with some meaningful legislation that involves the OCS 
impact assistance, land and water conservation fund amendments, and the 
wildlife conservation fund under a formula that has been agreed upon.

[[Page 16673]]

  I encourage my colleagues, in consideration of this language, to 
allow the local people to make the decision, not a disinterested 
bureaucracy, a Federal Government that dictates one size fits all.
  I thank my colleague, the Senator from Louisiana, for her 
graciousness in allowing me this time and for her efforts to bring this 
before the body. I thank the majority leader, Senator Lott, as well.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. LANDRIEU addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the chairman, the Senator from 
Alaska, for his leadership in steering us to this point. We are just a 
short time away from having an opportunity to mark up this historic 
bill, if you will, this historic effort in his committee.
  I want to say that all of our committees have tremendous 
responsibilities and very significant efforts are underway. But our 
committee, Energy and Natural Resources, in addition to this effort, 
has the chairman negotiating a restructuring of our electricity 
industry for this Nation and he is trying to maneuver through a waste 
disposal bill that has been a source of great controversy. I thank him 
for giving his time and energy and determination in moving through a 
historic piece of legislation for the environment. Perhaps if we can 
accomplish this--and I believe we can--future generations will look 
back on this effort.
  I thank him and our majority leader, the Senator from Mississippi, 
who knows full well, from the perspective of a producing State, the 
significant negative impacts that are associated with an industry that 
both of us support and the opportunity here to do something positive 
for our States of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alaska, as well as other 
States in the Nation.
  I will reserve the remainder of my time, and at this point yield to 
one of my colleagues from South Dakota, who has so graciously joined us 
on the floor for this colloquy. As a member of one of the interior 
States, and as one of the leading spokespersons on this bill, I thank 
Senator Johnson for being with us today. I yield to him 5 minutes to 
speak on this important issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, is 
recognized.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Landrieu for her 
leadership on this issue, as well as Chairman Murkowski.
  I think we have an enormous opportunity this year to at last reach a 
bipartisan agreement to increase significantly the funding for several 
critically important planned water and wildlife conservation programs. 
Several legislative efforts to establish mandatory funding for 
conservation programs utilizing Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, revenue 
are under bipartisan discussion.
  I have been pleased to participate in hearings on these initiatives 
in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. All of the 
conservation legislation introduced this year proposed significant 
steps to support the restoration, preservation and conservation of our 
natural resources. The hearings in our committee have been extremely 
useful since, if we are to be successful this year, we have the 
daunting task ahead of us of drafting a compromise conservation bill 
which meets the diverse needs of all fifty states. Consequently, we 
need to hear as many perspectives and learn as much about the needs in 
the states as possible before we begin drafting a compromise bill.
  Preserving our natural resources is an issue to which many of us in 
this body are committed. Earlier this year I joined 35 of my colleagues 
from both sides of the aisle in sending a letter to Budget Committee 
Chairman Dominici and Senator Lautenberg requesting full funding for 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  Further, during consideration of the fiscal year 2000 budget 
resolution, Senator Boxer and I offered an amendment to establish a 
conservation reserve fund. This amendment was unanimously approved by 
the Budget Committee, passed by the Senate but unfortunately dropped in 
the conference committee. Nonetheless, the strong support from the 
Senate for this concept signals a commitment to finding a way to fund 
additional conservation initiatives.
  Additionally, one third of the Members of this body have cosponsored 
one of the conservation proposals which have been introduced. This 
level of interest indicates that while we have not come to an agreement 
on the details which should be included in a comprehensive conservation 
proposal, significant interest in this issue exists. This widespread 
interest offers an opportunity to find a bipartisan compromise to 
address this critically important issue.
  I applaud Senator Boxer in particular for her efforts in this area, 
and I applaud Senators Landrieu and Murkowski for their work on S. 25.
  One of the primary reasons I supported the bill earlier this year is 
the sponsors' inclusion of the non-game wildlife initiative, often 
called Teaming With Wildlife (TWW). I am convinced that funding for 
specified nongame conservation programs must be secured if we want to 
successfully work to keep species off of threatened and endangered 
species lists while also meeting the skyrocketing demand for outdoor 
recreation and education opportunities.
  Currently, I am circulating a letter which I will be sending to 
Chairman Murkowski and Senator Landrieu which advocates a higher 
percentage of funding for wildlife conservation than currently included 
in S. 25. Specifically, I am advocating increasing the funding 
allocation from 7 to 10. At this time other Senators joining me in 
sending the letter include: Senators Cleland, Frist, Lincoln, Daschle, 
Kerrey, Gregg, and Bayh--and more Senators may join in our effort.
  I commend Chairman Murkowski and Senator Landrieu for their support 
of the TWW concept and look forward to working with them to find an 
adequate level of funding for this important program.
  There are other issues, of course, for which I have a great deal of 
interest, including the funding for the PILT program and funding for 
historic preservation efforts.
  However, probably the largest outstanding issue--and the potential 
show stopper--for all of us who want to find a compromise conservation 
proposal is identifying whether we have room in the budget to increase 
funding for conservation.
  The recent mid-session review paints a rosy picture of our current 
economic situation and I believe that targeted tax relief and paying 
down the publicly held debt must be our top priorities. However, I also 
believe that within the context of a balanced budget, the new economic 
projections give us room to consider modestly increasing funding for 
domestic priorities, such as conversation.
  Again, we have an opportunity this year to find a bipartisan 
compromise which will ensure adequate funding for conservation, 
restoration, and preservation efforts across this country. I again 
commend Chairman Murkowski and Senator Landrieu for their bipartisan 
effort and look forward to working with them in the coming weeks and 
month to craft a bill which can pass this body and which will, in fact, 
be signed by the President of the United States.
  I yield such time as I have remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I thank the Senator from South Dakota for those remarks, and again 
for his hard work in getting us to this point.
  I would like to yield, if I can, 4 minutes to my colleague from 
Arkansas, for her remarks on this bill as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the Chair.
  I also want to thank my colleague from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, and 
Chairman Murkowski, for their fabulous leadership on this issue.

[[Page 16674]]

  I rise today in support of greater funding for land and wildlife 
conservation programs as embodied in S. 25, the Conservation and 
Reinvestment Act of 1999.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation to ensure 
that a portion of the revenues from outer continental shelf oil and gas 
production are dedicated to land, water, and wildlife conservation 
programs throughout the U.S. It is well past time that the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund is permanently funded and used as originally 
intended to provide for state and federal land purchases and to help 
states with conservation and recreation needs. We need consistent, 
dependable funding for federal, state, and local governments to make 
investments in land preservation, habitat conservation, and wildlife 
management.
  I know in my home state of Arkansas, this funding is badly needed for 
protection of exiting wildlife habitat and conservation programs as 
well as for funding additional conservation and recreation needs. Since 
inception, the state and federal sides of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund have combined to provide Arkansas with over $84 
million in targeted land purchases for preservation of tracts of 
forested lands, purchases of needed land for state and municipal parks, 
lands for schools, land for baseball fields, bike trails, zoos, and 
recreation areas. The federal side of the LWCF has provided resources 
for needed land purchases in the Ozark and Ouachita National Forests, 
White River and Cache River National Wildlife Refuges, the Buffalo 
National River, and for preserving many other tracts of land. The state 
side of the LWCF has provided land for a ballpark in Bentonville, a 
school park in Jonesboro, a zoo in Little Rock, a swimming pool is 
Searcy, a city park in Batesville, a swamp habitat in Woodruff County, 
and for over 600 other projects across my home state. And there are 
still many needs for these resources. Funds are needed for in-holdings 
purchases in State and national forest and to assist rural communities 
with building parks for children and to help urban areas with 
preserving needed green space.
  S. 25 would also create a permanent source of funding for state-run 
wildlife conservation programs. Title III of the bill will help state 
agencies identify and prevent species from being listed listing under 
the Endangered Species Act. In Arkansas, about 86 percent of all 
wildlife species are not pursued for sport or consumption, nor listed 
as threatened or endanger. It is these species that title III of S. 25 
is targeted toward. There is currently no reliable, dedicated funding 
source for conservation, recreation or education programs for these 
non-game species. Title III will provide this necessary funding.
  Two examples are the Swainson's warbler, traditionally found in the 
bottomland hardwoods of my home state, and the barn owl, traditionally 
found across my state's delta. The Swainson's Warbler can still be 
found in certain places in the Delta region of Arkansas, but is rapidly 
declining throughout its range due primarily to loss of its bottomland 
hardwood habitat. Funding from Title III of S. 25 will help head off 
the potential future listing of the Swainson's Warbler as threatened or 
endangered by increasing the amount of suitable habitat through a 
combination of management actions on public lands and habitat 
incentives for private lands.
  The barn owl has been a traditional predator feeding almost 
exclusively on rodents that are agricultural pests. This owl has 
persisted in the Arkansas delta despite low population levels for 
years. The barn owl responds well to artificial nest boxes that could 
be erected on a large scale with funds provided, under Title III, 
especially if this effort were combined with an intensive landowner 
educational campaign. Both of these prevention program can be 
accomplished easily under Title III of S. 25 without the disruptions 
and restrictions that would occur with a listing under the Endangered 
Species Act.
  Mr. President, I could go on and on about the good things that land 
and wildlife conservation programs have done in the past and can 
continue to do into the future for all of Arkansas--the projects are 
too numerous to list--but I want to make clear that the programs in 
title II and title III of S. 25 are necessary sources of funding for 
states and localities to complete needed, targeted land purchases for 
conservation and to prevent to continual decline of wildlife throughout 
my home state and this Nation.
  These are great examples of what this bill can do for States such as 
Arkansas and many others. I join my colleagues in support of what 
Senator Landrieu and Chairman Murkowski are doing, and I look forward 
to seeing the bill on the floor where we can certainly see it pass in 
the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arkansas for 
describing with such enthusiasm what this bill brings to her State of 
Arkansas and to all of our States.
  Let me take the remainder of my time to recap for a moment and to 
speak from the Louisiana perspective as one of the producing States and 
share with this Congress and with the Senate some of our perspectives.
  First of all, as the majority leader said, this bill is a historic 
effort to provide a permanent and steady stream of revenue to do 
several important things: To fully fund the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund; to provide a reliable stream of money for wildlife wetlands 
habitat preservation; and to provide much-needed revenue for the 
coastal impact assistance.
  We are also hoping to include some funding for historic preservation 
and urban park initiatives.
  From the Louisiana perspective, you may not realize that over 80 
percent of the Federal oil and gas that is produced annually from the 
Outer Continental Shelf is produced from waters adjacent to the State 
of Louisiana.
  The onshore activities that support the Federal OCS development in 
the Gulf of Mexico occur largely within the boundaries of our State. 
Mississippi contributes to that, as well as Texas.
  Almost all of the oil and gas produced from the gulf moves through 
the State of Louisiana in pipelines thousands and thousands of miles in 
length--delivering oil to refineries and to natural gas distribution 
systems throughout our Nation.
  We are happy to do our part to help this Nation in its need for 
energy supply. However, we can no longer abide by the Federal 
Government's unwillingness to share even a portion of these revenues 
with our State to help offset the adverse environmental impact and the 
public service impact on Louisiana.
  That view is shared by Mississippi, Alaska, Texas, and others. Let me 
explain.
  The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 provides that 50 percent of the 
revenues received by the Federal Government for the development of oil 
and gas and other minerals on shore will be shared with States in which 
those minerals are produced. Some of our interior States benefit from 
that arrangement.
  In addition, because the Federal minerals are within the geographic 
boundaries of particular States, the State has the power over and above 
that sharing of 50 percent to collect a severance tax on the production 
and payment in lieu of taxes from the Federal Government for the acres 
of Federal land used for this endeavor.
  The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which governs the production 
of Federal oil and gas minerals on the Outer Continental Shelf, 
however, contains no similar provision. In fact, from 1940, when this 
production began, until 1986, the State of Louisiana and other coastal 
States received no portion of these oil and gas revenues. Not until 
1986 were we able to receive a very small portion of those revenues 
generated between a 3-mile and 6-mile line.
  Just yesterday, however, exploration officials from British Petroleum 
announced the discovery of the largest deep-water find in history 125 
miles southeast of New Orleans. The underwater find is dubbed ``Crazy 
Horse.'' It was discovered in 6,000 feet of water.
  Imagine the kind of equipment that is going to take to mine this kind 
of

[[Page 16675]]

find. We are happy to do this. The industry provides economic 
opportunity.
  But can you imagine providing the infrastructure in your State, for a 
construction company building hundreds of skyscrapers such as this in 
your backyard? These underwater skyscrapers all have to be built and 
parts manufactured and moved to the site. All of this material moves 
through the fragile environment of coastal Louisiana, Mississippi, and 
Texas.
  If this monument, or if this structure, were out of the water to be 
seen, it would be as if you stacked the Washington Monument end to end 
10 times. It is the kind of structure that has to be built to mine 
these sorts of finds in the gulf.
  In 1998, Federal mineral development from offshore totaled 
approximately $2.8 billion. That is what we sent to the Federal 
Government. Yet we only received $20 million. That is less than a tenth 
of 1 percent.
  Let me state that again--a tenth of 1 percent is what Louisiana was 
able to retain. Other States retained 50 percent. In addition, they 
received other payments. This situation is obviously not just; it is 
unfair, and this bill attempts to help correct that inequity.
  As a result of OCS activity, Louisiana has suffered a significant 
negative environmental impact. We have lost over 1,000 square miles of 
coastal wetlands over the last 50 years. If we don't take action today, 
we are liable to lose another 1,000 square miles more in the next 50 
years.
  To bring this down to size, we lose a football field every day. We 
lose an area the size of the State of Rhode Island every year.
  These losses are partially due to natural erosion but are aggravated 
by the way we have levied the Mississippi River, which, again, serves 
as a port for our entire Nation and not just our State, and it is also 
impacted by the activities associated with oil and gas drilling.
  The people of Louisiana, while understanding that this is very 
important and this is a national asset--and, again, we are happy for 
the industry and want to promote an environmentally sensitive way of 
drilling as we know it today--believe that we should be more justly 
compensated for these impacts.
  The distribution formula in S. 25 is weighted to provide an extra 
portion to those six States with Federal offshore oil production. We 
are not giving any incentive for future production. We want this to be 
a drilling-neutral bill, if you will, but a revenue-sharing bill that 
acknowledges the contribution made by our producing States.
  As proposed in S. 25, Louisiana will only receive 10 percent of the 
Federal revenues that are generated. Again, historically, we have 
received less than one-tenth of 1 percent. Historically and to date in 
the law, the interior States have received 50 percent. We are asking 
for our fair share and modest share of this money, and S. 25 outlines a 
10-percent portion.
  The cosponsors of S. 25 believe it is appropriate to share a portion 
of Federal OCS revenues with coastal States that do not and will not 
have any offshore oil production.
  Today there is no dedicated source of funding for the variety of 
coastal environmental problems that are being experienced around the 
Nation, even in those States that are not producing. S. 25 recognizes 
that the producing States should be acknowledged and those States which 
are nonproducing also have challenges with their coastline--beach 
erosion, et cetera.
  When Congress created the Land and Water Conservation Fund over 30 
years ago, it was intended ``to provide a steady revenue stream to 
preserve `irreplaceable lands of natural beauty and unique recreational 
value.' Royalties from offshore oil and gas leases will provide the 
money, giving the program an interesting symmetry. Dollars raised from 
depleting one natural resource would be used to protect another.''
  This, unfortunately, has not come true. These moneys were given but 
taken away. They were appropriated in different amounts over the years. 
This bill will attempt to use the dollars produced by depleting one 
natural resource to preserve many areas of natural beauty in our 
Nation, both on the coast and in our interior States.
  This is an important bill for Louisiana and the gulf coast, but it is 
important for the entire Nation. Our legacy as leaders will be the land 
we leave to our children and their children. At the rate we are going, 
we might not have very much to give them.
  This bill will give us a steady stream of revenue to provide full 
funding for our land and water conservation, to give much-needed 
resources for our coastal States to mitigate some of this negative 
impact and also to share justly with the other States in our Nation.
  I thank the Chair for allowing us to have this time today. I, again, 
thank the majority leader and the chairman, and to the 20 or more 
sponsors we have for this legislation. It is my hope that we can mark 
this up shortly and move this bill through the process.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 
1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Reserving the right to object, we were 
supposed to be in the policy committee starting at 12:30 p.m.
  The Senator from Alabama.

                          ____________________