[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16688-16689]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 THE CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am so grateful to the majority leader. 
This morning there was, I thought, a very good presentation by several 
colleagues concerning S. 25, the Murkowski-Landrieu bill. This 
legislation, which is supported by a number of my colleagues, is called 
the Conservation and Reinvestment Act.
  I want to say that is a wonderful title because it implies that we 
are going to conserve something and that we are going to reinvest money 
to make our environment better.
  It is very tempting when you first look at the bill to say this is an 
excellent bill. But as you get into the bill, and as you listen to the 
remarks of my colleagues who are for it, you basically realize that it 
does basically one thing and one thing only; that is, it encourages 
more offshore oil drilling on Federal lands because it makes the 
revenues States receive dependent upon how much offshore oil drilling 
they engage in off their coast.
  What it means for States such as California that protect its 
coastline by restricting offshore oil drilling, is that there will be 
less funding for conservation, and States that encourage offshore oil 
drilling, which I believe despoils the environment, will be rewarded by 
far more funds. States that have absolutely no offshore drilling and 
those that are landlocked also do not benefit from this bill.
  While purporting to simply provide guaranteed funding for the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund, S. 25 distorts the fundamental principle 
behind the establishment of the Act.
  The original idea behind it is to purchase beautiful lands for future 
generations.
  When I ask colleagues if, in fact, S. 25 encourages offshore oil 
drilling--they say, no; we don't. But yet if you listened to Senator 
Murkowski's comments on the floor today, you will hear something 
different. This is what he said about the bill, S. 25:

       In order to have a successful Conservation and Reinvestment 
     act, we've got to have a continuation of OCS revenues 
     occurring off the shores of some of our States.''

  He went on to say:
  Support for this legislation is related, to some extent, by those 
States that see an opportunity to generate a source of revenue.
  And continued to say:

       In order for it to be successful, we have to have and 
     encourage offshore revenue sharing.

  Clearly, what Senator Murkowski is saying about S. 25 is the truth. 
That is, if a State wants to receive more funds, they should allow and 
promote more offshore oil drilling off their coasts.
  I come from a State that treasures its coastline and knows that the 
impact of offshore oil drilling is devastating. I don't think we should 
be punished because we stand strong in our State in a very bipartisan 
way, to say we don't want this impact.
  I don't believe S. 25 is a conservation bill. I believe the principal 
goal is to encourage more offshore oil drilling, and thereby bring 
about more destruction to the environment--not less destruction.
  States that have active drilling programs will be the primary 
benefactors. There is no question about it. Alaska, Texas, and 
Louisiana get 50 percent of the money while the entire Nation will lose 
as we deplete a beautiful federal publicly-owned natural resource; 
namely, our ocean.
  This doesn't seem fair. This is a national resources owned by the 
American people. As such revenue from this resource must be shared 
throughout our nation.
  States that are protecting their resource and don't have offshore oil 
drilling, as well as States that are landlocked, will lose under S. 25.
  I introduced a bill that really does fulfill our commitment to the 
preservation of our natural resources. Congressman George Miller 
introduced the companion bill in the House. The bill we introduced, the 
Resources 2000 Act, has a number of fine cosponsors. In fact, 37 states 
would benefit more from the funding distribution under Resources 2000 
than in S. 25.
  I hope colleagues will look at the Resources 2000 bill, which has the 
support of over 200 environmental organizations.
  Those on my bill include Senators Dianne Feinstein, Paul Sarbanes, 
Chuck Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, Paul Wellstone, Ted Kennedy, Joe 
Biden, Barbara Mikulski, Bob Torricelli, and John Kerry. We have more 
coming.
  We have a national resource--our oceans. We destroy that resource 
when we drill for oil.
  Frankly, the amount of oil that is there isn't worth all the 
destruction that follows. However, if a State wants to do this, that is 
their option.
  But I don't think they should get rewarded more because they do not 
mind destroying their coast. States that care about their coast and 
protect and defend it with laws and coastal zone management plans are 
penalized under S. 25.
  In 1965, Congress established the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 
Congress decided that as we deplete one of our nation's natural non-
resources, we should invest that money into protecting and preserving 
our nation's renewable resources. The Act required that we take the 
revenue from offshore oil drilling and put that money into purchasing 
critical lands.
  They take the money and they repair. They repair, and they buy 
beautiful tracts of land to save it in perpetuity. Part of that money 
is supposed to be for historic preservation, which we haven't fully 
funded either.
  S. 25 flies in the face of the principal purpose of the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund. Money distributed through S. 25 does not have 
to go for environmental purposes. S. 25 says to the States: You don't 
have to use the funds you are getting for the environment. In fact, 
money could be used to fund environmentally destructive activities, 
such as road building.
  Many of my colleagues have stated that revenue generated from the 
Outer Continental Shelf should be treated similar to revenue from on-
shore drilling. Lets be clear: the OCS land is unique. It is federal 
land, and federal land only. It is not within the boundaries of any 
state, unlike on-shore areas.

[[Page 16689]]

  I think any expansion of the uses of OCS revenue should stick to the 
framework of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act that Congress in 
its wisdom passed in 1964. And we must uphold that original commitment 
by fully funding the trust fund. That is what we ought to do--fully 
fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, on the State side as well as 
the Federal side, and fully fund the historic preservation fund.
  Many of us in our beautiful States, whether it is Mississippi, 
California, or anywhere in this country, have beautiful old buildings 
that are falling apart, and we don't have the funds to preserve them.
  We should fully fund protection of our marine resources. In our bill, 
we provide $350 million for States to conserve and protect the marine 
environment.
  We protect ranchland, farmland, and forestland through purchasing 
conservation easements.
  I think it is a very exciting alternative to S. 25. It is, in fact, 
endorsed by over 200 conservation organizations. It is also the only 
legislation that provides funding to restore degraded Federal lands and 
tribal lands.
  The majority leader made some good remarks this morning. He said we 
must maintain the lands we currently own. I agree with that. That is 
why Resources 2000 takes care of that by providing $250 million for the 
maintenance of our degraded federal and tribal lands.
  I would like to inform you at this time of some of the organizations 
that support Resources 2000: Sierra Club; National Audubon Society; 
Environmental Defense Fund; The Wilderness Society; the California 
Police Activities League; Defenders of Wildlife; and Earth Island 
Institute.
  I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                Organizations Supporting Resources 2000

       American Oceans Campaign.
       Bay Area Open Space Council.
       Bay Area Trail Council.
       Bay Institute.
       California Police Activities League.
       Carquinez Strait Preservation Trust.
       Defenders of Wildlife.
       Earth Island Institute.
       East Bay Regional Park District.
       Environmental Defense Fund.
       Friends of the Earth.
       Friends of the River.
       Golden Gate Audubon Society.
       Greater Vallejo Recreation District.
       Izaak Walton League.
       Land Trust Alliance.
       Marin Conservation League.
       Martinez Regional Land Trust.
       National Conference of State Historic Preservation 
     Officers.
       National Audubon Society.
       National Environmental Trust.
       National Parks and Conservation Association.
       National Association of Police Athletic Leagues.
       National Wildlife Federation.
       Natural Resources Defense Council.
       Physicians for Social Responsibility.
       Preservation Action.
       Save San Francisco Bay Association.
       Save the Redwoods.
       Scenic America.
       Sierra Club.
       Society for American Archaeology.
       Trust for Public Land.
       U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
       Wilderness Society.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support the 
true conservation bill: the Resources 2000 Act. Again I thank the 
majority leader for his graciousness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________