THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

   This legislation remedies this disparity. States and communities that bear the responsibilities for offshore oil and gas production will finally share in its benefits. This legislation would, for the first time, share revenues generated by OCS oil and gas activities with counties, parishes and boroughs--the local governmental entities most directly affected--and State governments.

   The bill also acknowledges that all coastal States, includi ng those States bordering the Great Lakes, have unique needs and directs that a portion of OCS revenues be shared with these States, even if no OCS production occurs off their coasts. Coastal States and comm unities can use OCS Impact Assistance fund s on everyt hing from environmental programs, to coastal and marine cons ervation efforts, to new infrastructure requirements.

   In Alaska, Boroughs could use OCS funds to participate in the environmental planning process required by Federal laws before OCS development occurs. Other rural coastal communities in Alaska could use the money for sanitation improvements. While still others, like Unalakleet, may use the money to construct sea walls and breakwaters or beach rehabilitation--efforts which will combat the impacts of coastal erosion. Furthe r, as the Federal OCS program expands in Alaska, this legislation will mean even more revenues to the State, boroughs and local communities.

   This is a true investment in the future. This is money that will be used, day-in and day-out, to improve the quality of life of coastal State residents --money which come from oil and gas production.

   As Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I know all too well that offshore oil and gas production is a lightning rod of environmental groups who will go to great lengths to disparage an activity that is vital to the long-term energy and economic security of this country. These groups will likely say that this bill creates incentives for offshore oil and gas production because a factor in the distribution formula is a State's proximity to OCS production.

   Let us remember, this is an impact assistance bill --revenue s haring, if you will. States only will have impacts if they have production. The States with production, obviously, have greater needs and are most deserving of a large share of OCS revenues.

   Mr. President, let me also remind everyone, that OCS production only occurs off the coasts of 6 States--yet the bill shares OCS revenues with 34 States. There are 28 coastal States that wil l get a share of OCS revenues which have no OCS production. In fact, in all areas except the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska there is a moratorium prohibiting any new OCS production.

   It is the long-term best interest of this country to support responsible and sustainable development of nonrenewable resources. We now import more than 50 percent of our domestic petroleum requirements and the Department of Energy's Information Administration predicts, in ten years, America will be at least 64 percent dependent on foreign oil. OCS development will play an important role in offsetting even greater dependence on foreign energy.

   The OCS accounts for 24 percent of this Nation's natural gas production and 14 percent of its oil production. We need to ensure that the OCS continues to meet our future domestic energy needs.

   I firmly believe that the Federal government needs to do all it can to pursue and encourage further technological advances in OCS exploration and production. These technological achievements have and will continue to result in new OCS production having an unparalleled record of excellence on environmental and safety issues. Additional technological advances with appropriate incentives will further improve new resource recovery and therefore increase revenues to the Treasury for the benefit of all Americans who enjoy programs funded by OCS money.

   I will do all I can to ensure a healthy OCS program, including new OCS development in the Arctic. A number of challenges face new developments in this area--I am confident that we can work through them all. History has shown us that in the Arctic, and in other OCS areas, development and the environmental protection are compatible.

   This bill also takes a portion of the revenues received by the Federal government from OCS development and invests it in conservation and wildlife programs. Thus, Titles 2 and 3 of the bill share OCS revenues with ALL States for these purposes.

   Title 2 of this bill provides a secure source of funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The LWCF was established over three decades ago to provide Federal money for State and Federal land acquisition and help meet Americans recreation needs.

   Over thirty years ago, Congress had the foresight to recognize the ever growing need of the American public for parks and recreation facilities with the passage of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. That landmark piece of legislation was premised on the belief that revenues earned from the depletion of a nonrenewable resource need to be reinvested in a renewable resource for the benefit of future generations. This rationale is as valid today as it was in the mid-1960s.

   To accomplish this goal, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act directs that revenues earned from offshore oil and gas production should be spent on the acquisition of Federal recreation lands by the land management agencies. The Act also creates a state-side matching grant program.

   The state-side matching grant program provides 50-50 matching grants to States and local communities for the acquisition and construction of park and recreation facilities. The state-side program has a truly unique legacy in the history of American conservation by providing the States with a leadership role in the provision of recreation opportunities. Through the 1995 Fiscal Year, over 3.2 billion in Federal dollars have been leveraged to fund over 37 thousand state and local park and recreation projects.

   Yet, despite these successes, the President had not requested any money for the state-side program for the last four years. This is a program supported by this Nation's mayors, Governors, and the recreation community. The state-side matching grant should not have to justify annually its existence with Congressional appropriators.

   The same can be said of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery program established by Congress in 1978. UPAR provides Federal funds to distressed urban areas to rehabilitate and construct recreation facilities.

   Together, these programs strived to create a national system of parks that

[Page: S421]  GPO's PDF

   I also want to mention the money this bill provides for Federal land acquisition. To many westerners, including myself, the Federal government already owns too much land. In my state of Alaska, the four Federal land management agencies alone manage more than 60 percent of all the acreage in the State.

   Nonetheless, the demand for Federal land acquisition dollars is significant. The four Federal land management agencies have identified more than 45 million acres of privately owned lands lying within the boundaries of Federal land management units, including national parks, national forests, and national wildlife refuges. Many of these inholders, who want to sell, have been waiting for decades to receive compensation from the Federal government for their property.

   In many instances these landowners must suffer with restrictions on access to and use of their lands while they wait endlessly for the funds to compensate them for their land.

   In recognition of these competing propositions regarding Federal ownership, the bill tries to reach a balance. It provides money for Federal land acquisition. However, limitations are placed on its expenditure. First, Federal land acquisition money available under this bill only could be used to purchase lands within the boundaries of conservation areas established by an Act of Congress. Second, such lands only could be purchased from willing sellers. That is, the Federal land acquisition money available under this bill could not be used to condemn any property. The use of eminent domain is explicitly foreclosed. Third, three-quarters of the money must be spent on land acquisition east of the 100th meridian (east of Texas). These provisions are more restrictive than the current law regarding the use of LWCF moneys for Federal land acquisitions.

   I know that there are many who are not happy with this compromise. I cannot say I am happy totally with it. I do not think it provides adequate protections for the roles and responsibilities of the authorizing and appropriations committees. I can pledge that this will be an issue subject to discussions on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Under our Constitutional system of government, Congress has the plenary authority over Federal lands and appropriations. I believe that the historic role of Congress is setting the priorities for land acquisition should be preserved. Certainly, the President should set forth his preferences, as he does now, but in the final analysis the Congress should approved any expenditure.

   Title 3 of this bill provides funding for State fish and wildlife conservation programs. In Alaska, with its unparalleled natural beauty, fishing and hunting are two of the most popular forms of outdoor recreation. The bill directs that a portion of OCS revenues should go to the State for wildlife purposes.

   The money would be distributed through the Pittman-Robertson program administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. This money could be used for both game and non-game wildlife. With the inclusion of OCS revenues, the amount of money available for state fish and game programs would nearly double.

   This is a no-tax alternative to the ``Teaming with Wildlife'' proposal. States will be able to use these moneys to increase fish and wildlife populations and improve fish and wildlife habitat. States also could use the money for wildlife education programs.

   The bill creates a new subaccount, under Pittman-Robertson, called the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration account. The money in this account, from OCS revenues, will provide the funding needed to move the conservation community beyond the debate over game versus non-game funding. States will have the flexibility on deciding how to spend these funds to meet the conservation demands of all their residents.

   I am proud of this proposal which will be a win-win for the oil and gas industry, the States, environmental and conservation groups, and all Americans.

   I know it will be a win-win for Alaskans. Alaska is projected to receive more than $130 million annually from this proposal. In Fiscal Year 2000, Alaska would receive approximately $110 million in OCS Impact Assistance. Of this total, the State would receive $44 million as would coastal communities wit hin 200 miles of an OCS lease including the North Slope Borough, Barrow, and Kaktovik. Other coastal communities, no t near an OCS lease, like Valdez and Homer, would receive $22 million. These funds could be used for infrastructure, including sanitation improvements and safe roads, coastal erosion project s, and environmental protection programs. Title 2 and 3 of the bill provide an additional $21 million for state and local park, recreation, and wildlife conservation programs.

   These funds are sorely needed to meet the needs of the communities in Alaska and the skyrocketing public demand for wildlife and outdoor recreation programs and facilities within the State. Given this demand, I have received letters of support from throughout Alaska, including the cities of Barrow, Cordova, Soldotna, Haines, Sitka, Kotzebue and the Kodiak Island Burrough.

   This bill is far from perfect but it is a step to ensuring not only that Coastal States have mon ey to address the effects of OCS-activities but that all States have funds necessary to provide outdoor recreation and conservation resources for all of us to enjoy.

   As we begin the 106th Congress, I can pledge, as Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, that the enactment of this bill will be one of my highest priorities this year. I intend to hold a series of hearings on the bill to examine, in detail, its provisions. In closing, I encourage not only the members of the Senate but also all Americans to support this important and exciting piece of conservation legislation.

   Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues, Senators, MURKOWSKI and LANDRIEU in introducing the bipartisan ``Conservation and Re-Investment Act of 1999''. The Conservation and Re-Investment Act will serve to provide dedicated funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, wildlife enhancement programs and urban parks development by redirecting a portions of the royalty revenues derived from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production. In addition, this bill will redirect a portion of Outer Continental Shelf royalties directly back to coastal states which ha ve been impacted by Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production in order to assist those states in restoring and preserving air quality, water quality, wetlands, estuaries and other coastal resources and e nvironments impacted by Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production.

   This bill will allow coastal states to creat e trust funds, the revenues of which can be used in perpetuity for such purposes as environmental protection, conservation, water quality and public land purchases. Recognizing the boom and bust nature of oil and gas production, Alabama long ago created a protected trust fund from the oil and gas royalties it receives from development off its' coast. The revenues derived from the investment this fund have been used by the state to fund popular wildlife conservation programs and the state's ``Forever Wild'' program. These programs have permitted the state to make land purchases to create and expand Alabama's park system and to help create additional outdoor recreation opportunities for its citizens. It is my hope that this bill will create the conduit for other states and the federal government to follow the example set by my home state of Alabama. While the revenues derived from this fund will be limited to the goals of the Conservation and Re-Investment Act, a prudent coastal state must cons ider this option to guard against the boom and bust nature of the oil and gas business.

   Mr. President, this bill will go a long way towards protecting the environment and increasing conservation in coastal states and the entire nation by creating a dedicated funding mechanism to fulfill these goals. We, along with future generations, will benefit greatly from this legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues

[Page: S422]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I join my colleagues, Senators LANDRIEU, MURKOWSKI and SESSIONS, in introducing the Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act.

   Mr. President, since the inception of the oil and gas program on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), States and coastal communities hav e sought a greater share of the benefits from development. And why shouldn't they? These communities provide the infrastructure, public services, manpower and support industries necessary to sustain this development.

   Currently, the majority of OCS revenues are funneled into the Federal Treasury where they are used to pay for various Federal programs and to reduce the deficit. While funding programs and reducing the deficit is certainly important, I believe that some percentage of the revenues should be reinvested in the affected region.

   Our bill does just that. The Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act diverts one-half of the OCS revenues from the Federal Treasury to coastal States and comm unities for a multitude of programs: air and water quality monitoring, wetlands protection, coastal restoration and shoreline protection, land acquisition, infrastructure, public service needs, State park and recreation programs and wildlife conservation.

   This bill allows States and communities to use these funds. These States will effectively use the funds for local needs. In Pascagoula, for example, authorities might choose to restore and secure the shoreline where years of sea traffic have taken their toll. Further north in Vancleave, they may choose instead to refurbish the roads and bridges that carry the heavy machinery coming and going from the coast. This bill provides a framework within which these localities can make the right decisions for their citizens and their environment.

   Mr. President, I have been working on this issue for many, many years. As a ``coast dweller myself,'' I know the impact that the oil an d gas industry can have on communities and the importance of reinvestment in these areas. This is not to say that the industry mistreats the States; on the contrary, they work very hard to comply with stringent environmental regulations and to take care of the community as best they can. The OCS Policy Committee said in 1993 that, despite the oil industry's best efforts, ``OCS development still can affect community infrastructure, social services and the environment in ways that cause concerns among residents of the coastal States and comm unities.''

   I know that there is no way to totally eliminate this impact on coastal comm unities. I also know that, while the benefits of a healthy OCS program are felt nationally, the infrastructure, environmental and social costs are felt locally. Our bill would put money back into the communities that need it most.

   It would also put money back into the environmental resources of the area. Exploration for non-renewable resources and stewardship of coastal resources are n ot mutually exclusive, but must be carefully balanced for both to be sustained. It is important that wetlands, fisheries and water resources are taken into consideration. Affordable adequate protection is possible.

   In addition to supporting up the States and coastal communities, ou r bill also provides funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). More than 30 years ago, Congress set up this fund to address the American public's desire for more parks and recreational facilities. This bill makes the program self-sufficient, providing a secure funding source from the OCS revenues. This is an investment in our future--our land, our natural resources and our recreational enjoyment.

   Mr. President, our bill makes yet another investment with these OCS revenues--an investment in fish and wildlife programs. With the inclusion of OCS revenues, the amount of money available for State programs would nearly double. This is money that can be used to increase fish and wildlife populations and habitats. It could even be used for wildlife education programs.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents