Natural Resources Management Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I call up substitute amendment No. 111, as modified, with changes at the desk.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we are now on S. 47, our lands package bill, and as we have heard, Senator Lankford's amendment has just been called up. I am happy to speak to that, but I understand he is in the process of coming back to the Hill. We will wait for his arrival, and he can speak directly to his amendment.

I want to take just a couple of minutes, right off the top, and speak to some of the broader provisions in this bill that I view as significant. Interestingly, I was just visiting with our President pro tempore, and he thanked me. He said thank you because we have a provision that helps Council Bluffs, IA. It is something we have been working on for a long time, and now it appears it will be finally resolved through this legislation.

That is a prime example of what we have put together with this 100- plus package of land and water bills--bills that help sports men and women, bills that help us with measures on conservation. It is a very wide and broad effort, and yet so many of these provisions are very local and very parochial. However, local issues can help with economic development in a region, and I want to highlight how this package does create economic opportunities in our communities across the country.

For example, when this bill is signed into law, Fannin County, in rural Texas, will gain local control over the Lake Fannin Recreation Area from the Forest Service. This recreation area right now, we are told, is rundown. It has been closed to the public for many years. The county is looking forward to actually taking ownership so it can transform Lake Fannin into a multiuse recreation area, complete with trails, playgrounds, and water recreation, allowing and encouraging people to come and visit and enjoy.

We also include a provision for La Paz County in Arizona. This conveys a parcel of Federal land to facilitate the development of a large-scale solar project. It will also allow for a link to an electric transmission line. This is going to be creating local jobs and is going to be bringing renewable energy online to power many of our communities. There is a great benefit there.

In Tucson, AZ, we removed bureaucratic obstacles to allow for the city to operate a park. They have done this, apparently, for dozens of years without the control of a Federal Agency. So when the local citizens want to operate, perhaps, a farmer's market, they are not going to have to jump over hurdles or be subjected to the whims of Federal officials there. Instead, they are able to make these local decisions. For heaven's sake, if they want to put a little farmer's market in there, they shouldn't have to come to Congress to ask for permission.

Another example--I mentioned this one before--is in South Dakota, in Custer County. This is a conveyance that will allow the county to have full ownership of all the lands on which it operates its airport. It will allow the county to expand the airport so a little bit larger aircraft can get into the airport.

Again, you want to think about economic opportunity. If you can't bring more folks into your community, into your region, you are limited. Conveyances like this--small-scale acreage that can allow for that expansion of opportunity--are strong and are important. This is yet another reminder as to the opportunities that we create for our local communities.

We are also expanding and designating new areas of off-highway vehicle recreation in the Mojave Desert, which is out in San Bernardino County in California. The OHV recreation is a growing sector in the outdoor recreation economy. It is so important to a lot of our communities.

We also encourage Agencies to look for new opportunities for fishing, for hunting, and for recreation on our Federal lands. Again, this is a very, very significant sector in our economy as consumer spending by hunters and anglers and target shooters supports over 1.6 million jobs and about $71.8 billion in salaries per year. Of course, there is that ripple effect then to the larger communities when you are able to bring in folks to enjoy these areas. This is just a further example of how we really work to create new economic opportunities and why this lands package is so important.

We are creating economic opportunities, but we also fix a lot of problems. That is one of the things that we try to do on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Sometimes problems are created because you just didn't even know that it was actually your Federal Government or your land disposition that was causing any form of impediment, but we really do work with a number of these provisions to help to solve real problems with Federal land management.

There is one example that, I think, my friends from Louisiana will appreciate, and this relates to the situation at Lake Bistineau--I hope I am pronouncing that right--sponsored by Senator Cassidy.

Back in 2017, there were a couple of residents who wrote to Senator Cassidy. They were outlining their problem, and they wrote: Look, our family purchased our land, our minerals, our home, in the subject section over 13 years ago after we retired.

They go on to write: We have lived in our home on the land ever since. There were no contrary claims or clouds on the title to the property when we purchased it. Therefore, we were disturbed to discover that the government felt it had a claim to our title.

That would be kind of a bummer of a letter to receive when you have been living there for over a dozen years, and now you find out, well, maybe you don't have a clear title there.

Lake Bistineau has a long and a very complicated history with the Federal Government. The land in question was conveyed by the Federal Government to the local levee district in 1901. Then it was subsequently deeded to private individuals. Yet, in the 1960s, the BLM resurveyed the land, and then it realized the boundary line was incorrect. That survey led to the determination that about 200 acres of land that were currently held privately were actually Federal land. That is a real problem, of course.

As the letter to Senator Cassidy went on, they wrote: Just a few years ago, we had the property listed for sale. Once a suggested claim was made by the BLM in its 2013 letter, the potential contract on the property fell through.

Again, this is a situation of people who had been living happily in their home for a period of time and decided that they were going to be moving on but now were limited--handcuffed. They had no idea that this was a problem that they had to deal with.

It is not just they. There were more than 100 private landowners in Louisiana who were impacted by this. This is regarding land that has been held under a private title for over a century now--places where people have built their homes, their businesses, their lives--and now it is unclear where exactly everybody stands. In the case of Lake Bistineau, our bill clarifies ownership of the land and prevents the Federal Government from ever claiming it in the future.

I think, as people go through this to look at individual bills that we have included, that these are the types of things that really help people. They help improve people's lives, and they help improve our local economies. Unfortunately, sometimes it literally takes an act of Congress to clear up whether these are problems or impediments to our opportunities. Again, what we have managed to address within the structure of this bill is very, very important.

I want to address the issue that will be before us this afternoon, and that is a conversation about the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

As I mentioned, Senator Lankford's amendment is before us, and I wanted to kind of put in context what it is that we have done within our lands package proposal and the title that relates to the LWCF, as we call it. This is in title III. Effectively, what the Land and Water Conservation Fund establishes and what our provision does is to make permanent the authorization within the LWCF. So we deposit oil and gas receipts into the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Also within our bill, we make some commonsense reforms to the LWCF Act. This is something that, in my view, has been a long time in coming. We have had good collaboration going back and forth as to how we can make these reforms and also allow for this important conservation fund to be authorized permanently going forward.

There is a little bit of history here. The LWCF was enacted to help to preserve, to develop, and to assure access to outdoor recreation resources. It is kind of a paper trust fund that accumulates revenues from the Federal motorboat fuel tax and surplus property sales and then to supplement these sources to reach the annualized level of $900 million, which is what the authorized figure is. It is not a figure that we have reached historically. That is for sure. The fund also accumulates revenue from oil and gas leases from the Outer Continental Shelf, or the OCS. As we see those revenues come in, those revenues from the fossil fuel then go to fund an account, if you will--the LWCF fund--to help with conservation, and whether States are moving forward with conservation efforts or Federal entities are, it helps to fund that.

The authorization to deposit oil and gas receipts into the LWCF expired on September 30, 2018, at the end of this past fiscal year. We have to make sure that those LWCF funds are moved, are made available, but the moneys in the fund are only available if they are appropriated by Congress. Currently, we have an unappropriated balance of just over $20 billion in the LWCF. So some have said: Oh, my gosh. The authorization expired in September, and nothing is happening within the LWCF.

In fairness, those funds are still coming in. What we need to do is to make sure that they are then available for distribution and for appropriation, and that is what we will do with this authorization.

The amendments to the LWCF in this bill are, again, very important to the structure of the fund, and they are well supported in the Senate. We have been focusing on this expiration date and the deposits to the LWCF for a long, long time. I think we have had kind of this stop-and- go approach of: How long are we going to reauthorize the LWCF? Is it 2 years? Is it 3 years? Is it permanent? Is it not?

We go back and forth and forth and back. Let's come to the place where we can accept that this conservation fund is important on a host of different levels, but let's also work to make sure that we have reformed, in a sense, how we utilize this fund. Through this measure, we are making the authorization permanent, and spending from the LWCF still remains subject to appropriations.

Let me just outline some of the reforms that we have included. In fairness, they don't go as far as I would like them to, but they clearly reflect a bipartisan-bicameral agreement. I will go into a little more history again.

The 1965 authorization for the LWCF--the original authorization-- provided that States would receive 60 percent of the funding and that the Federal Agencies would receive 40 percent. So where the State side dollars have gone in the past is to outdoor recreation facilities, and these have been in areas where people generally live--around the local city playgrounds, baseball fields, local fishing holes, and State parks. Certainly, in States like mine, what we are able to do with the State parks with the LWCF moneys is really, very, very beneficial and very much appreciated.

We set it up in 1965. In 1976, Congress stripped this 60-40 split from the act. The question there is, Why? The ``because'' is that there was concern in Congress that by increasing the authorization level to $900 million, some States would have difficulty in meeting the 50-50 match required to receive the funds. In an effort to provide some flexibility there, Congress then replaced the 60-40 State-Federal split with the current language, which provides that not less than 40 percent of the appropriations from the LWCF should be for Federal purposes. So we have gone from, basically, a guarantee that the States would get 60 percent of the funding to, really, kind of flipping that and saying not less than 40 percent goes to Federal purposes.

What happened was not really the result that the Congress had intended. According to the Congressional Research Service, over the last 25 years, what we have seen is that over 84 percent of the funds have gone to Federal purposes, primarily for land acquisition. Because we don't have that more clearly defined split, now we are seeing that Federal acquisition increase significantly.

When we talk about the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act these days, it is almost always about the Federal land acquisition side. In my view, that is disappointing, and that is not the direction that I would like. I think so many have seemed to have forgotten about the very, very pivotal role that the States have in conservation and outdoor recreation under the act.

What we do in our LWCF section is to recognize that States are the leaders on recreation and conservation. We aim to restore the balance to the State-Federal split by ensuring that at least 40 percent of the LWCF funds have to be allocated to the State side program. We want to try to get back to a greater level of equity instead of what we have had--again, over 84 percent of the funds going to Federal purposes.

We also recognize the importance of access to existing Federal lands. In our measure, we amend the LWCF to set aside the greater of 3 percent or $15 million per year to improve access for sportsmen and other recreation opportunities. For those of us in a sportsmen community--for those of us who are hunters, for those of us who are fishermen--access to these lands is really, really important. We don't want to just have them and not be able to utilize them. Whether it is going out and hiking or going out and fishing, these are the traditions that we have. Being out on these Federal lands is the importance, and we recognize that in this legislation.

I have made no secret of the fact that I worry about what many would consider to be unfettered land acquisition by the Federal Government. In my State, the Federal Government controls almost 224 million acres. To put it into context, Alaska is pretty big. You know how big it is. It is the biggest out there. It is one-fifth the size of the United States of America. About 63 percent of our lands are held in Federal ownership. To put it in another context, that is about one-third larger than all of Texas. So all of our Federal lands are about one-third larger than all of Texas. It is a lot.

Large amounts of Federal lands within a State give the Federal Government outsized influence in what happens in these States. So, to begin to address these issues, the LWCF section that is contained in our bipartisan product requires the resource Secretaries to consider conservation easements instead of fee title acquisitions, where appropriate and feasible, and this will help to keep lands in private ownership and as working lands. This is a measure that my colleague from South Dakota has been pushing and advancing.

In addition, we also amend the LWCF to require the Agencies to take into account certain considerations in acquiring land. This is like the geographic distribution--whether the acquisition would result in management efficiencies and cost savings. We know that we have this kind of checkerboard pattern of Federal lands, so being smart about our acquisitions to develop efficiencies is the direction we seek to take with this measure.

As you can see, we put a lot of work into the provision. We have focused very keenly on LWCF, recognizing the priority that it is to so many. I think we have tried to find that balance between reforms that are workable and reforms that acknowledge the role our States play and to put some contours on the LWCF that I think Members can appreciate and support.

I see that my friend, my colleague from South Dakota, is here. I don't know--maybe he wants to talk about that little airport in Custer County. I have never been there, but hopefully it is going to make a little bit of a difference to him. There are a couple hundred acres that are conveyed to Custer County.

I yield to my friend from South Dakota.

I will be speaking about these and others measures as they come to the floor.

Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, for the awareness of Senators, they should expect a vote in relation to the Lankford amendment No. 158 sometime around 1:30 this afternoon--so just in a little bit here. Then, next in the queue will be Senator Lee's amendment No. 162. We hope to have a vote on that amendment around 2 o'clock. There is a lengthy Judiciary hearing that is still underway, and we want to accommodate that.

Both of these amendments are related to the Land and Water Conservation Fund I just spoke about a few moments ago. I just wanted to give Members a heads-up.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have before us now the pending amendment. This is the Lankford amendment regarding the use of LWCF funds for deferred maintenance. This amendment acknowledges and, I think, attempts to address what we are dealing with in a deferred maintenance backlog. We all recognize that it is an issue and a problem. What Senator Lankford has done is specifically to direct 5 percent of funds distributed from LCWF to deferred maintenance. It also requires that any new Federal lands acquisitions allow for maintenance needs at the time of acquisition.

I think we would all agree that we have a very real problem with deferred maintenance on our Nation's public lands. We think about the National Park Service most often, which has an $11.6 billion backlog, and it is not just the National Park Service. It is the National Wildlife Refuge, BLM, and the Forest Service. So this is an issue, and we have been working within the committee to address this. There have been numerous bills that have come before our committee. We are working with the administration, and we know we have to address it.

This proposed amendment is clearly an effort to do that, and I appreciate what Senator Lankford has done in focusing our attention on this significant maintenance backlog and the need to plan for routine and ongoing maintenance in any new acquisition.

So I am standing before our colleagues saying: I understand where Senator Lankford wants to take us, I appreciate it, I agree with him, but given where we are right now with this package and how it has come together, knowing that we will have, I think, significant opposition, whether it is on the other side or in the other body, it is viewed as detrimental to what we have put together.

So I am reluctantly going to be opposing the Lankford amendment, but, again, I want to make sure that we all take this on as an issue to address in a way that is rational, sound, and reasonable going forward into the future.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. 158, and I request the yeas and nays.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I stand to object to the amendment of my friend from Utah.

We recognize the significance and importance of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. There has been an effort for reauthorization back and forth over the years.

Within this measure before us, we have not only permanently authorized LWCF, but we have included significant reforms--reforms that I believe are necessary and reforms that I think the Senator from Utah would agree are good in terms of getting more resources to the State side and making sure that there are better ways to account for the funds.

I now have an opportunity to move to table the Lee amendment No. 162 and would encourage Members to vote on this tabling motion in the affirmative.

What we have collaborated to build at this point in time is a necessary fix to address the continuation of the LWCF, and I ask for Members' support.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. 111.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I call up Murkowski amendment No. 112.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source