I want to begin by congratulating my colleagues, Chairman Young and Representative Miller, for their remarkable and successful efforts to pass H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. I am thrilled that we have gotten to the point we are at now. The House-passed bill, while not perfect, offers a useful starting point for the Senate. I was particularly pleased with several key changes that I believe largely address the question of drilling incentives.
Several days after the victory on the House floor, I introduced identical legislation in the Senate and had it placed on the Senate calendar. I did this not because I endorse everything that is in the House bill but rather, because I believe that the fastest way to pass conservation funding legislation is to take up where the House left off. With so few days left in the legislative calendar, I fear the Senate will miss its opportunity to work on this important issue unless we move forward expeditiously. It would be a tragedy if we let this session of Congress end without passing this critical legislation to protect our invaluable natural and cultural heritage.
I understand that Chairman Murkowski has scheduled a mark-up for these bills in mid-June. I commend the Chairman, Senator Bingaman, Senator Landrieu and others on the Energy Committee who have been working for many months to find a compromise; I hope that they are indeed able to move a strong bill out of their committee.
Whatever bill becomes the final vehicle, it should accomplish the following four goals: 1) provide substantial and permanent funding for conservation purposes; 2) ensure that the funds will be used only for the benefit of the environment; 3) give adequate guidance to direct the funds to the most pressing conservation needs; and 4) be free of any incentives for increased offshore oil and gas development.
I believe that S. 2181 most effectively accomplishes these goals. Although many of the bills have similar features, S. 2181 has some important distinguishing characteristics that are worth highlighting. Importantly, S. 2181 includes an incentives program for landowners who contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered species. Increased outreach to landowners is desperately needed to ensure the continued survival of many endangered and threatened species that are found primarily on private lands.
Like many of the other conservation funding bills, S. 2181 also provides funding to state fish and wildlife agencies for wildlife protection. The bill, however, provides specific guidance to the states, including a requirement that they develop a strategic plan for using these funds. This ensures that the funds will be used for nongame and game species alike and that the funds will be directed to the species that have the greatest conservation needs. The planning language for this title is supported by a broad array of wildlife interest groups.
S. 2181 also provides greater clarity to coastal states about the use of coastal impact assistance funds. It ensures that the funds will be used only for projects related to environmental enhancement or restoration. Without such explicit restrictions, there will be pressure at the state level to siphon off these dollars for activities completely unrelated to conservation, including environmentally harmful activities.
Finally, S. 2181 includes safeguards to ensure that the bill in no way creates incentives for state or local governments to support increased offshore oil and gas drilling.
These are all features that should be incorporated into any bill that moves forward in the Senate. The level of public awareness and interest in these conservation issues has grown dramatically as people realize that our natural and cultural treasures will continue to disappear unless we act quickly to save them. During the last election there were a record number of successful state ballot initiatives directed at the protection of open space, slowing of suburban sprawl, and increasing environmental protection. By margins of nearly 2 to 1, Californian voters passed two major bond initiatives: a $2.1 billion bond for land acquisition, outdoor recreation, urban parks, farmland protection, and wildlife habitat; and a drinking water bond providing $1.9 billion for watershed restoration and water quality improvement. Americans understand that we can't afford not to make a long-term investment in our natural treasures.
This level of public interest is reflected by the fact that nearly every governor has expressed support for the idea of permanent conservation funding. The White House has sent strong signals of endorsement. And most recently, the House demonstrated unequivocally that broad bipartisan support exists across the political spectrum and from all geographic regions. This is as it should be.
It is time now for the Senate to act. I am committed to doing everything I can to create a permanent source of conservation funding, and I am hopeful that we can pass legislation to do so this year.