On May 11, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 701, the bipartisan House companion to S. 2123, by an overwhelming vote of 315 to 102. Congressmen Don Young (R-AK), George Instiller (D-CA), Billy Tauzin (R-LA), John Dingell (D-MI), Chris John (D LA) deserve accolades for this remarkable compromise.
This legislation provides $2.8 billion for seven distinct reinvestment programs. Title I authorizes $1 billion for Impact Assistance and Coastal Conservation by creating a revenue sharing and coastal conservation fund for coastal states and eligible local governments to mitigate the various impacts of OCS activities while providing funds for the conservation of our coastal ecosystems. ID addition, the funds of Title I will support sustainable development of nonrenewable resources without providing incentives for new oil and gas development. All coastal states and territories will benefit from coastal impact assistance under this legislation, not just those states that host federal OCS oil and gas development. Title II guarantees stable and annual funding for the state and federal sides of the Land and Water Conservation Fund ~(LWCF) at its authorized $900 million level while protecting the rights of private property rights owners as I am sure my colleagues from the House side will be more than happy to point out during their testimony. The bill will restore Congressional intent with to the LWCF, the goal of which is to share a significant portion of revenues from offshore development with the states to provide for protection and public use of the natural environment. Title III establishes a Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Fund at $350 million through the successful program of Pittman-Robertson by reinvesting the development of nonrenewable resources into a renewable resource of wildlife conservation and education. This new source of funding will nearly double the Federal funds available for wildlife conservation. This program in particular enjoys a great deal of support through the tireless support of a coalition of over 3000 groups known as Teaming with Wildlife. In addition, the Wildlife Conservation program would be enhanced without imposing new taxes. Title IV provides $125 million for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovered program through matching grants to local governments to rehabilitate and develop recreation programs, sites and facilities. The Urban Parks and Recreation program would enable cities and towns to focus on the needs of its populations within our more densely inhabited areas with fewer greenspaces, playgrounds and soccer fields for our youth. Stable funding will provide greater revenue certainty to state and local planning authorities. Title V provides $100 million for a Historic Preservation Fund through the programs of the Historic Preservation Act, including grants to the States' maintaining the National Register of Historic Places and administering numerous historic preservation programs Title VI provides $200 million for Federal and Indian Lands Restoration through a coordinated program on Federal and Indian lands to restore degraded lands, protect resources that are threatened with degradation and protect public health and safety. Title VII provides $150 million for Conservation Easements and Species Recovery through annual and dedicated funding for conservation easements and funding for landowner incentives to aitl in the recovery of endangered and threatened species. Finally, there is up to $200 million available for the Payment In-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program through the annual interest generated from the CARE fund.
I would like to close by pointing out that the opportunity exists to make the Conservation and Reinvestment Act even stronger. There are additional programs such as urban forestry and national park resources which we plan to address. In addition, as many of you know, Senator Bingaman has introduced a bill, the Conservation and Stewardship Act, which shares similar goals, albeit through a slightly different approach. I applaud Senator Bingaman for his efforts and hope we are able to reach a compromise in the near future as prospects for this legislation may never again be as positive as they are in the year 2000. We must resolve our differences of approach and enact this major commitment to conservation that will benefit not just certain people or certain regions of the country, but all Americans for generations to come.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.