The Advocate (Baton Rouge) - 10/4/00 
HOUSE VOTE MAY KILL COASTAL FUNDS PLAN 
By JOAN McKINNEY Advocate Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. House voted Tuesday to dramatically increase funding for the environment and coastal states, but probably doomed separate legislation that would give Louisiana a permanent and guaranteed share of federal offshore oil and gas royalties.

"I believe it's dead," U.S. Rep. Chris John, D-Crowley, said of the royalty sharing measure. "Well, scratch the ‘dead' part. I think that this was a major setback. …… I'm not sure where we go from here."

Tuesday evening, U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., began an informal filibuster in the Senate. It was intended to delay the Senate's consideration of a pending Interior Department appropriations bill, which would increase funding for the environment and coastal states, until the advocates for royalty-sharing can develop a comeback strategy.

With Congress set to adjourn next week, John conceded that the Louisiana delegation has little time to rescue the royalty-sharing legislation, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act.

CARA would require that billions of dollars of federal offshore royalties be split between:

Special "coastal impact" royalty-sharing for a few oil- and gas-producing coastal states, with Louisiana slated to get $170 million to $300 million a year in draft versions of CARA.

Guaranteed annual spending, spread among all states, for the environment, outdoor recreation, wildlife habitat, urban parks, forestry and historic preservation.

However, the fiscal 2001 Interior Department appropriations bill that passed the House Tuesday would allocate hundreds of millions of dollars next year to projects in all the coastal states, without many special considerations for Louisiana and other oil-and gas-producing states.

The appropriations bill also would allocate about $1.2 billion in fiscal 2001, which began Oct. 1, for other CARA-like, pro-environment programs nationwide.

In the following five years under the Interior appropriations bill, billions of dollars more in royalties also would go into a trust fund solely for coastal programs and for other environmental initiatives. Because the royalties would be earmarked for the environment, the environmental trust fund could not be raided to pay for other, nonenvironment programs.

That approach, however, also stops short of the mandatory and automatic royalty-sharing that would occur every year under CARA.

Under the Interior appropriations bill, the offshore oil and gas royalties would not be released from the environmental trust fund until Congress specifically released them. Nor would the oil and gas coastal states get automatic royalty-sharing and the greater flexibility to spend the money that CARA would provide.

Instead, all coastal states would apply for grants, and federal agencies would pass judgment on the states' spending plans.

Under the Interior appropriations bill, "the federal government makes the decisions," complained U.S. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, a chief sponsor of CARA. "If the federal government disagrees, the states don't get the money."

"This is not CARA," John said. "The energy behind CARA is about one thing -- it's about permanency. It's about making sure people can plan for the future. Sports programs, ballparks, wildlife management programs -- they can function if they're going to have a revenue stream that is certain year to year."

The House previously approved a stand-alone CARA bill by 315 to 102. The Senate has not acted on CARA, however. If the Senate does not take up CARA, enactment of the fiscal 2001 Interior appropriations bill would wipe out the House's previous approval of CARA.

U.S. Sen. John Dingell, D-Mich., warned that, in reversing course on CARA, the House was rejecting "a once in a lifetime opportunity" to require annual spending on the environment.

In theory, offshore oil and gas royalties already are earmarked for the environment; but, for about 30 years, congressional appropriators have not spent all the money authorized, Dingell said. Without CARA, the House and Senate Appropriations committees will continue blocking the release of money from the environmental trust fund, Dingell said.

House appropriations' leaders oppose the mandatory-spending feature of CARA. Two senior appropriators, Reps. Norman Dicks, D-Wash., and Ralph Regula, R-Ohio, said the appropriations bill "is not CARA."

The Interior Appropriations bill "is not a guarantee" of fixed, annual spending levels for coastal states and the environment, Dicks said. "But it is about as close as you're going to get and still let the Congress have some oversight over how this money is spent."

Regula said the Interior appropriations bill "requires accountability" for how federal royalties are spent.

"If we're disbursing federal dollars, we have the right to ask for accountability for that money," he said.

CARA would create an environmental "entitlement" that favors the environment over almost all other domestic programs, said U.S. Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. "We should add no new entitlements to the federal budget until we see to it that every American has a basic entitlement to health care."

However, the Interior appropriations bill still would increase coastal and environmental spending, Obey said.

"The bill is a victory for those who care about our precious natural resources," he said.

Obey said that, for coastal programs alone, "We take the appropriations from a little more than $100 million to over $400 million. That ain't bad. …… If you think that's a defeat (for coastal states), it requires a new definition of that word in Webster's."

Young of Alaska complained that "every governor has blasted this (Interior appropriations bill). The mayors and the governors, they know they're back to square one. They know they have to go back to the appropriators and grovel" for the disbursal of federal royalties.

Obey replied that, "There are about four coastal states who this year netted $100 million, and under CARA they want a billion. We give them about $400 million. They want a billion. …… We spread the money more fairly among all the states, and we make no apologies for it."

The states Obey referred to include Louisiana and Alaska, which would claim the lion's share of CARA's coastal-impact program funding.

U.S. Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-Chackbay, said the special funding is fully justified because Louisiana and a few other coastal states absorb all the environmental impacts of oil and gas drilling on the federal Outer Continental Shelf.

Outside Congress, environmental groups were divided.

The National Wildlife Federation and an association of state wildlife agencies endorsed CARA and said the Interior Appropriations bill was an inferior substitute.

National offices of the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife endorsed the Interior substitute. Disagreeing with the Louisiana delegation's interpretation, these three groups said that the Interior appropriations bill at least takes "a step" toward locking up some oil and gas royalties for environmental purposes.

A Sierra Club official also expressed relief that the Interior appropriations bill has dropped "some ugly provisions" of CARA.

She said the Sierra Club is concerned that, under CARA, oil and gas coastal states could have too much leeway to spend federal royalties on development projects along fragile coastlines.

The Sierra official said that all versions of the CARA legislation give private property owners too many ways to obstruct the federal government's acquisition of land for environmental purposes.

She also said that one draft of CARA in the Senate provides some incentives for a future expansion of oil and gas drilling on the federal Outer Continental Shelf "especially off Alaska."

Landrieu, John and Tauzin insist CARA includes no production incentives.

The Louisianians have argued for some private-property-rights protections and some flexibility for local and state governments on how they can spend the proposed royalty-sharing.

When the House cast its stand-alone CARA vote earlier this year, all Louisianians voted for it.

Landrieu and other pro-CARA forces in the Senate may try to insert CARA into another appropriations bill that would fund the U.S. Commerce Department, or they may try to place CARA in a year-end, catch-all budget bill.

Prospects are bleak for any of these strategies, several Louisiana Congress members and aides said.

The Senate should have acted sooner, Tauzin said. He said that this late in the session, "You can't put CARA anywhere in the appropriations process. The appropriators won't allow it. They don't want to do mandates."

If Tauzin is correct about the remaining appropriations bills, CARA's fate could rest with the big, year-end budget bill.

However, Louisiana delegation members said that many of their colleagues will be reluctant to insist on CARA, if that means killing the budget bill and risking the shutdown of the entire government. Other lawmakers also will revolt against tactics that delay their returns home for re-election campaigns, the Louisianians said.

"Realistically, the chances are not good" for CARA, Tauzin said.

Be informed! Don't allow yourself to be snowed by CARA.