On the recordJuly 26, 2011
I am a strong supporter of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It's one of the great environmental success stories of the past 50 years. The $65.8 million that the bill contains for the Land and Water Conservation Fund is in fact, as has been stated, the lowest since the program was started back in 1965. This is a 78 percent cut from the current level of funding. But I have to oppose the Bass-Murphy amendment because it not only is too small but the offset used would in fact harm other important programs. The $20 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund that the Bass-Murphy amendment would restore is less than 10 percent of the $235 million cut from this year's level. But to fund this plus-up, the Bass amendment actually makes it worse by taking $20 million from the Office of the Secretary's account. Because what appears to be an increase in funding in the Secretary's office is actually the transfer of the revenue collection function from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement. The Office of the Secretary took that in so that the Interior Department can do a better job in collecting the royalties and payments that are due the American people from Outer Continental Shelf drilling. But if you take this $20 million away, it jeopardizes those collections. The problem is that the Land and Water Conservation Fund is in fact funded with Outer Continental Shelf royalties.…
