[Page: S10713]
---

   Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning during morning business to say a few words about a couple of subjects that are very important to me and to the people of my State. As the American public knows, the last couple of days we have been engaged in a tremendous debate about the Interior appropriations bill. It is 1 of the 13 appropriations bills in this Congress we are trying to negotiate and pass as part of our overall budget, and it is a very important and quite contentious piece of legislation. There are many issues about balancing our resources: how they should be harvested, how they should be spent, how they should be invested.

   There are about 21 Senators in this body, on the Republican and Democratic side, who have worked very hard on a very comprehensive Conservation and Reinvestment Act which is now pending in the Energy Committee. Next year, as this bill comes out of this committee and becomes part of the national debate, it is my hope and vision we will be debating how to use the resources we have been able to set aside this year for the American public.

   In the bill we have crafted, which is S. 25, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, we have made a statement

[Page: S10714]

   I believe, and I think the American people strongly believe, that a good portion of that money should go back to protect the environment. We are depleting one resource, a great resource that we have in oil and natural gas, we are depleting it at a tremendous rate in the Gulf of Mexico, which is now the place, basically, outside of Alaska, where most of the offshore drilling occurs, and of course a little in the interior States. But the Gulf of Mexico has the bulk of our reserves. States such as Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and, to a certain degree, Alabama contribute.

   We are happy for the industry. We are learning to manage it in a more environmentally friendly way. We believe they can coexist, the oil industry and other industries and the environment. But all of this money, as you know, has gone into the general fund. We think it is time some of this money be reinvested before the wells run dry. One day there is not going to be any gas left, there is not going to be any oil left, and I, frankly, would like to have something to show for it.

   For those of use who have children and grandchildren and nieces and nephews and families, we would like to be able to say we were wise and smart and conservative and careful and good stewards of the great bounty God has given us, and we have decided to set aside permanently--not hit or miss, not willy-nilly but permanently--a portion of this money to create and sustain our National Park System, to create green spaces and places from New Jersey to California, from Washington State to Florida, from one point of this Nation to the other, to expand the public areas, to expand the green space, to protect our habitat, to provide wilderness areas in a way that makes sense for every community.

   That is what this bill does. It fully funds the land and water conservation fund which was promised by the last five Presidents, both Democratic and Republican, a great promise that sounded terrific and probably got some votes for them in the elections. The problem is, it was never funded consistently.

   I quote from a poll recently taken by Frank Lunz. As you know, he is a Republican pollster, but he did an absolutely outstanding job in this survey of the American people: 94 percent of the American people would like to set aside and create a special way of funding these kinds of programs. In fact, it might be of interest for some Members of this body to know that in a head-up polling, a true trust fund ``for land and water and open spaces beats the wildly popular highway and airport trust fund head to head 45 to 37.''

   We know how much support there is for a highway trust fund. People believe gasoline taxes that are levied should go to provide for highways, mass transit, fast trains, and environmentally friendly transportation vehicles of the future. That is what the American people want, and I agree with them. I voted for that and so did almost everyone in this body. But according to this poll, more people in this country believe there should be a real trust fund, that this promise should be kept, and when a promise is made, it should be kept.

   That is what S. 25 does. We are gaining support for it. If it can pass this year, next year when we have this debate on the Interior bill, we will be talking about the wonderful opportunity to allocate $900 million a year--$450 million hopefully for the State side of land and water and $450 million for the Federal side of land and water--what parks to expand, how to expand them, what picnic areas and wilderness will we create.

   In addition, that part of the bill will also bring some much-needed revenue to the coastal States, including the Great Lakes States, to mitigate against the challenges of being a coastal State. I do not think we have to look much further than the weather report from last week when Dennis battered the eastern shore and we have had hurricane after hurricane loss of barrier islands, loss of beach areas.

   If there is one thing the American people like to do on the Fourth of July, besides the fireworks and the celebration of our great Independence Day, it is to spend the holiday at the beach. People do it all over the world, and we are no different. But in many parts of this country, there is limited public access unless you are rich enough to own a million-dollar condo or have the money or resources to buy a section near a beach. Sometimes you cannot get there; it is crowded and jam packed.

   We would like to have some money for beach restoration, public space expansion, and mitigation against the impacts of being a coastal State. This money has been fairly spread around to States that produce oil and gas and, in a very generous way, even those States that do not. Those of us supporting this bill believe the money should go for those coastal areas. We have Governors, mayors, and county commissioners around this Nation who most certainly support that effort and can use the help as they struggle to keep their coastal communities intact.

   In addition, a part of this bill will also create a permanent, reliable stream of money for some much-needed conservation programs.

   I have gone fishing most of my life. I am not an expert, but I most certainly enjoy it. I do not do any fancy fishing. We

   had a camp for 30 years on Lake Pontchartrain. I have gone fishing for croakers and speckled trout most of my life. There are millions of Americans who are serious sports people and fishermen and enjoy being in the outdoors and fishing and hiking and walking in the wilderness.

   Part of this bill is going to be a help for States and agencies in all the 50 States to manage their wildlife resources better, both game and nongame. The States, under tremendous budget constraints, are doing a pretty good job. Some States are doing better than others. But the Federal Government should be a better partner. I believe it is much better to deal on the front end, before species are endangered, before habitat areas are endangered, to have money invested to keep them from becoming endangered. It will save us a lot of money, a lot of lawsuits, and a lot of headaches. That is what this bill also does.

   I am very hopeful, as the Energy and Natural Resources Committee of this Senate comes back from this recess, we are going to seriously consider this measure. I anticipate that it will pass. It will go through a tremendous debate. There is a similar bill on the House side. We are anticipating passage of that bill and are in negotiations with the administration.

   Next year when we come to this floor, Democrats and Republicans can proudly say: Last year we just did not talk about the environment, we just did not argue about how to fund our parks and what to do, but we took the opportunity when it presented itself.

   We are running a surplus, and I know there are calls for a tax cut. I support a modest, reasonable, and fiscally responsible tax cut and investments in education, but we can also make room in this budget to redirect revenues to the places they should have been when it started. Louisiana and other producing States most certainly should be able to count on a fair portion of that revenue coming back to them as well as sharing it generously, in the way I have described, with everyone else. I am hopeful that we will do that this year.

   So this debate will be quite exciting for the American people--shall I say more exciting next year because they will have seen us actually having done something, taking the bull by the horns and redirecting these revenues.

   These poll numbers speak for themselves. We do not need to always follow polls. Sometimes we do, and sometimes we do not. But, in this case, it is a good indication of how much the American people want us to take action and actually make progress, to stop talking about it and actually do something.

   I am hopeful S. 25 will pass. I thank the 22 Members of this body who have worked tirelessly over the last 2 years, and the Members of the House--Congressman JOHN and Congressman TAUZIN, Congressman DINGELL, Congressman YOUNG, Congressman MILLER--who have all engaged in trying to work this out in final negotiations on their side. I thank them for their diligence. I thank all the environmental groups, all

[Page: S10715]

   On that point, let me also add a word about this oil valuation. I just finished speaking for 10 minutes about using

   these oil and gas revenues for a really special purpose. So why would I also then come to the floor and talk about the oil valuation rule? The reason is that is exactly on point in this debate.

   There are some Members who think the oil companies are intentionally underpaying these royalties. Most certainly, based on the speech I just gave, I want to make sure, and will make sure to the best of my ability, that the oil companies are paying every single penny of royalties that are due to the American taxpayer because that money will go directly, if this bill passes, into this trust fund to be spent on parks and recreation.

   I most certainly will not be one of the Senators who will come to this floor and try to come up with some scheme, if you will, to get the oil companies off the hook. I want them to pay their fair share. In addition, being from Louisiana, when I was State treasurer before I came here, 45 percent--let me repeat that--45 percent of our State budget relied on oil and gas royalty rents and severance tax onshore and near shore. Many of these revenues went to fund our schools and put computers in our classrooms. We most certainly wanted every single penny to come our way.

   It is ludicrous to think these oil companies, which last year wrote checks to the Federal Government for $2.8 billion according to our royalty valuation, would flinch at writing another check for $60 million.

   Sixty million dollars is not a lot of money compared to $2.8 billion. They are not intentionally underpaying.

   The rules we have set up, like many rules we write, unfortunately--our tax rules--are complicated. Lawyers and accountants can look at the same rule and come up with different ideas about what it says or what it means or how much you owe. That is all this is.

   The oil companies are looking for--and I believe they are right--a simpler way. I was not here 3 years ago, but the year before I came, there was a bill which was passed that was to have made the rule more simple and more transparent in relation to what was owed in terms of rents and royalties and severance for those who dealt in Federal waters. We passed that law overwhelmingly. The rule was created and developed by the Department of Minerals Management.

   Unfortunately, the rule they are proposing is not going to work. It does not make the current system more simple. It, in fact, makes it more complicated. It is not going to get us out of court. It is going to keep us in court and litigation.

   I think the vote is going to be very close. The honorable Senator from California has a different view. She has stated on the floor that she thinks the oil companies are intentionally underpaying, although there has not been one lawsuit, to my knowledge, filed that has claimed ``intentional'' underpayment. The claimed underpayment is based on an honest disagreement of what the rules and regulations say and how these payments should be calculated, which is very complicated, as the Senator from Oklahoma, who is quite knowledgeable and quite an expert in this area, has shared on this floor.

   In conclusion, I am the lead author of a bill to put every

   single penny we can get from these oil royalties into the U.S. Treasury. The bill I have, with 21 other Senators, proposes a good way to spend that money. So I do not want to see us shortchanged at all. But I also think that going forward with this rule, which makes it more complicated, will not meet that end; it will only make it worse. It will keep us from redirecting these revenues, at least the full amount of them, the way we know we can.

   So I urge, when we vote next week, to vote with the Senator from Texas, Mrs. HUTCHISON, to keep this rule as a work-in-progress until we can come up with a simple way to get this done. I will be voting that way and urge my colleagues to also.

END