[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 117 (Friday, September 10, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10713-S10715]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    THE INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS BILL

  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]]

that there is a better way to spend the money that is coming from 
offshore oil and gas, a much better way to spend this money than what 
we have done the last 50 years. For the last 50 years, we have taken 
almost every dime that has come from oil and gas, almost every dime, 
and put it back into the general treasury of this country and operated 
our Government.
  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]]

the fishing, hunting, and sports enthusiasts who have helped bring this 
bill to where it is today, to the possibility of actually having this 
promise, which was made but never kept, become real for our children 
and grandchildren.
  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.

                          ____________________