Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues, Senator Lincoln from Arkansas, Senator Bayh from Indiana, Senator Smith from Oregon, and Senator Feinstein from California to introduce the ``Improved Maternal and Children's Health Coverage Act of 1999,'' that would improve the health coverage of needy children under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and Medicaid. CHIP was implemented during the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to ensure children living in working families that do not qualify for Medicaid, but still cannot afford health insurance, receive the care they need. As part of the 1996 welfare reform law, Congress allocated $500 million to states to provide children and families access to Medicaid. This fund will expire for 16 states on September 30, 1999, and for 18 more States, including Louisiana, on December 31, 1999. Our proposal would extend the life of this fund to allow states to continue to use these dollars as they carry out outreach efforts for both Medicare and CHIP providing our children with health care. Eleven million of the nation's children remain uninsured despite the passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Mr. President, we need to strengthen this essential program. In Louisiana alone, there are 268,000 children who still do not have health insurance. About half of these children are eligible for Medicaid or CHIP, but are not enrolled because of the lack of outreach. I know that in my colleague's state of Arkansas, they have insured just over half of the children who are eligible. The ``Improved Maternal and Children's Health Coverage Act'' will provide better outreach services to those families who may not know of their eligibility. It provides for a simplified and coordinated enrollment process that would determine eligibility for both Medicaid and CHIP. Additionally, the measure gives the states the option to cover pregnant women. Studies have shown that prenatal care improves the health of new born children and reduces the risk of birth defects. It is so very important that our children have health coverage from the first day of life. Parents are just beginning to be aware that this special program exists and that their children are eligible. It is our responsibility as leaders to make sure that our children are given the best possible opportunities for success. This means we must provide quality access to children's health services. We must not let these children fall through the cracks.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues, Senator Lincoln from Arkansas, Senator Bayh from Indiana, Senator Smith from Oregon, and Senator Feinstein from California to introduce the ``Improved Maternal and Children's Health Coverage Act of 1999,'' that would improve the health coverage of needy children under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and Medicaid. CHIP was implemented during the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to ensure children living in working families that do not qualify for Medicaid, but still cannot afford health insurance, receive the care they need. As part of the 1996 welfare reform law, Congress allocated $500 million to states to provide children and families access to Medicaid. This fund will expire for 16 states on September 30, 1999, and for 18 more States, including Louisiana, on December 31, 1999. Our proposal would extend the life of this fund to allow states to continue to use these dollars as they carry out outreach efforts for both Medicare and CHIP providing our children with health care. Eleven million of the nation's children remain uninsured despite the passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Mr. President, we need to strengthen this essential program. In Louisiana alone, there are 268,000 children who still do not have health insurance. About half of these children are eligible for Medicaid or CHIP, but are not enrolled because of the lack of outreach. I know that in my colleague's state of Arkansas, they have insured just over half of the children who are eligible. The ``Improved Maternal and Children's Health Coverage Act'' will provide better outreach services to those families who may not know of their eligibility. It provides for a simplified and coordinated enrollment process that would determine eligibility for both Medicaid and CHIP. Additionally, the measure gives the states the option to cover pregnant women. Studies have shown that prenatal care improves the health of new born children and reduces the risk of birth defects. It is so very important that our children have health coverage from the first day of life. Parents are just beginning to be aware that this special program exists and that their children are eligible. It is our responsibility as leaders to make sure that our children are given the best possible opportunities for success. This means we must provide quality access to children's health services. We must not let these children fall through the cracks.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am glad we can try now to get back on the central subject of this debate, which is so important to many people in our country and particularly to us in Louisiana because many of these oil companies reside in our State and most of the work in the production of oil and gas goes on off of our shore. So I have been actually anxious all morning to try to get some time on the floor to speak about this issue of royalty valuation. But I just feel compelled to say how disappointed I am in my colleague from Wisconsin and the remarks he made, I think, directed to this issue and to be backed up by the Senator from California. To say that this issue, which is giving soft money contributions, ``is at the heart''--quote--of this debate, I think is really--it is offensive to the Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle. It is particularly offensive to those of us who actually weren't supported by the oil and gas industry when we ran to get elected to the Senate but find ourselves having to speak on this issue of royalty valuation because of the principles involved, because of the facts involved, and because this is a very important principle at stake on this vote. I also want to say, as the Senator from Wisconsin knows, I have been a strong supporter of campaign finance reform. So I am particularly offended by the way he made the remarks in the context of this debate and hope in the course of the next 5 or 6 or 7 hours that have been agreed to on both sides, we can stay focused on the oil royalty valuation and the issues regarding this because they are important. So in that vein, let me just try to get us back to the subject at hand and remind all my colleagues what this debate is really all about because it is important. It involves a lot of money. It involves a lot of businesses. It involves a lot of employees. It means a lot of jobs. It is about taxation, and that is always important to everyone involved. The Minerals Management Service of the Department of the Interior is responsible, as has been made clear, for assessing and collecting royalties from oil and natural gas production from Federal lands, including the Outer Continental Shelf. Federal laws that date back to 1920--and while those laws have been modified, the fundamental issue has not been changed since 1920-- require that for the purposes of paying Federal royalties, the value of oil must be assessed at the lease. That is interpreted and has been interpreted to mean at the wellhead. It is at the lease. These leases, as we know, are getting larger and farther from the shore. They are not just in the neighbor's backyard any longer. They are not just out on the rancher's property. They are hundreds of miles offshore. The usual royalty rate for oil is one-eighth the value from land and deep sea and one-sixth the value of oil drawn from offshore leases. In 1988, oil and gas producers paid more--and I want the record to be clear about this--paid more, in 1 year, $4.7 billion in Federal royalties and have paid more than $40 billion in the last 10 years. In fact, I happen to know because of another bill that many of us have been working on, that since 1955, the oil companies have paid in rents, royalties, and bonuses $120 billion. The thought that the oil companies would balk or would reject paying another $60 million is actually ludicrous because they paid $4.7 billion last year and will probably pay a similar amount next year. While my colleagues continue to talk about the $60 million figure, it is ludicrous that the oil companies that already pay this amount would flinch actually at paying $60 million more. What is at issue is the principle of the way this is calculated. As we know, before it is sold, the oil is typically transported, processed, and marketed for sale. Each of these costs incurred must be subtracted from the purchase price in order to get back to the wellhead value. It is the determination of this wellhead value that can be complex and costly and lengthy, and many legitimate disputes have arisen about the correct method of valuation. Some of these were addressed as part of the Oil and Gas Royalty Fairness Act enacted into law in 1996, but several other contentious issues remain. That is why we are debating this today. Both the industry and Government agreed that royalty valuation needed to be updated and simplified. When that law was passed to encourage simplification, the agency responsible for interpreting the law, instead of making a rule that is more simple, made it more complicated; they made it more complex. The new rule is not very transparent, and it is unworkable. The industry is stating, and I believe they make a legitimate argument when they say: We do not mind paying our fair share, but we want the fair share we owe to be more clear so we can get out of the courtrooms. The issue today is whether we want to spend 5 months trying to work this out, which is what I am proposing we do, along with the Senator from Texas, or we want to spend 5 years in court at great cost to the taxpayers, at great cost to the industry, at the loss of jobs in many States throughout the Nation. It simply makes no sense, and with all due respect to the Senator from Wisconsin, it has nothing to do, in my case and knowing the integrity of the Members of this Senate, with campaign finance reform or lack thereof. It has to do with the legitimate difference of opinion over an accounting rule. It is not an environmental issue. It is not a campaign finance issue. It is an issue regarding a complicated rule. All we are asking is to take some more time to try to work it out so we can get out of the courtroom and get on to business because I think that is what the taxpayers of America want. I think the people in Louisiana, California, Wisconsin, and Texas want us to get back to work creating jobs and to get out of the courtrooms. This rule--as has been presented in great detail by the Senator from Oklahoma earlier and as posted on the chart that is up for display for all to see--is more complicated, not less. It is as if the opponents, led by the Senator from California, seemingly are arguing that if a taxpayer--in this case it happens to be an oil company, but tomorrow it could be the taxpayer next door; tomorrow it could be your neighbor. If their taxes are audited and a discrepancy is found, which often happens, it would be similar to allowing the IRS to simply raise their tax rate. That is not fair. It is un-American. I do not think there are many people in the United States who support that, but that is exactly what we are getting ready to do if we do not stop this rule from coming into effect. No agency should have the right to raise tax rates because of a legitimate difference over an auditing procedure that is very complicated. If that precedent is set, there is no taxpayer in this Nation safe from having their taxes raised by an agency. If we want to raise the royalty rate, then we should do it. If we want to raise the tax rate, this Congress should do it. We are setting a terrible precedent, allowing an agency to raise a tax rate based on a misinterpretation of a rule that is ill conceived and ill thought out and ill timed. Also, with respect to my colleagues who have argued the other way, this is not only a bad principle to set and a rule that should not be adopted, but the timing could not be worse. The oil and gas industry, the domestic energy industry has just begun to recover from the last year and a half which saw oil prices fall to one of the lowest constant-dollar prices in history. We have been recovering over the last several months. But as you know, this is very volatile. The prices can go high; they can go low. Businesses open; they shut down. People are laid off. Savings accounts are used up. Industries and businesses go out of business and come back. So we are used to it, but it is still tough. To be acting this way at this time for an industry that is recovering--I do not know how much we want to push because 57 percent of all the oil and gas is now imported. That is up from 36 percent in 1974. No. 1, we should not be badgering this industry at this time. We should be supporting them, particularly when they have a very legitimate request. They are not requesting to reduce the royalties they pay. They are not requesting their fair share to be delayed in any way. They are asking us, as we develop a rule, to help make the rule simple, transparent, and clear so they know what they owe and we know what they owe. We can then get out of the courtroom and get back to the business of running our Government. You yourself have been very sympathetic and very supportive and encouraging as we have attempted to create a real wildlife and land conservation trust fund for this Nation, which was promised and never delivered because the money goes into the general Treasury; it does not go into a real fund. So many of us are working on that. That is why this issue is very important. That is why it is important we get this rule right and we get it straight. It is important that these royalties can flow into our Treasury and then, in turn, flow into a real account that some of us want to establish so we can fund tremendous environmental programs throughout this Nation, and so our States and our counties and our cities can count on these revenues to expand parks and recreation, which is important not only to California and not only to Wisconsin but important to Illinois and to Louisiana and to Texas and to all the States and the people we represent. So, yes, it is important to get it right. That is why some of us are taking some time on the floor to urge our colleagues to vote to not allow this complicated and ineffective rule to go into place but to give us the time to work it out so the oil companies can pay their fair share. I also have to say I find it sort of odd, because the oil companies did not support me when I came to the Senate, I am feeling kind of odd about having to speak so strongly, but I think there have been things said on this floor that are offensive. Just because they are big oil does not mean they are bad oil. Just because they are oil and gas does not mean they are not a legitimate, terrific business that is doing their business in a better, more environmentally sensitive way. They create thousands of jobs directly in my State and around this Nation. Without the work of the oil and gas industry, there would not be the lights lit in this Chamber; there would not be the factories operating; we would not have the clothes on our back. So I take offense at others who come to the floor and talk about them as ``thieves'' or suggest that they would--they did not use the word ``bribe,'' so I will be clear that is not what was said, but to infer that some companies would go so far. We all know our system of campaign finance has to be changed and altered and improved. There is hardly anyone in this Chamber who does not agree with that. But as a Senator who represents this industry--and I represent all the people in my State. I represent the big companies and the little companies, the employees, the people who do not work for oil companies. That is my job. But I want to say on their behalf I am offended by some things I heard on the floor. This is not a rip-off. This is not an intention to rip off the taxpayer. This is not an effort to steal school lunches from schoolchildren. This is a legitimate and complicated business, financial and accounting issue that should be resolved, not by the bureaucrats but by the Members of this body. So by postponing this rule, hopefully, the Members of Congress can come up with a better way, a clearer way to keep us out of court. So I yield back the remainder of my time, if I can, to the Senator from Texas. I thank the Chair and hope we can stay on the central arguments of this issue because it is important, and I think all Senators should have the right to be heard on the pros and cons of the oil royalty valuation in the limited time we have and try to give the Senators an opportunity to speak on this important issue before the debate is shut off. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair. There have been so many misstatements and mischaracterizations and exaggerations and a confusion of facts, as stated by my distinguished colleague from California, I literally don't know where to begin. This is not about the Land and Water Conservation Fund because there is no such real fund where this money goes, and she most certainly knows that. It flows directly to the State treasury. I would know, since the State of Louisiana contributes 90 percent of the money to the so-called fund that doesn't exist. This is not an environmental issue. This is about a very complicated accounting law governing what huge companies owe the Federal Government. They want to pay their fair share. They are actually begging to pay their fair share. They want a law that makes clear what their fair share is, and they are willing to pay it. That is what this argument is about because the current rule makes it more complicated and more costly.

Ms. LANDRIEU. May I have 30 more seconds? Fifteen more seconds to finish?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I urge my colleagues to rethink their votes on our side. I am actually disappointed there are not more than five of us who truly understand this issue, with all due respect. I hope some of them will think about changing their vote so we can get on with the business of the Senate.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to object. I would like to take issue, as respectfully as I can, with my colleague from California, who came earlier to this floor. I don't have the quote, but I remember.

Ms. LANDRIEU. The order is----

Ms. LANDRIEU. I am objecting to his remarks.

Ms. LANDRIEU. The only way it would be germane is if the Senator from Wisconsin----

Ms. LANDRIEU. On giving contributions----

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to be recognized.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator for yielding. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I would like to yield back the remainder of my time, under rule XXII, to Senator Gorton.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise on behalf of myself and my colleague, Senator John Breaux to introduce legislation that would restore and maintain the ecological health of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin--one of the largest estuarine systems in the United States. Known for its slow flowing rivers and bayous, tranquil swamps and lush hardwood forests, the Pontchartrain Basin contains the most diverse topography in the State of Louisiana. The Pontchartrain Basin is a 5,000 square mile watershed encompassing 16 parishes in southeast Louisiana and 4 Mississippi counties. The vast wetlands and marshes that surround the Basin's waters provide essential habitat for countless species of fish, birds, mammals, reptiles and plants. At the center of the Basin is the 630 square mile Lake Pontchartrain, which is surrounded by 1.5 million residents, making it the most densely populated area in Louisiana. Lake Pontchartrain is just one part of a vast ecological system called the Pontchartrain Basin. The Basin also includes Lake Maurepas and Lake Borgne. These three contiguous water bodies make up the largest estuary system in the Gulf Coast region, and their wetland fisheries contribute over $35 million to the local economy and provide the abundance of fresh seafood that has made southeastern Louisiana famous. Since the 1940's, increased population, urbanization, and land use changes have altered or destroyed much of the Pontchartrain Basin's valuable ecological resources. The Lake's south shore--once a famous gathering ground for swimmers, has been closed since the late 1960's because of pollution and other conditions caused by stormwater and wastewater discharges, oil and gas development and some agricultural activities. Natural occurrences such as shoreline erosion, hurricanes, and land subsidence combined with sea level rise also have harmed the Basin's sensitive ecology. Mr. President, we introduce the ``Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Act of 1999,'' with the purpose of restoring and maintaining the unique ecology of this nationally significant watershed. This important legislation would establish a well coordinated and technically sound management program for the restoration and sustainable health of the Pontchartrain Basin ecosystem. This legislation would also: coordinate the restoration efforts of federal, state and local agencies and organizations in the restoration of the Basin; authorize and provide resources for restoration projects in the Pontchartrain Basin; and establish a Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We believe this is a nationally significant watershed restoration effort that deserves our support. The Pontchartrain Basin is the center of Southeastern Louisiana's unique cultural heritage--providing valuable habitat for wildlife and countless recreation opportunities for sportsmen and other outdoor enthusiasts. The area is brimming with a diverse population of people bound by a common interest: The desire for clean and healthy waters in the Pontchartrain Basin. Over the last decade, the restoration of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin has become one of the strongest grassroots watershed clean-up efforts in the nation. Mr. President, I would also like to publicly acknowledge the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, the University of New Orleans and the Regional Planning Commission for the Louisiana parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, St. Bernard, St. Tammany and Plaquemines, for their efforts in developing this important legislation. We strongly urge our colleagues to support this measure as well.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to speak on issues that are of importance to us. I will take the next 5 minutes to speak about a subject that is important to many Members of this body--something that over 20 of us have been working on now very diligently on both the House side, as well as the Senate, Republican and Democrat, to bring closure to this year in this Congress. I come to the floor very appropriately today as this terrible storm, Floyd, actually rages outside of this building. The wind and the rain have battered this building as we have worked through the day. Of course, we feel relatively blessed in that the storm damage has been kept to a minimum. It is quite a deadly storm and quite a tremendous threat. There are schoolchildren and families at home throughout the entire eastern portion of our Nation because they have been unable to get to work, or to school, or to other places because of the storm. I want to speak for a few minutes about the Conservation and Reinvestment Act and how it will help us deal not with the emergency of the storm, not necessarily with the specific preparation for a particular storm, but how this particular bill by rededicating a portion of our offshore oil and gas revenues could be used by States and counties and coastal areas throughout the United States to help repair damages from these particular storms. I want to take a minute to thank some Governors and Senators and to read a few statements into the Record about some of their thoughts regarding this bill. As this storm moves through the eastern part of our Nation today, and hopefully will dissipate over the next few hours, we have experienced tremendous damage. Since 1960, the United States has sustained over $50 billion in damage. From Florida to Louisiana, to Texas, to South and North Carolina and Virginia, many coastal States have been battered over and over by hurricanes just since 1960. In a major publication last week, one of the headlines was reminding us of the deadly storm that literally wiped out Galveston, TX, in the year 1900. It is now the 99th anniversary of one of the deadliest storms to ever hit the United States. While some on this floor might argue, what is the reason for setting aside a specific amount of money to help coastal States, I suggest what we see on television now says it better than I could say it on the floor of the Senate. We see storms of this magnitude pounding the coast, we see them season after season, gulf coast to east coast, sometimes very big storms on the western coast, washing away our beaches, eroding our barrier islands, causing tremendous damage. It is important for this Senate to act now, while we have the opportunity, to set aside a portion of our offshore oil and gas revenues, to join in partnership with our local officials, Governors and county commissioners, to help, whether the hurricane season is tough or not, whether we are in the mood for it or not, for Congress to provide a permanent source of revenue, year in and year out, to help with these matters. That is what S. 25 will provide. Hopefully, in a few weeks we will be marking up this bill. I will read into the Record and specifically thank several Governors who have experienced over the last days the effects of Hurricane Floyd. I begin by thanking Governor Roy Barnes of the State of Georgia, whose State was spared the brunt of this particular storm but who did a beautiful job preparing the people of Florida, along with the emergency personnel. I read from his letter: This legislation [referring to S. 25] would provide critically needed funding for a variety of wildlife- conservation, land conservation, and coastal-area projects in Georgia. I fully support this legislation and ask you to work for its passage. Jim Hodges, Governor of South Carolina, who probably hasn't slept in the last 48 hours as his State has been battered by this storm, wrote a couple of months ago: South Carolina has a unique diversity of natural resources which we must strive to conserve for future generations. The current proposal which provides for a dedicated and secure funding source has long-term significance for both our natural resources and the people who enjoy all types of outdoor recreation. The plans embodied in CARA are high priorities for South Carolina. These include: coastal zone management and impact assistance, wetlands restoration, state and local outdoor recreation programs, fish and wildlife conservation, and environmental education. He goes on to say: Congress enacted the Coastal Management Act in 1972 to preserve, restore and enhance the resources of the nation's coastal zone. Mr. President, S. 25 is structured in such a way that it can build on that good work. I thank Governor Jim Hodges of South Carolina for having the forethought and not waiting for the hurricanes, for thinking ahead as to how we could provide some much needed dollars to minimize the cost of the damage that has been caused. Governor Jim Hunt of North Carolina writes: We are making significant progress in North Carolina to enhance and protect our environment and public spaces. We have made historic commitments this year to the expansion of public lands in our western mountains, and we recognize the value of our public spaces for assuring a prosperous and livable future. I thank these Governors for their leadership and acknowledge the fact that Governor Whitman, who was also prepared for the effects of this storm, was here in the Capitol not that many months ago stating her case for why we should come to the aid of States and local governments to help protect our coasts, to provide funding that will help to restore beaches, and to help with hurricane evacuation and the infrastructure necessary to provide for the fact that over two-thirds of the people in the United States live within 50 miles of a coast. The State of Louisiana is happy to provide a lot of this money, or a great portion of it, from our oil and gas resources. I say thanks to Senator Campbell from Colorado; to Senator Breaux; to Senator Cochran; Senator Kit Bond; Senator Tim Johnson; Senator Mikulski; Senator Sessions from Alabama, a sister southern State; Senator Cleland from Georgia; Senator Lott; Senator Murkowski, the chairman of our committee; Senator Lincoln from Arkansas; Senator Bunning; Senator Bayh; Senator Coverdell; Senator Frist; Senator Robb; Senator Tim Hutchinson from Arkansas; Senator Bob Kerrey from an interior State; and Senator Roberts from Kansas, another interior State. I thank these Senators for joining the broad coalition of Senators both from our coastal and interior States recognizing hurricanes are dangerous and can have devastating impact to life and to property. While we have all sorts of programs in effect--flood insurance and emergency preparedness--if we could spend a small amount of money matching the efforts that States and local governments do year in and year out, we could help to preserve the precious resources that are literally washed away season after season. I believe the American people want Congress to help. I believe they think we have the resources to do so. Mostly, I believe they think this is the year we should act. Let's not wait until another storm rips up another part of our coastline. Let's act in the next few months, as this Congress comes to a close, to adopt this important piece of legislation. I thank these Senators for their hard work and acknowledge the work of Chairman Murkowski and acknowledge the work of Members of the House, Chairman Young and others in the House who are working on a similar proposal. I thank the Presiding Officer for his interest in this particular piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record several letters I discussed as well as the costs of hurricanes in this century.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Daschle, Senator Wyden, and myself.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I think my good friend, the distinguished Senator from Texas, might be referring to me and others, but I assure him that I have no intention of trying to run an airline. I am challenged at this moment to run my office. I am trying to do a good job at that and to represent the 4.5 million people who live in my State, which is the job of all Senators. I come to the floor with great humility. The last thing I want to do is run an airline. I think the deregulation of the airlines has brought great benefits to our Nation and to this industry. I have no intention at all of moving the clock back. I do think--because so many people now, and growing by leaps and bounds, use air travel in our Nation and the world to conduct their business, which is very dependent on the efficiency of the system, and because this is a very important industry in our Nation, and because the Senate is responsible for giving guidance to many industries--that my amendment is most certainly appropriate. I have asked it to be a sense-of-the-Senate amendment to ask for a study to be done this year that would ask the airlines to find a cost- effective way and a passenger-friendly way for the transfer of tickets between airlines to facilitate the convenience of our constituents who live in Texas and in Alabama and Louisiana and Montana and Ohio and Hawaii and all of our States--and in Kansas, particularly in Kansas, right in the middle there, people need to get out and about and around. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to present this sense-of-the- Senate amendment. I am sorry if there are others who will object, but I think it is an important amendment. I offer it in serious fashion for the Senate's consideration. Senator GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the willingness of the Senator from Texas to work out the objection but to maintain a strong amendment in addressing the sense of the Senate to look into those issues because if there is a way this can be worked out that benefits the airlines and the passengers, I think we most certainly should be about doing that. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his comments because, while we all want to see the deregulation work, I think we can all agree it is not perfect and that we could make some good suggestions as to how to improve it to keep the private contracts between the airlines and to honor the sanctity of those private contracts and private arrangements. This is a very public business, as is all business. There is a private side and there is a public side. That is why we have a public sector that does the job we do and a private sector that does the job they do. When we work together, the public is served in the best way. That is all this amendment attempts to do. I thank the Senator from Alabama, our distinguished leader on this issue, for helping work this out. Amendment No. 1679, as Modifed I submit a modified amendment to the desk. I don't think it will be necessary for the yeas and nays.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I feel compelled to say something about a special group of people. There is a wonderful gathering of people in Washington. As you know, we have hundreds and thousands of people who come every week to Washington. We cannot come to the floor to talk about every group that comes to Washington because then we would be on the floor for a long time. But there is a very special group in Washington, and it is a group of 400 Korean American, American Korean adults who were adopted from Korea in the 1950s and 1960s. I will read from a wonderful article that appeared in USA Today yesterday about one particular orphan and her experience. But I want to say how proud I am, as cochair of the Adoption Caucus, to host, with many Members of this body, this gathering of Americans who have come, actually, from all over the world--it is not just Korean adoptees from America but from Europe and other places who were adopted out of Korea--to share their stories. This is one story by war orphan No. 1371. She is a writer for USA Today at this time in her life. She writes: Malnutrition and a bacterial infection had drawn all but 8 pounds from my 24-inch frame. My thick black hair teemed with lice; my body glistened with circles of fresh infection created by oozing sores that covered 80% of my body. Yet somehow I survived. Less than two months later, I was packed onto a shiny airliner with 96 other Korean children-- four to a wicker basket--and carried to my adoptive parents, Dominic and Dorothy Enrico, in southern California. At that moment I suffered what now seems like incomprehensible losses for one so young: my birth family, my country and the comfortable anonymity of growing up among people of the same race. What I gained was the opportunity to participate in an international adoption revolution that continues to be a testimony to the human potential for love and acceptance regardless of blood ties, race or ethnicity. This young woman will join 400 other adults who have had this experience. And there have been over 140,000 young people--infants and young children and teenagers--adopted from Korea, and many of them have come to the United States. In almost every instance, it has been a happy and joyful experience for the adoptee and for the family. The Korean adoptions have opened up a new thought in America: that families could be made of a people who looked different--because love does not know a color; love does not know family bounds. So because of the great work of the Government and Catholic Charities and many others that have made this possible, we now have families in America that look very different with family members who love others from different parts of the world and from different races. It is a testimony to the greatness of the human potential for love and for companionship. I am proud to sponsor this group of adults. We hope to continue the work of international adoption. We would like to find a home for every child in the world in the country in which they were born. But if there is not a home there--if no one wants them, if they are not able to find a home--then we need to find them a home somewhere in the world. Senator Jessie Helms, an adoptive father himself, which a lot of people do not know--he and his wife adopted a special needs child, so he has personal experience in adoption--is the lead sponsor of a tremendous piece of legislation that is going to lay an international framework, a legal framework, so children from all over the world, including the United States, can find a home and they will not have to grow up infested with lice or they will not have to have a little body oozing with sores, so they will have a mother and a father, preferably two parents. But if we could find one caring adult for each child in the world, that is our hope. So that is one of the great gatherings that is taking place. I wanted to honor them by reading from that article this morning and by wishing them a wonderful conference at the J.W. Marriott. We will be hosting a reception for them in the Capitol later today. I invite my colleagues to drop by and see for themselves the great miracle of adoption.

Ms. LANDRIEU

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 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 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.