Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to say just a few words on the resolution I have submitted concerning Dyspraxia, a developmental disorder that affects five percent of American children each year. My intent is to increase the public's awareness of this disability and to encourage each of my colleagues to do the same. Let me share with you a few facts. Dyspraxia is caused from the malformation of the neurons of the brain, thus resulting in messages not being properly transmitted to the body. Areas such as movement, language, perception, and thought are affected. Dyspraxia children fail to achieve the expected levels of development. Due to difficulties, these kids are often shunned from their peer groups because they do not fit in. One in twenty children suffers from Dyspraxia. Seventy percent of those affected are male, and in children suffering from extreme emotional and behavioral difficulties the incidence is likely to be more than fifty percent. There is no cure for Dyspraxia, but the earlier a child is diagnosed the greater the chance of developmental maturation. However, many times these children are dismissed as ``clumsy'' and ``slow'' and are never given a chance to improve, finding it hard to succeed under such harsh speculations. More than fifty percent of our educators are unaware that this disability even exists. With such alarming statistics, the number of children recognized cannot be expected to increase. One of my interns has a younger brother that suffers from this disorder. Borden Wilson is actually a success story. At age 4, Borden's parents noted that he was not able to perform tasks appropriate for his age. He was not speaking much, even with encouragement. After going through a battery of tests performed by various specialists, the problem was identified as Dyspraxia. Upon suggestion, Borden began speech therapy, occupational therapy, and many activities, such as a more structured kindergarten, T-ball, swim team, and karate. Borden's speech is now improving with every day, but one would notice that it is ``halted.'' He has to concentrate on all that he says. School was definitely a battle to be fought. Borden needs a lot of repetition to learn, and learning is easier when all five senses are stimulated. Spelling lists are practiced the entire week in advance. As one can imagine, Borden needs constant encouragement. It is very discouraging to work twice as hard as everyone else and still not possibly be on a level to compete. Borden is 14 years old now. Through the hard work of teachers, therapists, and family, he has overcome many of his problems and is successful in both school and extracurricular activities. I am pleased to announce that Borden now maintains a 4.0 grade point average and placed in the ninety-nine percentile on his California Achievement Test. This is why it is so vital that we make people aware of Dyspraxia. With proper diagnosis and treatment, all of these children can experience the same level of success that Borden has been able to achieve. I hope that my colleagues will come together in support of this important legislation to raise consciousness of this disability.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I will take 2 more minutes, if I can, to say a word about the election reform measure that Senator Dodd spoke about just a few minutes ago. I am proud to be a cosponsor of that election reform measure. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for leading this effort, for being such a terrific and articulate spokesperson for improving our election system in this Nation. It truly is a travesty and really a hypocrisy for us to encourage people to register to vote, urge them to exercise their full rights as citizens, and then not count their votes, or turn them away at the polls. In the year 2001, that should not be the case. That should not be the case at any time. Unfortunately, there have been dark places in our history where people by the millions were turned away or were not allowed to register. Our country has made great progress. As the last election showed, and as we need to discuss when we come back, we have a lot of fixing to do. There are improvements that need to be made. We need to proudly stand up to the world and say: Yes, we want our citizens registered, and if they are a legal voter, whether they are in a wheelchair, visually impaired, or have other physical challenges, despite the fact they may be older or not as strong and as able, they have a right to vote and they have a right to have their vote counted, and they have a right to the kind of equipment and technology that is available that makes sure those votes are counted and certified. In conclusion, no system is going to be perfect, but the evidence is in to suggest that the system we have in the United States can and should be perfected. I am proud that in Louisiana we do have standardized voting machines, and we have worked very hard on opening access to those polling places. Even in Louisiana, where we do have standardized voting machines, and state-of-the-art technology in poor and wealthy districts, rural and urban districts, we can make improvements there. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important subject when we return. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, today I rise to introduce perhaps the most significant conservation effort ever considered by the Congress. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act, CARA, is bipartisan landmark legislation that makes a multi-year commitment to conservation programs benefitting all 50 States. It reinvests revenues earned from the depletion of a nonrenewable asset, oil and gas reserves on the Outer Continent Shelf, for the protection and enhancement of our natural and cultural heritage, threatened coastal areas and wildlife. It also reinvests in our local communities and our children through enhanced outdoor recreational opportunities. By enacting CARA, we can ensure that this century begins with the most significant commitment of resources to conservation ever. During the 106th Congress the House of Representatives passed almost identical legislation by an overwhelming vote of 315 to 102 and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported a version with the support of the Chairman and Ranking Member. In addition, a bipartisan group of 63 Senators sent a letter to Majority Leader Lott and Minority Leader Daschle on September 19, 2000 requesting that CARA be brought to the floor of the Senate for consideration before the adjournment of the 106th Congress. Just last week the House Committee on Resources reported the bill by a vote of 29 to 12 and it currently has two-hundred and thirty nine co-sponsors. CARA is supported by Governors, Mayors and a coalition of over 5,000 organizations from throughout the country. This legislation provides $3.125 billion for eight distinct reinvestment programs including: Impact Assistance and Coastal Conservation for all coastal states and eligible local governments and to mitigate the various impacts of producing states that serve as the ``platform'' for the crucial development of federal offshore energy resources from the Outer Continental Shelf, restoring Congressional intent with respect to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, LWCF, by providing stable and annual funding for the state and federal side of the LWCF at its authorized $900 million level while protecting the rights of private property rights owners; establishing a Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Fund at $350 million through the successful program of Pittman-Robertson by reinvesting the development of nonrenewable resources into a renewable resource of wildlife conservation and education; providing funding for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery program through matching grants to local governments to rehabilitate and develop recreation programs, sites and facilities enabling cities and towns to focus on the needs of its populations within our more densely inhabited areas with fewer greenspaces, playgrounds and soccer fields for our youth; providing funding for the Historic Preservation Fund through the programs of the Historic Preservation Act, including grants to the States, maintaining the National Register of Historic Places and administering numerous historic preservation programs and fully funding the Payment In-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program. The time has come to take the proceeds from a non-renewable resource for the purpose of reinvesting a portion of these revenues in the conservation and enhancement of our renewable resources. To continue to do otherwise, as we have over the last fifty years, is fiscally irresponsible.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Twenty minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. That Senator Specter and I offered, and I ask unanimous consent to speak after Senator Wellstone when we get back on that amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I am happy to yield without losing the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I still have the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding we will move off of this amendment----

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute so I may finish. Senator Leahy was asking me a question. Could I have 30 seconds?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Jersey. I so appreciate the comments of Senator Leahy from Vermont, who has been one of the great leaders and spokespersons on this issue. I wanted 30 seconds to wrap up to say how important this issue is for farmers not only in the southern part of the Nation. Of course, Louisiana is the State I represent. I have heard loudly and clearly from our farmers about how important this is. Frankly, Mr. President, this is an issue of fairness for the whole Nation. We are not attempting to be unfair to any particular area. This is about competition. It is about free and fair trade. It is about self-help, managing risk, and about an idea that a compact can be beneficial to all parties involved. The Northeast Dairy Compact, enacted in 1996, and due to expire this year, has proven extremely successful in balancing the interests of consumers, dairy farmers, processors, and retailers, by maintaining milk price stability, and doing so at no cost to taxpayers. We have an opportunity to assure consumers in other states an adequate, affordable milk supply while maintaining positive balance sheets for our farms, whose social and economic contributions remain so critical to the vitality of our country's rural communities. It is long past the time for us to permit states the opportunity to provide their farmers the stability they so desperately need. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for allowing me to finish my remarks.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to support the amendment offered by Senator Specter from Pennsylvania and myself along with 39 cosponsors--actually Democrats and Republicans from many different parts of the States--who see this as an excellent way to help dairy farmers, to help consumers, to be fair to retailers, and to make sure children and families and people in every region of the United States have access to fresh milk at a reasonable price. In addition--as the Senator from New Jersey will speak after me-- there are compelling environmental reasons in terms of preservation of land and green space and open space that are at issue as well. Let me address some of the concerns that the Senator from Minnesota raised. Let me begin by saying that if, in fact--I am certain it is true because he brings a lot of wisdom and experience to many of these debates--it is true that many of the dairy farmers in Minnesota have gone out of business, or in his area, he may well want to look into the benefits of this compact. If this compact doesn't work because of the difference in the grades of milk, perhaps a similar kind of compact for his dairy farmers might be helpful. In the area of the Northeast where this compact has now been in existence for several years, benefits are obvious. They are clear. They have worked to preserve farmers in business to hold down prices to a fair level but providing profit margins for the farmers. There has been some real success. As many times as we deal with many issues on a variety of subjects, sometimes we don't create a national program all at one time. I am fairly familiar with the details of how this started. But it is often that we will start a pilot program, if you will, in one part of the Nation to test and see if it works. I know that was not exactly the way this started, but the end result is that we have compacts in the Northeast which have worked very well. This is an effort to expand it to the southern region, to the Pacific region, to the Midwest region--all voluntary. It is totally up to the States if they, in fact, want to join. No one is forced to join this compact. It is the States themselves. In the last year, I have been made aware--not 2, not 10, not just a few in one region but 25 States in the Nation--that State legislators and their Governors have petitioned for Congress to allow them to basically use this self-help mechanism. The second point I will make before I get into my prepared remarks is, it is a wonder we have not adopted it sooner. The Senators from Vermont--Senator Jeffords and Senator Leahy--are effective spokespersons. The fact is the dairy compact doesn't cost the taxpayers any direct subsidy. We spend hours on this floor passing many farm bills, which I have supported because agriculture is important in Louisiana. It costs billions of dollars. We ask taxpayers every year to put up money out of their hard-earned tax dollars to support a very complex system of subsidies for farmers. Louisiana farmers benefit in many ways. But this doesn't cost the taxpayers a penny. So you would think there would be 100 Senators rushing to this Chamber to vote for something that is really all American. It is about self-help. It is about risk management. It is about people coming together in voluntary compacts with all of the parties equally represented--no one is shut out--in public meetings to set a price that works for everyone. I think it has a lot of merit. State officials and dairy producers across the country are concerned that the current Federal milk marketing order pricing system does not fully account for regional differences in the cost of producing milk. The U.S. dairy industry is transporting ever-increasing amounts of milk over increasing numbers of miles to supply the fluid market. This is especially true in the South. That is why I am so interested in this issue, as is the senior Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Breaux, who joins me in this effort. In the South, all the dairy-producing States are milk deficient. We are milk deficient. We need to be able to produce more milk to supply our own customers in the South. We can only do that if our dairy farmers stay in business. If not, we will be importing milk from outside of our region. It is the sense of this Congress that milk be produced in the region so it can be fresh because it is quite perishable. It can be produced and transported easily in the region. It is perishable, so it is expensive to ship and refrigerate. In the past 10 years, nearly a quarter of the dairy farmers in my State have gone out of business. Many more are in danger of shutting down. This compact is their way to come to us to say: We found a way out. We don't need a direct subsidy. Just allow us this compact, and we can do it. So compacts are a solution. As a result, as I mentioned earlier, 25 States have now passed legislation--almost a majority in the country-- for this particular approach. Let me take a moment to explain how the compact works. Compacts are formal agreements between three or more contiguous States to determine a price for fluid milk sold in that region. This price is determined by a regional commission of delegates from each of the States appointed by the Governor. It has to include at least one dairy producer and one consumer representative. So let me just make one point. Critics have said: This is a cartel and we do not want cartels. A cartel is dangerous because usually people who get into a cartel are people of all one perspective, people producing an item, and they want to run up the price. But on these commissions--which are not cartels because they are not created the same way as you would think of a regular cartel--the people who drink the milk, the people who sell the milk, and the people who produce the milk are all in a room together, not in a back room smoking a cigar but out in a public meeting, with a public record, discussing a price that works for them all. That is not a cartel. That is the opposite of a cartel. That is kind of a committee--an arrangements committee; the American way, a Democratic process--to come to a win-win solution. So I reject the idea that this is a back room cartel. It is exactly the opposite. The commission holds public hearings to assess the price necessary to yield a reasonable return to the farmer. Any proposed price change is subject to approval by two-thirds of the State delegations. Any State may leave the compact without penalty. So this is quite a voluntary measure, not a mandatory measure. Payments are made by the commission and are countercyclical, meaning when the Federal milk marketing order prices are above the compact commission order price, farmers don't receive compact payments; when the Federal milk marketing order price falls below that of the compact commission, farmers receive compact payments. I show my colleagues a chart. It is the best chart I have seen to explain this situation. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for helping me display this chart. I appreciate his help. As you can see from the chart, the compact helps to try to stabilize prices. Shown on this chart is the price of milk as it moves up and down. Shown is the set price. The compact operates so that when the Federal milk marketing order price falls below that of the compact commission, the compact actually pays the difference to the farmers. When it goes above, the farmer pays into the compact. Again, it is no cost to the taxpayer. It is a way to stabilize the price. Farmers need certainty, just as any businessperson. Sometimes people can live with low prices. Sometimes they can live with low prices if they are certain of the price. It is the uncertainty in any business market--whether you are talking about farming or health care or transportation or high-tech businesses--that causes people to have great difficulty. So the compact is a real answer to that. Again, it is sort of a novel approach, and one that has been tried. It is not any longer experimental. We can actually see that it is working. I also want to just run through a few of the facts and the fictions about dairy compacts. I mentioned this, but it is worth repeating: The critics say dairy compacts cost taxpayers money. Dairy compacts are self-financing. There is no impact on State or Federal treasuries. Let me repeat: No impact on State and Federal treasuries. Critics say the dairy compacts are not constitutional. I do not have my copy of the Constitution with me, as the Senator from West Virginia usually carries with him, but I can tell you, if you flip to article I, section 10, clause 3, of the Constitution, it clearly allows for interstate compacts, provided they are approved by State legislatures and ratified by Congress. So our action by law, ratifying a compact, and then having States voluntarily entering into it, is absolutely within the framework of the Constitution. Third, our critics will say that dairy compacts create overproduction. Let me show you the next chart. The Northeast Compact has a very effective supply management measure which would be included for all of the regions. It provides an incentive for farmers to limit production. It works like this: It takes 7.5 cents for every 100 pounds of milk produced and places it in a reserve, which is distributed to the producers who did not increase production by more than 1 percent from the previous year. Louisiana, and all other potential Southern dairy compact States, are net importers of fluid milk, so overproduction is not in the foreseeable future. So overproduction is just not foreseeable. However, in the 4 years since the compact was created, milk production in New England has increased by only 2.2 percent, while the increase in the rest of the country was 7.4 percent. So based on that information alone, you can argue that the efficiency mechanism to hold down production is actually working. Why? Not because the Senator from Louisiana says it is working or the Senator from Vermont, but because the statistics show that it is working because the production has been held to a reasonable level. While the U.S. average is 7.4 percent, the production in New England has been held to a low, you could say, of 2.2 percent--but also meeting the other laudable goals. So this is a very important fact to note. No. 4, the critics will say that a dairy compact is a trade barrier ``balkanizing'' the dairy market. Let me please reiterate that dairy compacts regulate all fluid milk sales in the compact region, regardless of where the milk is produced. So if a farmer in another region had a relatively low price, and thought the compact price was higher, that farmer is not at all prohibited, in our legislation, from selling their milk into this market. So it is not a barrier. It encourages free trade, fair trade, among the regions. Fifth, our critics say dairy compacts will raise retail milk prices. Let me concede this point. It does raise milk prices slightly. The Agriculture Department's Economic Research Service has done a study on this, and the facts are in. It does raise prices to consumers slightly. That price is $1.06 per person--$5 a year for a family of four. I can honestly say I do not know of a family in America that would not be willing to pay $5 a year so they can have available to them a supply of regionally produced milk that is fresh and healthy, and knowing that they are doing something to help their farmers that is fair to their retailers and does not in any way hurt low-income consumers. Let me repeat, there is not a family in America, I don't believe, who would not be willing to pay $5 a year for the benefits this compact provides. Six, the fiction that the dairy compact will hurt low-income consumers. One of the programs I have supported, as have many of the Senators, is WIC, the Women, Infants and Children's program, a Federal program that is very successful and that supplies milk to low-income moms and their infants in the School Lunch Program. People representing WIC and consumers representing the school lunch program are on these compacts within the region. Their voices are heard and well represented. Finally, as I conclude--the Senator from New Jersey will speak more eloquently and in greater length and detail about this particular issue--this is also an environmental issue. As our dairy farmers basically serve now as rings of green around many of our urban areas, this is true in Louisiana, but it is particularly true in States such as New Jersey or New York, and what farms are left in places such as Florida and in California. If we can do something to help the dairy farmers stay in business, we keep this land green; we keep it open; we keep the possibility for the proper kind of development in the future. If we don't step in and help our dairy farmers, we will not only lose dairy farmers potentially over the long run, driving up the price of milk, being unfair when there is a fairness to be reached here, but we will see some of these farms plowed under in additional development. Let's do the right thing by instituting voluntary compacts that will help not only the States in the South but also in places around the country. There is a tremendous amount of support. I believe I have exhausted the time I have. There are many more Senators who want to speak. I yield for a question to the Senator from Vermont.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate New Orleans on the groundbreaking of the extension of the historic Canal Street Streetcar, which will eventually connect mid-city to downtown. This groundbreaking is truly cause for celebration. It is a product of vision and hard work. The streetcar project enriches the city by combining New Orleans tradition with 21st century innovation. The new, state-of-the-art streetcars will be child safe, air-conditioned and in full compliance with disability laws. Not only is the streetcar project important to businesses and residents of the city, but it is also important for the expansion of tourism. By providing free, safe, public transportation, the Canal Street Streetcar will alleviate traffic on Canal Street. And it will connect all who take advantage of its use to several points of pride in the city such as the New Orleans Museum of Art. Mayor Morial and the city council, Chairman Tucker, and several members of Louisiana's congressional delegation and I have worked hard for many years to secure funding to make this project a reality. Most recently, we helped secure $23 million for the streetcar in a transportation measure. I congratulate the local leadership for helping to make this possible. All who support this project in Congress will continue to do our part so that one day in the not-too-distant future, the streetcar will be up and running. In fact, in Washington, I will honor this dedication with an entry in the Congressional Record. The Canal Street Streetcar is a symbol of our state's rich heritage and New Orleans's eclectic character. I am proud to be a part of its restoration.

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 wish to rise for a few moments today before we adjourn the Senate for the weekend to speak about one of the appropriations bills that we are going to be dealing with when we return next week and that we will work on through this summer session into the fall. That appropriations bill is the District of Columbia appropriations, which I have the great honor and privilege and opportunity to serve now as Chair, along with my distinguished colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, the ranking member. He and I have worked together very closely for the last several months on that appropriations committee. With the change in leadership, I find myself as Chair of this important committee. I want to spend a minute talking about that role and about some of the responsibilities that I see coming along with that role. First, let me say that Senator DeWine and I have been in close communication on many issues that are important to the District. I have great respect for the Mayor and members of the city council, and for Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton for the great work she does for the District. I look forward to working with them, along with the business leaders, the community leaders, and the labor leaders in the city to help this city be all that it can be and all that it should be. I am a supporter of home rule and am a supporter of city leaders making decisions for themselves in great measure about how this city should be run, and I have great confidence in the ability of those leaders that I just mentioned. Particularly, I share the Mayor's vision for this city in large measure. But one of the things that Senator DeWine and I, and others, have spoken about--there are many Members of the Senate and the House, not the least of whom is the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Robert Byrd, the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, and the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, all of whom play a vital role in the oversight, if you will, of the District of Columbia. I have shared many of my thoughts with them about proceeding in this particular role. I want to outline a few issues that I would like to focus on and that I will be conducting hearings on--and the many discussions with Members of Congress on some of these issues. One is the proper role of the chief financial officer. I think it is the cornerstone of our post-Control-Board reform. The District has made tremendous progress--4 years of surpluses, 4 years of better management, and 4 years of developing policies that are helping the District to regain its financial footing. I think it is very important for us to focus on the role of the chief financial officer to make sure that the new responsibilities he has been given--it is my understanding that about 26 weighty responsibilities for the financial operations of this District have been handed to him by the city council and by our own laws here in Congress--are matched with the proper authority and a proper power to carry out those responsibilities. I have spent a good bit of this week reading a very excellent report by the DC Appleseed Center, entitled ``After the Control Board: The Chief Financial Officer and Financial Management of the District of Columbia,'' which is the sole focus of this report: The DC Appleseed Center is an independent non-profit advocacy organization dedicated to making the District of Columbia and the Washington Metropolitan area a better place to live and work, focusing primarily on strengthening the financial health of the District and enhancing the performance of governmental institutions that affect the District. I ask unanimous consent that the list of the board of directors and staff be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, it is an outstanding board of directors with a very able staff. I believe the District of Columbia council and the Mayor have referred very positively to this report. I myself will use it as a guideline as I take responsibility of this committee because there are many terrific suggestions outlined here about this particular issue--about the proper authority and power of the CFO. It is important that the financial officer who is assuming much of the responsibility of the Control Board be properly balanced between being responsive to the Mayor, the chief executive officer of this city, if you will, and his responsibility to the public generally to give independent, accurate, and timely financial information so we can continue on this road to reform. This report will serve as great guidance, and it will be the subject of much of our discussion. Second, as I said in a public meeting last week with the Mayor and with Delegate Norton, I agree with them on the structural changes that the District needs to come to grips with that are necessary to provide long-term financial health and prosperity for the District. There are, indeed, some real problems, some structural flaws and some structural deficits that are preventing the city from gathering the tax base and the revenue base necessary to support such a strong and vibrant community. That will be subject to some of our focus. In addition, I assure all who look to the District of our continuing push for modernization, streamlining operations of the District, and reform of regulatory operations so that we minimize regulation and maximize good results for everyone who lives and works here. That is important. I commend the Mayor for his extraordinary vision about what the schools can be and should be in the District of Columbia. We have this challenge everywhere around the Nation--every city, large and small, every community, particularly a community with the large population of citizens who may be under the poverty line; where citizens who may be at some disadvantage economically and are struggling with how to create vibrant, well-run and well-managed schools; where teachers are highly motivated, well paid, and highly skilled; where students are getting the kind of nurturing and support they need as well as a place where time-honed values are presented to children with the right combination of discipline and nurturing for them so they can grow, develop, and be all that God intended when he created them. I share the Mayor's vision for strengthening of the schools. I look forward to working with the new initiatives on the development of charter schools--with more flexibility and choice for parents and a stronger academic outcome. I commend him for the work he is doing. Also, of great interest, not only to me but to many Members of the Senate, is the push for reforming the court system in the District. Unfortunately, we have had these problems everywhere in our Nation. There have been some real breakdowns in our child welfare system. We have let many children down. We have not always come to their rescue when they have cried. We have sometimes left children languishing in foster care. We have taken their only parent they knew away from them, and then failed to provide them with another one. The system in the United States has caused a lot of pain and a lot of grief. We have not supported our courts and our social workers and our front line staffers the way we need to around this Nation. It is no different here in the District. So I am going to work very closely with Senator DeWine, the father of eight children, who is a great leader for child welfare on the other side of the aisle, and with Delegate Norton and Congressman DeLay, who are very focused on this issue, to modernize and strengthen the courts, to create a family- and child-centered court system so we stop letting children fall through the cracks. I read in a book recently that when we say, oh, well, the children just fall through the cracks, actually that is not true because there are no real cracks for children to fall through. What they fall through are our fingers. They fall through our hands, hands that once held them. They have fallen through. So it is our responsibility to make sure the court system at every level and the child welfare system at every level, as much as we can, are strengthened in the District. Finally, in terms of issues, because of the great support and feedback I have gotten from a wide variety of people--elected leaders, as well as friends and neighbors of mine as a resident here in the District, and actually living on Capitol Hill--I believe in the importance of the recreational opportunities for children of the District, to enhance those recreational opportunities to be commensurate with the surrounding suburbs. In the State of Maryland and in the State of Virginia, there are outstanding facilities where children of those States are able to participate in first-class and world-class sports and recreational activities. I think that is very important for the children and families of this District. We want them to have the same kinds of opportunities that children have in this region and across the Nation. I am pleased that the National Soccer Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--a broad bipartisan group of citizens around this city--are rallying to the cause of creating this kind of atmosphere that is not only important to children and families, but it is important to the business community. It gives children something to say yes to. I think, as adults, we have a responsibility to not just say no to them but to give them some things to say yes to, such as outdoor activities and recreation and team sports that build character and keep children occupied at very positive activities. So with those issues I just outlined, I want to conclude by simply expressing, again, my support for the concept of home rule, but also to recognize my role as the Chair of this subcommittee, to say that every citizen in our Nation--every citizen, from every walk of life--has a special interest in the District of Columbia. This city has to function, obviously, and be responsive to the residents who live here-- the approximately 500,000 residents--but this District has a special responsibility. Unlike any other city--unlike New York or Philadelphia or New Orleans or San Francisco or Chicago, or smaller communities around the Nation-- this city has a particular responsibility to every citizen of the Nation because every citizen of this Nation looks to this city as the Capital. It is part of our democratic heritage that we share as a nation of citizens. So I will be trying to represent the interests of those citizens in this debate as much as my ability will allow. Finally, in my role as chair, I also see responsibility to the Federal Government as an employer. We are the largest employer in this District. In relation to large employers anywhere--whether it is Boeing in Seattle or another large employer in another city somewhere in America--the Federal Government employs more people in the District of Columbia directly and indirectly, by far, than any other employer. As an employer, we have an inherent interest in the financial management of the city that we are in about its daily operations, and we have standing in those discussions. So there is a balance between home rule and the Federal Government's proper and legitimate expressions, as the largest employer in this city, of how this community should operate and how it should function. Then, thirdly, there is a place at the table for the citizens in every State and community about the District. I hope to be able to balance those three truths as carefully as I can as chair. I want to say one more thing about large employers. If Boeing is dissatisfied with the way the city of Seattle was being run, they have tremendous leverage. They can basically pick up and move their operations. We have seen large corporations use that leverage many times. We have seen employers pick up literally 10,000, 15,000 employees, and move out of a city to another place. They vote with their feet. If they do not like the way things are run, they have that opportunity, and employers everywhere exercise that option. But I will point out, for this discussion, the Federal Government, as an employer, does not truly have that option. We cannot move the Capital. Some Senators have tried, but the Capital is here, and it is going to stay here. We cannot move the central operation of this Nation. So while I would not want to use the word ``hostage'' in the wrong way, we are subject to not have the same leverage that other large employers have. So in the role as chair of this committee, I take on extra responsibility to try to communicate, in as constructive a way as possible, the views of the Federal Government as an employer. Particularly in the areas of public safety and transportation, our employees who work in the District, who are employed by the Federal Government, have a legitimate standing in those debates. So let me say, in closing, that I look forward to working with many of my colleagues. Senator Byrd, himself, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, served for 7 years in the capacity as chair of this committee. I cannot say at this date that I will serve as chair for 7 years--for as long as Senator Byrd served--but I can promise you, it will be no less than 4 years. If I can make it 7, I may try, because it is a lot of responsibility and it is a lot of work. But I come to this chair at a time of great promise for this city, and with a great leadership team to work with, the Mayor and the city council, and who are poised for reform, some men and women who have literally given blood, sweat, and tears to lift this District to a place that holds great promise for not only the residents who live here, including every single child who lives here today, but for families everywhere. So I am looking forward to that with great anticipation and great enthusiasm and will, again, focus on these important issues. I thank the Presiding Officer. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, yesterday Washington D.C. and the Nation lost a great friend. A first-rate role model and deft businesswoman, Katharine Graham was a believer in the first amendment who printed the stories that defined our Nation and impacted our lives. As one of the first female executives to run a major newspaper, Katharine Graham opened the doors of power for women here in the Nation's capital and around the country. When Katharine Graham assumed the reigns at The Washington Post, two women served in the U.S. Senate, and none served as Governors of States. Today, in large part because of the path that she and other women of her generation have blazed, there are more women serving as Members of Congress, as Governors, and as corporate executives than ever before. Among all her accomplishments, it is this inspiration for which I am most grateful. Katharine Graham will be surely remembered by her family, friends and her many admirers around the world.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I express my sincere appreciation to the distinguished floor manager and chairman of the Appropriations Committee for support of my request to provide funds for the Cane River Creole National Historical Park and Heritage Area. This park, one of America's most unique historical parks, is in Natchitoches Parish, LA, the seat of Louisiana's oldest settlement and home to one of the most interesting and unique cultures in the United States. It is my understanding that the committee report recommends $650,000 for the Cane River National Heritage Area.

Ms. LANDRIEU. With the Senator's forbearance, I want to clarify the purposes for which these funds are allocated. My request to the committee, and I assume the committee's recommendation, will continue funding for the Cane River Heritage Area at last year's rate of $400,000 for salaries, expenses and grants and will make available to the Creole Center at Northwestern State University $250,000 to support important research and documentation of Creole culture in Louisiana. Is this the committee's intent?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I rise to oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to join with Senator Breaux, myself, and others--a bipartisan group--in opposing this amendment. We have a problem in this Nation. Our demand for energy is too high and our supply is not great enough. We use 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. We only have 25 trillion cubic feet. We think the Gulf of Mexico, in places far from the shores of Florida, has an ample supply of natural gas. Let us not move in the wrong direction. Our country needs us to respond in a positive way. This is not a new area. It is rich with natural gas. It was a compromise reached by a Democratic administration with many environmental organizations and with the industry. It is moderate. If you are for rolling blackouts and high prices, vote with Senator Nelson. If you are for reasonable energy policy, vote with me when I move, on behalf of Senator Breaux, to table this amendment. I yield the Senator 30 seconds.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I do.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, my colleague from Florida wishes to speak at this time. I will reserve my time after he speaks for about 10 minutes and will speak in opposition to the amendment. But in all fairness to the proponents, I would be happy to allow him to go first.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for my colleague who has recently joined us in the Senate from the great State of Florida. I have so enjoyed working with him on many issues that are important to us, such as education and health care, issues on which our constituencies have a great deal in common. I look forward to working with him in the future as well. But I am unwilling to support his amendment on this particular issue for, I think, many good reasons. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment because not only is it not the right thing for Florida or for Louisiana or the gulf coast, it is not the right direction we need to take for our Nation. It will not put us on the right path for a sound energy policy, self- sufficiency, or necessarily for a cleaner environment in this world that we need to treasure more. I associate myself with the remarks of my senior colleague from Louisiana, who has been a wonderful and very eloquent spokesperson, displaying a lot of expertise in this particular area both during his years in the House and now in the Senate. He continues to bring this Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, to some reasonable arrangements regarding the energy needs for our Nation. I also associate myself with the remarks of the ranking member of the Energy Committee, Senator Murkowski, and acknowledge his leadership in this area. Mr. President, as the Scripture says: ``Come, let us reason together.'' If there was ever a time when Members of the Senate --both Democrats and Republicans--need to sort of lay down our swords and come, reason together, this is it because our country needs a well thought out, well-balanced energy policy. And in crafting one, we are all going to have to give a little as well as bend a little to do what we need for this Nation to sustain, support and protect the economic growth that is threatened by backward politics as in this case. This is much broader than a few oil and gas States against the one State of Florida. This debate is about national security and our economy. It is about compromise and common sense. It is an important debate. To answer some of the points raised by the Senator from Florida, first, it is important to say that one of the proponents of this argument in the House said that people such as myself, or those of us who are trying to make the argument that if you want to consume oil and gas, you need to be willing to produce it as well, said if that was the case, then it goes to say, if you don't raise pigs in your backyard, you shouldn't eat bacon. That might make some sense initially in its first blush. However, the fact is, every State produces some food product that we all consume. Florida produces wonderful oranges. I have enjoyed them every year. Louisiana produces some as well. The State of the Presiding Officer has commodities of which it is proud. Some of us grow cotton. Some of us grow soybeans. Some of us grow wheat. Some of us run cattle. Some of us grow other food products. We all contribute to the overall food supply of this Nation. While we don't all grow the same crop, while we don't all run the same kind of cattle or livestock, every State in the Union contributes to the food supply of this Nation. That is the way it should be. Every State should also contribute to the energy supply of the Nation. We have great resources in oil and natural gas. In addition, there is clean coal, nuclear and hydropower. We have a diversity of fuels to choose from in this nation and we should make use of all of them. This attitude of ``I want to consume the power, but I refuse to produce the power'' has got to come to an end. It is not fair. It is not right. It is not smart. If we get caught up in this hysteria, we are going to lead this Nation into a dangerous place where our businesses are hurt and our economy cannot survive. Let me talk about the State of Florida. The State of Florida is the third largest consumer of petroleum products in the Nation. The State of Florida only produces, however, roughly 2 percent of the petroleum that it consumes and a very small percentage of the natural gas. From 1960 to 1994, Florida electrical demand increased 700 percent. It is not the only State that has increased its demands, but it has been one of the fastest growing States. We are all happy and proud of the development in Florida and we want Florida to continue to grow and to expand, as we want all of our States in this Union to grow and to prosper but it must hold up it's end of the bargain as well. From 1960 to 1994, Florida's fossil fuel use for electrical generation, made necessary by this extraordinary growth in population and electrical demand, has increased 551 percent. More than 80 percent of Florida's electrical demand is met today by fossil fuels. Right now Florida, as every State, uses energy produced by fossil fuels. In south Florida, the natural gas demand for electricity generation purposes is expected to double by the year 2008. However, there are no increases in the number or size of nuclear power or hydroelectric power foreseen in Florida to supplement this need. There is rising demand in Florida but it makes it quite difficult for those of us from Alabama and Florida to want to help in Florida when they are not willing to help themselves. It makes it very difficult for us to want to help Florida when they are not willing to help themselves. There is not yet the significant increase in solar or wind production in Florida or generally in the United States, to adequately take the place of fossil fuels. Although those technologies are very promising we have not made the adjustment yet. I disagree with the President's decision to cut funding for those kinds of research and development projects. We need to increase funding. In addition, from 1995 to 2002, a minimum of 24 new electrical generating plants will be added to Florida's power grid, and 21 out of the 24 new plants that are being planned for and designed today have to run by natural gas. This amendment doesn't make sense for Florida. It doesn't make sense for Louisiana, Alabama, Texas, Mississippi, or the Nation but it certainly does not make sense for Florida. Florida needs more natural gas, not less. I grew up on the beaches of Florida and appreciate their beauty. My family vacations all over the gulf coast. The compromise announced by the Administration, which is threatened by this amendment, allows us to salvage almost half of the natural gas and oil resources from the original lease sale area and is more than 100 miles from any part of Florida's coast. It is not just Louisiana or Florida waters where there is gas and oil but the waters of the United States. In this day and age we can drill with minimal footprints and minimal risk to not only the Florida coast, but the entire gulf coast, and also provide states such as Florida, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia with the power we need to grow. I want to talk about that growth for a minute. When we talk about growth, we are talking about jobs, about people creating wealth, about people having a dream to start a business, about a new family buying their first home, and the electricity they need to run that home. This is about people who need to get to work, and the transportation they need to get there. This is real. This isn't about mere statistics. If we can't power our economy, how can people feed their children and families? Let me talk about risk for a moment. We have had people come on the floor and say we can't risk the beaches. However, in reality there is minimal risk. As the senior Senator from Louisiana pointed out, there is minimal risk associated with drilling. There is more risk from the possibility of oil spills when tankers have to transport the oil to our country. This amendment, and others like it, will not decrease the risk, it will increase the risk because we will have more tankers coming into this Nation. The environmental leaders should be strong enough in this Nation to stand up and admit this fact. There are also other risks to consider. The risk of a recession. I want the President to know I strongly disagree with his decision to modify this lease sale. He should have held his ground. We should be exploring for oil and gas in this entire lease sale area as originally proposed. If we do not supply states such as Ohio, California, Illinois or Louisiana, with the oil and natural gas to generate the power they need, we risk jeopardizing the economic future for our Nation. So if we are going to talk about risk, let's not just talk about environmental risk, let's talk about other risks to this Nation. Another important risk to consider is that of our national security. The risk of our dependence on oil from the Mideast is well known. I don't mean to be overly dramatic, but I want this Senate to know that this is not just a fight between Alabama and Florida or a fight between Louisiana and Florida; this is involves the entire country. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Let me talk about a more parochial issue as a Senator from Louisiana. We are proud of the contribution we have made to the oil and gas production in this country. However, the people in Louisiana also want a clean environment. The industry that operates off our coast has made great strides in making sure we can produce the oil and gas necessary to support the electricity needs of this nation while doing so in an environmentally responsible manner. Louisiana and other gulf coast States have argued for some time now that if we are going to continue to drill in the central and western gulf there should be reasonable compensation not only for the environmental impact, but also for the infrastructure necessary to produce this oil and gas that is crucial to our nation. Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and other States are asking to share more equitably in the revenues that are produced from this offshore development. Currently, if $2 billion in royalties is collected from production in the Gulf of Mexico, all of it goes into the Federal Treasury and is being spent in a variety of different ways. However, the states that permit production off their shores should be compensated fairly for their contribution to the nation as well as the impacts they incur. Whatever we decide and however we can come to terms, as reasonable people can agree, I hope one thing we will agree on is that, because interior States get to keep 50 percent of the revenues from development in their states, the States that are serving as a platform for offshore production will be fairly compensated as well. In conclusion, we do not want to drive this industry off the shores of our Nation to other places in the world. We need a viable industry here for economic as well as national security reasons. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. With all due respect to my good friend, the Senator from Florida, this is not the right direction in which to lead our Nation. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise, along with thirty-eight of my colleagues, to introduce legislation which would reauthorize the Northwest Dairy Compact and establish the Southern, Pacific and Inter- mountain Compacts. State officials and dairy producers across the country are concerned that the current Federal milk marketing order pricing system does not fully account for regional differences in the costs of producing milk. As a result, 25 States, including my State of Louisiana, have passed legislation requesting that Congress approve their right to form regional compacts. The compact, when ratified by Congress, authorizes creation of an interstate compact commission which would guide the pricing of fluid milk sold in the region. Consumers, processors, producers, State officials and the public all participate in determining Class I fluid milk prices. The Northeast Dairy Compact, enacted in 1996, and due to expire this year, has proven extremely successful in balancing the interests of consumers, dairy farmers, processors and retailers by maintaining milk price stability and doing so at no cost to taxpayers. By ratifying the Southern Dairy Compact we have the opportunity to assure consumers an adequate, affordable and fresh milk supply while preserving the health of farms, whose social and economic contributions remain so critical to the vitality of our country's rural communities. In my State of Louisiana, over four hundred dairy farms help maintain economic stability in one of our Nation's poorest regions. In the past ten years, nearly a quarter of the dairy farms in my State have gone out of business, and many more are in danger of shutting down unless we authorize the return of milk pricing power back to the States. Had Louisiana been a member of a Southern Dairy Compact last year, its 468 dairy farms would have received $11.9 million in compact payments, increasing income for the average Louisiana dairy farmer by nearly thirteen percent. This, at a time when dairy farmers are faced with depressed prices not seen in the last 25 years. There are those in Congress who have opposed dairy compacts since the day the idea was introduced. However, dairy compacts are not antitrade, do not increase milk production and milk from outside the compact region is not excluded from sale in the compact region. Over the past five years, New England's dairy farmers have put into practice the compact's promise of providing stable prices for farmers and consumers, strengthening rural communities and preserving our environment. It is time to allow the States the opportunity to provide their farmers the stability they so desperately need.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise, along with thirty-eight of my colleagues, to introduce legislation which would reauthorize the Northwest Dairy Compact and establish the Southern, Pacific and Inter- mountain Compacts. State officials and dairy producers across the country are concerned that the current Federal milk marketing order pricing system does not fully account for regional differences in the costs of producing milk. As a result, 25 States, including my State of Louisiana, have passed legislation requesting that Congress approve their right to form regional compacts. The compact, when ratified by Congress, authorizes creation of an interstate compact commission which would guide the pricing of fluid milk sold in the region. Consumers, processors, producers, State officials and the public all participate in determining Class I fluid milk prices. The Northeast Dairy Compact, enacted in 1996, and due to expire this year, has proven extremely successful in balancing the interests of consumers, dairy farmers, processors and retailers by maintaining milk price stability and doing so at no cost to taxpayers. By ratifying the Southern Dairy Compact we have the opportunity to assure consumers an adequate, affordable and fresh milk supply while preserving the health of farms, whose social and economic contributions remain so critical to the vitality of our country's rural communities. In my State of Louisiana, over four hundred dairy farms help maintain economic stability in one of our Nation's poorest regions. In the past ten years, nearly a quarter of the dairy farms in my State have gone out of business, and many more are in danger of shutting down unless we authorize the return of milk pricing power back to the States. Had Louisiana been a member of a Southern Dairy Compact last year, its 468 dairy farms would have received $11.9 million in compact payments, increasing income for the average Louisiana dairy farmer by nearly thirteen percent. This, at a time when dairy farmers are faced with depressed prices not seen in the last 25 years. There are those in Congress who have opposed dairy compacts since the day the idea was introduced. However, dairy compacts are not antitrade, do not increase milk production and milk from outside the compact region is not excluded from sale in the compact region. Over the past five years, New England's dairy farmers have put into practice the compact's promise of providing stable prices for farmers and consumers, strengthening rural communities and preserving our environment. It is time to allow the States the opportunity to provide their farmers the stability they so desperately need.