Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I join with the others in thanking our colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, for his leadership in this area and, of course, Senator Biden and other Senators who have spoken this morning on this important subject. I want to follow up with what Senator Leahy just said by sharing with him, and with all here, an unfortunate story that appeared recently in a newspaper out of Maryland where a 44-year-old man was convicted of raping an 18-year-old girl who was unconscious from drinking. Unfortunately, this judge is one of many judges, or at least too many--the number is too high--who are ignorant and uninformed. He said on the record in this particular case: ``Finding an unconscious woman is a dream come true to a lot of men.'' Finding an unconscious woman is a dream come true to a lot of men. I will submit this judge's name for the Record and will be writing him a personal letter, asking him, if he did make this statement which was reported, that he resign his seat immediately. That is part of the problem we have in this Nation. The Senator from Vermont, as a former prosecutor, understands this well, that this problem is pervasive. It is a real shame in America--this country of freedom and order and democracy--that we still have a severe and serious problem of domestic violence. Sometimes our Nation takes that extra step and goes that extra mile to stop violence on the street and to continue to support our police officers. Yet when it comes to stopping violence in our own homes, our Government falls short in terms of funding, in terms of research, in terms of education. That is the hope that this act brings. It is to help move judges such as this off the bench; so when he is up for reelection, there is some education in the community that would force his either resignation or moving him off the bench through the election cycle. There are prosecutors around the Nation, some of whom are more enlightened than others. But I will tell you of two in my State who are doing an outstanding job on this subject: DA Paul Connick from Jefferson Parish and DA Walter Reed from St. Tammany Parish. We have many excellent DAs. But in the last few years, many of these DAs--99 percent of whom, I would imagine, in the Nation are male and who perhaps do not come to the subject from a very personal point of view--have been really educated because of the good work that has been done in this Congress and with groups all around this Nation. These two particular DAs have instituted a very progressive policy which is basically a no-drop policy, which means that if a battered woman comes in to file a charge, the DA takes it upon himself, and basically the State and the county and the parish, even if she begins to back down because her self-esteem is not as strong as it should be, or she is understandably frightened, or she has been threatened if she does not drop the charges, to simply tell the abuser, when he comes in for his interview: I am sorry, we refuse to drop the charges. This is against you and me, buddy, basically, and we are going to see this to the end, where you can get the punishment coming to you. They are really being very aggressive. I hope if other district attorneys or other staffers or folks and other elected officials are tuning in today, they will encourage district attorneys all over this Nation to take up the no-drop policy, because getting abusers convicted, getting them punished, and then getting them the right treatment for this is the only way we are going to stop this terrible tragedy from occurring. There are so many things I could say about this subject, but I do think our leaders realize it is about education; it is about district attorneys; it is about judges, it is about the court system; it is not just about shelters and counseling and aid, which is so important. This is the first step, giving women a safe place to go, giving children a safe place to go. Our justice system must work for them. That is why this bill is so important. My colleague from New Jersey is waiting to speak on the same subject. I thank Senator Lautenberg for his great leadership in this area. But let me just for the record read some recent headlines.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I end by saying that sometimes it takes a bold act to receive something on which we can really build. CARA is a bold act. In a bill with $15 billion, asking for a few hundred million for States and local governments, a few hundred million for our coastal communities, a few hundred million for wildlife, was not too much to ask. I am very hopeful in the years ahead we can meet the promise of CARA. I ask unanimous consent to have printed excerpts of editorial support.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I just need the 30 minutes that were reserved for me. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Iowa. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am in line for time, but I would be happy to yield to the Senator for 5 or 10 minutes.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today, as I have many times in the last couple of months, to speak about an issue that is so important for so many Members in the Senate, and our colleagues on the House side, and to supporters everywhere, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. We will be voting on the Interior appropriations bill in just a few moments. I plan, with all due respect to those who have worked on this bill--and I acknowledge their hard work--to vote no because it fails to embrace the principles outlined in the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. I express my respect for the members of the Appropriations Committee. They have a very tough job. They are charged with a great responsibility. While we have disagreed over this particular issue, we have worked together as we have tried and continue to try to reach a bipartisan compromise over this great battle for a legacy for our environment. In particular, I thank Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska, our chairman, and Senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia, our ranking member, who have been very attentive to the calling and the requests of the CARA supporters in this regard. While we have disagreed on this issue, it has not been personal. My remarks today are intended strictly to be constructive and hopefully to help us chart a course to navigate in the future on this important issue. I will read into and submit for the Record the excellent comments from individuals and Governors and mayors reflected in newspapers around our country, literally from the west coast to the east coast, from the south to the north, from interior communities to coastal communities, literally thousands and thousands of positive editorials and articles written about what we are attempting to do. From the State of Illinois, we have had some of our best editorials on this subject, of which the Presiding Officer has been a supporter. From the Seattle Post, May 18, a few months ago this year, talking about CARA: It is a bold approach to environmental conservation and restoration. If ever there were a win-win for all the squabbling factions permanently encamped in the corridors of Capitol Hill to argue about the environment, this bill has to be it. From the Providence Journal, RI, September 19: Even with the unusual level of bipartisan support that this measure has, it could easily get lost in the last days of an election-year session. Citizens should press Congress to get it on to the desk of President, who would sign it. While time is short, where there is a will there is a way, and the people of Rhode Island surely believe that. From the Los Angeles Times, September 18: This measure should be plucked from the pack and made law. Chicago Tribune, from the home State of the Presiding Officer: As Congress churns through its last days before adjournment, one issue of environmental impact should not be left in the dust, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, or

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, next Sunday marks the eighty- ninth birthday of the Republic of China, which now resides in Taiwan. This representative government arose from a revolution against an archaic imperial system. In 1911, Chinese patriots ousted the Qing dynasty, and ignited the promise of economic and political freedom for Chinese nationalists throughout the world. National Day, or the shuang shi, is the most important national holiday in Taiwan, for it celebrates not only a critical military victory, but a wealth of principles which, to this day, guide the governance of Taiwan--particularly: resistance to dynastic tyranny, embrace of free market enterprise, development of western-style political institutions, and ultimately, the evolution of a fully thriving democratic republic. After repeated set-backs, on October 10, 1911, the revolutionary Wuch'ang Army successfully launched a revolt against China's imperial regime. The nationalists would no longer tolerate property seizure and suppressed individual rights. Without a supreme sovereign reigning over the country, China plunged into a civil war. Although never truly resolved, this conflict stalemated in 1949, when Communists expelled Chiang Kai-shek and the nationalists to present-day Taiwan. After emergency martial law was lifted in 1987, the groundwork was finally laid to realize the cardinal objectives of Taiwan's founding father, Sun Yat-sen--to establish a representative Republic of China. In 1992, Taiwan held its first democratic legislative elections, followed by presidential elections in 1996. In March of this year, Taiwan held her second presidential elections, installing a wholly independent, man of the people as the leader of Tawain--Chen Shui-bian. This man embodies the spirit of the new Republic of China on Taiwan. As mayor of Taipei, Chen Shui-bian cleaned up the capital city, attacking organized crime and other illicit industries. As a political dissident, he stood strong in the face of efforts to muzzle him. In this year's election, he inaugurated a new political order for his people. In addition to Chen's fair elections, Taiwan has much to celebrate. As Taiwan enjoys her various National Day festivities--the huge parades, dazzling entertainment, and explosive fireworks displays--let us all celebrate the birth of true democracy in Taiwan. We salute our friends on that great island--the people of Taiwan. Please join me in saying to them Shuang shi kwai ler. Honoring Our Fallen Firefighters

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I want to just say how much I respect our leader, Senator Byrd, and the work that he and his staff have put in. But I believe it is important--and I feel compelled as the leader of the CARA Coalition in the Senate--to point out that there are real differences. And those differences really matter to environmental groups, to wildlife groups, to coastal impact assistance organizations that are fighting for coastal impact assistance and more acknowledgment of the needs of our coasts. And it matters to parents, to volunteers, and to community organizations. So I think that we should be truthful and honest--and I am not saying that people have not been truthful and honest, but I do think we have to be very clear that while this trust fund could potentially be a beginning, it is not nearly where we need to be in terms of delivering a real legacy for this Nation, a legacy of which Republicans can be proud, a legacy of which Democrats can be proud, a legacy of which this President can be proud. So I want to take a few minutes, if I could--and I know we have quite a bit of time and no time limit--so I would like to take a moment to go through this large binder here to talk about our coalition because there is still time remaining in this session. We do not know whether we are going to be in for this week, whether we may be here for another 2 weeks, or another 3 weeks. There are still many serious negotiations going on between the House and the Senate, between congressional appropriators and the White House, on a variety of issues that are important to our Nation. Some of those issues have to do with health care; some of them have to do with education; some of them have to do with transportation. So we have time. I have come to the floor to try to explain, in my remarks, the differences between what the Interior bill has laid down and for what the CARA Coalition was hopeful. I also want to point out and add to the Record this extraordinary coalition that has been supporting this legislation, and to ask them to use the time remaining to call the leadership, Senator Lott, Senator Daschle, and the President himself, and say thank you for the work that we have done. But let's not miss this opportunity to do better. Let's not miss this opportunity to do better this year, and to hopefully build in the years to come on what the Conservation and Reinvestment Act really envisions for our Nation. Since I am a Senator from Louisiana, I want to thank this extraordinary list of supporters from Louisiana who are registered here in this book. This book is actually a book of all the States. There are 5,000 organizations--an unprecedented coalition, of, as I said, Governors, mayors, county officials, conservation and wildlife organizations, sportsmen's groups, parks and recreation advocates, business and industry groups, historic preservationists, and soccer and youth sports organizations that have called on us to act. I want them to know that I have heard their message. I want them to know that 63 Senators have heard their message. I want them to know that Chairman Murkowski and the ranking member, Senator Bingaman, have heard their message. We want to work with them in the remaining weeks of this session, and for as long into the future as it takes to actually get an environmental legacy for this country of which we can all be proud. Let me just say, in this book is a letter to each of the Senators, signed by anywhere from 50 to literally hundreds of organizations in their States, urging them to adopt CARA, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, the principles outlined in CARA. I thank, particularly, from my State of Louisiana, for his extraordinary leadership, our Secretary of Natural Resources, Jack Caldwell, who works for a Republican Governor, Gov. Mike Foster. In our State this has truly been a bipartisan effort. I thank our Louisiana Wildlife Federation; the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, which produced this extraordinary document, for their work and help and advice through this process. I thank our Lieutenant Governor, who is a colleague of mine, and a good friend, Kathleen Blanco, and her Office of State Parks. I particularly thank the Louisiana Chapter of the Sierra Club that spoke out early in support of this effort. I thank the Louisiana Legislature that was the first legislative body in the Nation to adopt a resolution in favor of the Conservation Reinvestment Act. And many State legislatures around our Nation have followed that show of support. Almost every elected official in our State--particularly, I want to single out Mayor Marc Morial, the mayor of New Orleans, who will be leading the U.S. Conference of Mayors next year as chairman and a leading member of that organization, for his outstanding advocacy for UPARR and for other portions of the CARA legislation. I thank Jefferson Parish President Tim Coulon, who is a Republican. Again, our partnership has been quite bipartisan in Louisiana. I thank him. We have led this effort, but we have been joined by many States in the Union, by many officials from all parts of this Nation. Just for the record, I want to read a few of the groups from the State of Mississippi that have been extraordinary and helpful in this-- and to thank Senator Trent Lott for his support--and to continue to encourage him and our leader, Senator Daschle, to find whatever avenues are necessary to build on the good work that has been done this year in this regard. There are actually pages and pages of supporters from Mississippi. I will only read out the very top few, but there are literally--it looks to be over 200 supporters from Mississippi, the first being Mississippi Heritage Trust, Mississippi Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks, Mississippi Wildlife Federation, the Chapter of Wildlife Society, the Chapter of American Planning Association, the School of Architecture for Mississippi State--and I could go on through this--the city of Hattiesburg, the city of Laurel, the Keep Jackson Beautiful Coalition, literally hundreds of organizations in Mississippi. For the Record, I will recite some of the organizations from South Dakota because the leader has been on our side. Both Senator Daschle and Senator Tim Johnson were so helpful in this effort. We also have pages and pages of organizations: Governor Bill Janklow, the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, the South Dakota Parks and Recreation Association, the South Dakota Conservation Officers Association, Beadle County Master Gardeners, the Beadle County Sportsmen's Club, the Optimist Club of Huron. Throughout their entire State, from mayors to elected officials to conservation organizations, they have let their voice be heard. I want the South Dakota supporters to know that their leader has heard them, has been supportive, and has been very helpful. I also thank our House colleagues: Chairman Young from Alaska; the ranking member, George Miller of California; John Dingell of Michigan, who has been an outstanding advocate for CARA; from my State particularly, Billy Tauzin, who represents south Louisiana and is an excellent supporter of CARA; and Chris John, who has been very helpful, a member of the committee in the House. We have had a coalition of Senators and House Members, of elected officials around the Nation. Since the session is not over yet, our fight is not over. We recognize that we can't have everything we have asked for, but we recognize that we would never get anywhere if we didn't ask. If we had not put this effort forward, we might never get to a real trust fund for the environment for our Nation. I think the effort has been worth pursuing and the effort is still worth pursuing. I am not going to ask my colleagues to vote against this bill. Some of them may do that for their own reasons. Senator Fitzgerald and others who don't think there are enough property rights protections may, for their own purposes, want to do that. I probably will cast a vote against the Interior bill because it falls short of what we want. But this is a democratic process. We believe what we are fighting for is in the right direction. We believe the CARA Coalition represents truly a bipartisan effort that can gather the support of not only Federal officials but State officials. And we believe that this is, in fact, a beginning. There is still time left to build on it. I am hoping leaders from other committees of the Senate can potentially give some support, as they have been from the beginning, and help as we try to put our best foot forward and move ahead on this legislation. I will go over some of the other numbers in which some of my colleagues may be interested on this particular bill. As I said earlier, the basis of CARA was to give guaranteed funding in certain categories for environmental programs. Although this trust fund lays down broad categories, they are not specific enough so that people can actually depend on them and States can depend on them. For instance, under the land acquisition part of this bill, let's say for Arizona, in this conference committee report there are about $15 million for land acquisition. Under the CARA proposal, as compromised between the House and Senate, Arizona would have received and could have counted on approximately $47 million each year. Arkansas--and Senator Lincoln has been an outstanding supporter of CARA--under the land portion of this bill actually gets zero money. This is legislation for billions of dollars that are earmarked for other places, but under this trust fund concept, Arkansas gets actually zero. Under CARA, they would have a guarantee of $14.9 million. Colorado in this bill has $5.3 million. Under CARA, they would have $46 million each year for the State PILT, for payment in lieu of taxes, for land acquisition at the State level, not directed by Federal agencies but at the State level. They would have had money for historic preservation and for urban parks for cities such as Denver and others in Colorado. Connecticut has $1.6 million approximately. They would have had $17 million of guaranteed funding. Delaware has $1.3 million; under CARA, $14 million. Georgia, which, according to our records, has about $650,000 for land acquisition projects, would have had $32 million under the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. Hawaii, which has $2 million in this bill, would have counted on about $29 million a year. Idaho, which has about $7.5 million, would have gotten $39 million a year, primarily in PILT payments, some on the State side of land and water, and some in other areas. Illinois, which is a large State, a very important State in our Nation, and one of the most populated States, under this trust fund has zero money allocated for this year but would have had $38 million every year under CARA. Indiana has $3.8 million, as opposed to our proposal for $25 million. As I read through some of these numbers--I would like to read through them all for all the States--let me say that the underlying bill on the trust fund has approximately the same amount of money the CARA Coalition desired. Our coalition wants to be respectful and appreciative of budget constraints. We recognize there are a great many needs in this Nation, from support for teachers and schools to support for health care, to the lockbox for Social Security and Medicare. We have examined the state of the budget. But we believe we could have spent and still believe that half of 1 percent of the surplus for an environmental trust fund that we could count on year in and year out was not too much to ask for. In fact, the appropriators have basically agreed with that concept because that is the amount of money they have actually put in this bill. The problem is, the framework they put in forces organizations to compete year in and year out, not being able to depend on money. It well underfunds PILT, payment in lieu of taxes, which is so important to our Western States. The underlying bill gives all of the money, or 85 percent of it or more, to Federal agencies and shortchanges our Governors and our mayors and our local elected officials. And it does not fund, as clearly as it should, some of the other important programs we have outlined as authorizers in our compromise between the House and the Senate. (Mr. GREGG assumed the chair.)

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Illinois has been on the floor for quite some time speaking on an issue about which he obviously feels very strongly and about which he is quite knowledgeable and on which he has been going into some detail. Hopefully, it can be worked out, or some accommodations can be made. I am here, actually, to speak about an issue that is related to this bill but is completely different from what my colleague from Illinois has been speaking about. This is about the underlying bill, the Interior appropriations bill, and about the CARA Coalition, the Conservation Reinvestment Act--which you yourself have been familiar with and were actually very helpful, Mr. President, and were supportive along the way. I thank you for that. I want to say a few words about the Interior appropriations bill and how it falls so short of what many of us were hoping. I realize this is a process; it is a democratic process. I realize we cannot always get what we want. But I do believe we should always try our very best to get what we believe is not only best for our State but best for our Nation. That is what the CARA Coalition represents, a group of Governors, almost every Governor in the Nation, mayors--almost all of the mayors in the Nation, Democrats and Republicans--over 5,000 environmental and business organizations and recreational organizations throughout this Nation that have been trying to communicate to the White House and to the appropriators, both Democrats and Republicans, and to the President himself, how important it is to try to take this time, this year--not next year but this year--to lay down a real legacy for the environment, something that recognizes the importance of purchasing Federal lands when appropriate but also a legacy that realizes how important it is to give some money, not to Federal agencies but to State governments and to local officials, so Governors and mayors can make plans based on their local and State needs. I know that you agree with me, Mr. President--actually, many do in this Chamber--that Washington doesn't always know best. The CARA Coalition thinks sometimes Washington has good ideas, but we think sometimes States and Governors and mayors and county commissioners have good ideas. Sometimes parents who run Little League Baseball leagues in their communities have good ideas. We think volunteers in communities have good ideas. But there are a handful of people who think--it is just disturbing to me, and I do not understand it--there are some people here, unfortunately on both sides of the aisle, who think the only decisions that are good come from Washington. So the CARA Coalition wants to say the Interior bill fails--fails to take advantage of the partnerships that are available at the State and at the local level. In addition, I have to say the Interior bill also fails to take into account the important contributions that are made by the coastal States to this endeavor. While the amount of money that the Interior bill has come up with is over $1 billion in the first year, a good portion of that money, about half of it, $500 million, actually does not come from the general fund. It comes from offshore oil and gas revenues. The moneys we use in this bill that were outlined earlier to fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which was authorized and established over 30 years ago but never funded to its levels, either at the Federal or the State side--that money comes from offshore oil and gas revenues. Those revenues primarily come from the Gulf of Mexico and from Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and to some degree Alabama. The drilling for natural gas, which is an environmentally friendly fuel that helps us reduce the harmful elements in the air, takes place in the Gulf of Mexico, and the revenues generated from those oil and gas wells fund the land and water conservation bill. Another shortcoming of the Interior bill is that it fails to recognize the contributions that are made by Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. It does not provide a fair share of those revenues back to our States. It does not include coastal impact assistance. There is a possibility under the agreement with the chairmen of the committees that some of that can possibly be taken care of in the Commerce- Justice-State bill. We are very hopeful some of that money might become available. This plan for an environmental legacy, despite the fact that this may be taken care of to a small degree in another bill, in the Interior bill, fails to recognize the contribution made by States that allow offshore oil and gas drilling. I have held up this plan many times on the floor. This is the ``Coast 2050'' plan from Louisiana. This is a plan that says: ``Without bold action now, a national treasure will be lost forever.'' That treasure is the largest expanse of coastal wetlands in North America. The largest expanse of coastal wetlands in North America is at risk. The CARA Coalition came to Washington to say: We do not want all of the money for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. We do not even want 50 percent of the money. We do not even expect 25 percent of the money. But we think we are in our right to ask for at least 10 percent of the money that is generated from offshore oil and gas revenues to come back to the coastal States, the great coastal areas of our Nation, for restoration. The coast of Louisiana is home to 2 million Americans, and the other statistics are awesome. The ecosystem contributes nearly 30 percent by weight of the total commercial fisheries harvested in the entire Nation. It provides wintering habitat for over 70 percent of migratory waterfowl for the whole Nation. And 18 percent of U.S. oil production, and 24 percent of gas production come from Louisiana primarily and the Gulf of Mexico. Our port system ranks first in the Nation, and we provide commercial outlets for the transportation of goods into this Nation and out of this Nation. As a Senator from Louisiana--and I know Senator Breaux joins me--I thought we could expect some recognition of what the coastal States mean to this Nation and some recognition of a coastal impact assistance piece or coastal stewardship piece, which CARA had in mind and which this Interior bill--although it is recognized, it has moved some of the money over to Commerce--does not recognize in its legacy. I say for the CARA Coalition that we have always believed the legacy that we are trying to leave is not just about interior States; it is about coastal States. It is not just about Federal spending and decisions made at the Federal level; it is about decisions made at the local level and at the State level. The underlying bill, while I know it took some work and it took some effort and there have been lots of negotiations at every level, fails in many aspects in terms of what we had hoped for this year. We will continue to hope for it if it is not done in this Congress. There is still time. It is unlikely that what we are asking for can be done in this bill. The conference is closed. We do not, under the rules, have an opportunity to amend this particular bill, but there are many other bills moving through. There is still action that can be taken on the part of the Democratic and Republican leadership. The President himself could weigh in more strongly and say: Yes, let's take what we can on lands legacy, but let's add in addition to it the CARA legislation. I will try to explain a few other things about the underlying bill and how it falls very short of where we want to be. Supporters of the underlying bill claim there is money in this bill for conservation programs, and they are correct. There is even more money than was originally budgeted for conservation programs. The problem is that each of the programs have to compete against each other for limited dollars. Unlike CARA, which had the programs pretty much clearly defined and moneys attached to each program so that Governors, mayors, and program administrators could count on that money, the underlying bill does not allow for that. It allows for competition, for an annual grab-bag approach every year. Let me give an example. In the first category, which is under the land conservation, preservation, infrastructure improvement trust fund, which is what this bill now calls it--it is not lands legacy, it is not CARA, it is called the land conservation, preservation, infrastructure improvement trust fund. There is $539 million in that fund, but out of that fund, the Federal side of land and water and the State side of land and water have to compete for that $539 million. We heard the distinguished chairman from Washington say he had over $1 billion in requests. He said he had over 1,000 requests totaling over $1 billion. That is just requests from the Federal side. If there are $1 billion in requests every year for the Federal side of land and water, and we only have in this bill $539 million to fund it, I argue there is not going to be anything left for the State side of land and water. They have been underfunded for 30 years. The Governors have been left holding an empty bag. When the mayors look in the bag, there is no money--promises, promises, but no money. While this trust fund attempts in a way to put this in categories, it fails to deliver the money necessary for the State side and the Federal side. Let me go into the next category which talks about State and other conservation programs. It talks about the cooperative endangered species fund, which is important; State wildlife grants, which basically, according to the Wildlife Coalition, will never get to the States because it will take 3 years to come up with a plan, and then when the States come up with a plan, it will take so much longer for it to be approved, so this $50 million is not really worth much at this point. The State wildlife grants, the North American wetlands conservation, science programs, forest legacy, and additional planning inventory and monitoring, all of those funds have to compete in this ``trust fund'' for limited resources. Instead of being able to count on money every year for the endangered species fund, instead of being able to count on a real State wildlife fund on which local officials can count and on which preservationists and conservationists can count, it is not there. Forest legacy cannot count on it. The chances of funding it are minimal. I will go to something Members can appreciate because they heard so much from their mayors. The next category is urban and historic preservation. It includes the program we know as UPARR. It includes a very popular and effective program called Historic Preservation. It includes Urban and Community Forestry and the Youth Conservation Corps. They are good programs. The problem is, they have to compete for the same pot of money, fighting among themselves. We had hoped, and we thought, it was time--and we still believe it is time, the CARA Coalition--to get the environmental community and the business community and the recreational activists and enthusiasts in this Nation working together. That is what the CARA Coalition represents. Instead of fighting over crumbs, instead of fighting over very limited amounts of money, we were hoping to build, first, on a relatively small amount of money but build together. And as the budget provided, as political opportunities provided, we were willing to come back and wait and be patient and get additional moneys for these programs. But to force these groups, which have had to live on so little for so long, to have to compete amongst each other every year, year in and year out, I think is far less than what we could have done and what we should have done. We do not probably have the support to defeat this Interior appropriations bill. I would have to say, there are some very good things in this bill. The appropriators worked very hard. I know it is very tough to try to put together a bill that can meet the approval of over 500 Members--both in the House and in the Senate--representing different parties and different interests. (Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire assumed the chair.)

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for clarification?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, if I may retain the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I will take probably another 10 minutes, and then I will yield back my time, if I am able to, to Senator Fitzgerald, who continues to want time on the floor. We can check with Senator Fitzgerald. Mr. President, I will continue to read some of this into the Record. Iowa, for instance, is the only State of the Union to date that has not received any money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in 30 years, as the records will reflect. This year, Iowa has $600,000. Under CARA, we could have made a commitment of approximately $11 million per year. Kansas--and Senator Roberts has been a terrific supporter of CARA, and I am appreciative of his support, particularly for the wildlife portion of our bill--gets zero in the trust fund for this year. Kansas would have gotten about $11.9 million under CARA. Kentucky, $2.5 million; $15 million under CARA. Maine, $1 million under this bill for this year; $31.9 million would have been directed to Maine under the CARA proposal. Maryland, which sits on the shores of the great Chesapeake Bay--an area that deserves, in my opinion, a great deal more attention, and the local officials in the various States around the Chesapeake have done a wonderful job, and there has been much help from the Federal level, but we can still do more to protect that important ecosystem in our Nation--Maryland gets $1.2 million. Under CARA, they would have gotten $28 million a year. Massachusetts, about $1.5 million; under CARA, $35 million. Michigan, $1.1 million; under CARA, $42 million. Minnesota, $2.8 million; under CARA, $29 million. Missouri, $3.5 million; under CARA, $26.2 million. Montana, $6.5 million; under CARA, $47.8 million. Nebraska--and Senator Kerrey has been a wonderful supporter and very helpful in terms of arguing that States and local governments should have a say as we divide this money annually and should be able to count on something and not have to wait until October, which costs the taxpayers more and which is difficult at the State level. Nebraska has a grand total of $400,000 for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Under CARA, they would have gotten about $14.5 million. Nevada, which is the State of my good colleague, Senator Reid, got $2 million. CARA would have brought them $37 million. A lot of that money would have been for PILT payments because the Senator represents a State where the Federal Government owns 92 percent of the land. So it is our obligation to provide money for those local units in Nevada which lose revenues when the Federal Government takes over land from the private sector. They would have benefited from the formula that would have acknowledged that and tried to, in some ways, make them whole by improving their PILT payments. They would get $38 million under CARA; instead, they get $2 million. New Hampshire, a small State but a very important State, under this bill gets $3.6 million; under CARA, the total it would have received is $17 million. New Jersey, the Garden State, with a Republican Governor whom I admire a good deal, Governor Whitman, just passed--and I am sure with Democratic help--a bond issue to provide over a billion dollars for Saving Open Spaces in New Jersey. They are one of the most populated States and are trying to preserve the farmland they have left and the green spaces. That is very important to many people along the east coast, the west coast, the interior, and the coastal communities. They passed a billion dollar, multiyear effort. I believe, and the CARA coalition believes, we should try to match that effort. Instead, under this bill, we have given New Jersey $2 million. CARA would have provided them a $40 million partnership every year. New Mexico--and Senator Bingaman has been an outspoken advocate and a ranking member on our side--gets $4.7 million. It would be $44.9 million under CARA. I know my time is going to be running short. In a moment, I will be prepared to yield my time back to Senator Fitzgerald, who had the floor. I was taking some time from him. I say to our floor leader, I will yield back some time to Senator Fitzgerald.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to speak on a pending piece of legislation that I believe requires our urgent attention. The fact that the leadership has not acted to bring this bill to the floor is of great concern to me. While I understand that our time is short and our list is long, the Re-authorization of the Violence Against Women's Act should be on the list of priorities for this Congress. I urge the leadership not to allow another day to pass and to bring this bill to the floor for our immediate consideration. In 1994, with the President's strong support, Congress passed the landmark Violence Against Women Act, which established new Federal criminal provisions and key grant programs to improve this nation's criminal justice system's response to domestic violence. Since that time, the number of crimes against women has decreased. A recent report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that the number of women experiencing violence at the hands of an intimate partner declined 21 percent from 1993 to 1998. Under this bill, the Federal Government has awarded $1.6 billion dollars, $24 million of which went to support programs in the State of Louisiana, to help support the efforts of prosecutors, law enforcement officials, the courts, victim advocates, health care and social service professionals, and intervention and prevention programs. The National Domestic Violence Hotline, established with funds from this Act, has received more than 500,000 calls since it began operating. While I think the success of this Act alone is an important reason to support its continuation, it is not why I stand here today. Although the number of women murdered by an intimate partner is the lowest it has been since 1976, still, 3 out of 4 victims murdered last year were female. Tremendous strides have been made, but domestic violence and crimes against women continue to devastate the lives of many women and children throughout our country. In fact, in May of this year, one week after Mother's Day, a Louisiana woman, Jacqulene Gersfeld, was gunned down by her husband just outside a Gretna courthouse. The couple had a history of violence and friends reported that this was not the first time Jacqulene's husband, Marvin, had threatened to kill her. Far too often, abused women are afraid, and many times for good reason, to remove themselves from these abusive relationships, but not Jacqulene, she sought help, obtained a protective order and filed for divorce. She left that courtroom believing that her days of living in fear were over and that her husband could no longer harm her. But she was wrong. I am sad to say that Jacqulene's story is not unique. In New Orleans alone, the Domestic Violence help line receives 16,000 calls for assistance a year. Of the total women's homicide rate, 46 percent of those deaths are attributed to domestic violence. And that is just one city in my state. I am certain that every one of my colleagues could come to this floor and tell of a woman in their state whose fate was that of Jacqulene's. As citizens of the greatest democracy in the world, we cannot stand idly by and watch these stories unfold. The need for the services provided for under the Violence Against Women Act are needed now more than ever. Women like Jacqulene must be protected from the wrath of their estranged abusers. They must know that there are people willing to help them and their children escape the abuse and start a new life. While domestic violence may be dismissed by some as an issue that affects only women, it is not, it is an issue that affects us all. Studies show that a child's exposure to the father abusing the mother is the strongest risk factor for transmitting violent behavior from one generation to the next. A significant number of young males in the juvenile justice system were from homes where violence was the order of the day. Family violence costs the nation from $5 to $10 billion annually in medical expenses, police and court costs, shelters and foster care, sick leave, absenteeism, and non-productivity. In fact, the majority of welfare recipients have experienced domestic abuse in their adult lives and a high percentage are currently abused. My Colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, and I have cosponsored legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. If Congress fails to reauthorize VAWA, many critical programs may be jeopardized. Reauthorization legislation, which has broad bipartisan support will help to: maintain existing programs, expand investigation and prosecution of crimes against women; provide greater numbers of victims with assistance; maintain and expand the domestic violence hotline, shelter, rape prevention, and education programs; and support effective partnerships between law enforcement, victim advocates and communities. Again, I am disappointed that this Congress is quickly coming to a close and this bill is still waiting for action by the Senate. Several times during the campaign, the leadership has claimed that the issues that are important to women are of the highest priority. I can hardly think of an issue that more directly affects the lives of women and their families than their health and safety. Since we returned from the August recess, several members have come to the floor and talked about time. The minority leader eloquently detailed the amount of time, or lack thereof, that this body has dedicated to actually doing the work of the American people. The majority leader, on the other hand, has cautioned us that time is limited and we, therefore, must use it wisely. I could not agree more-- time is running out and so, it is about time that we ask the Majority to do more than make empty promises. It is about time we question the sincerity of a party when their Presidential candidate needs to be briefed before he can take a stance on legislation to end violence against women. It is about time we do all we can to make good on a promise that we made six years ago to victims like Jacqulene. While it is too late for us to help her, we owe to the hundreds and thousands of others like her to act quickly. I implore my colleagues not to let time run out for the millions of women whose lives could be saved by this legislation.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, last week, the Senate majority blocked efforts to bring the Latino Immigration Fairness Act to the floor. This bill embodies the essence of America: providing safe haven to the persecuted and down trodden, supporting equal opportunity for the disadvantaged, and promoting family values to our country's residents. Many of my Senate colleagues perceive this provision to be a necessary addition to the H-1B Visa bill, which extends temporary residence to 195,000 foreign workers each year for the next two years. The Latino Immigration Fairness Act legitimates certain workers who have been living in the U.S. for over five years, and are ready, willing, and able to permanently contribute to our workforce and communities. Unfortunately, the Majority's leadership has used parliamentary procedures to block this bill from coming to the floor. I am disappointed that too few Republican leaders support this meaningful legislation becoming law. I am convinced that the Latino Immigration Fairness bill has been proposed in the best interests of our country and in accordance with our obligations to promoting democracy and freedom in our hemisphere. My support for this legislation is based on four fundamental reasons: First, this bill would provide Central American immigrants previously excluded under the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act, NACARA, the opportunity to legalize their status; it would allow immigrants applying for permanent residency to remain in the U.S. with their families instead of forcing them to return to their country of origin to apply (a process that can take months to years to complete); and it would change the registry cut-off date to 1986, which would resolve the 14-year bureaucratic limbo that has denied amnesty to qualified immigrants who sought to adjust their status under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. Finally, this bill would resolve the status of so many valuable members of American society. There are an estimated 6 million immigrants in the United States who are not yet citizens. A majority of these immigrants have been here for many years and are working hard, paying taxes, buying homes, opening businesses and raising families. For years, U.S. immigration policy has provided refuge to tens of thousands of these Nicaraguans, Cubans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Hondurans, and Haitians fleeing civil war and social unrest in their own countries. In 1997 the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act was signed into law. This statute protects Cuban and Nicaraguan nationals from deportation from the United States. Those residents who have been in the U.S. since December 1995 can now adjust to permanent resident status. But Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Hondurans, and Haitians are still not as fully protected. In the last decade, Louisiana has provided refuge to thousands of Hondurans seeking relief from natural and human disasters. Displaced by storms, floods, war, and social unrest, many of these people have found warm and comforting homes for their families in the American Bayou. My State, particularly in New Orleans, boasts a proud tradition of cultural diversity. The Honduran community was originally brought to Louisiana through a thriving banana trade between the Port of Louisiana and Gulf of Honduras in the early twentieth century. As the community grew, Louisiana's Honduran population became the largest outside of Honduras. For this reason, Louisiana seemed the most logical destination for Hondurans fleeing instability during the 1980s and 1990s. Once again, my state, like many others, opened her doors to our desperate Central American brothers. The Latino Immigration Fairness Act will help fulfill a promise this government has made to these refugees, and attempt to finish the work of Presidents Reagan and Clinton. Under the Reagan Administration, the Immigration and Naturalization Service set up special asylum programs for these people to reside legally in the U.S. Since then, they have greatly contributed to American society-- raising children, paying taxes, and establishing successful businesses throughout our country--as well as contributed direct support to their relatives left behind in their homelands. In a democracy such as ours, we must be consistent in the principles we uphold for our Latin neighbors seeking asylum. These people have fled political instability and social upheaval in their native lands. As the guardian of Democratic ideals and chief opponent of repression in the Western Hemisphere, we must ensure that these residents adjust their status to legal resident under the same procedure permitted for Cubans and Nicaraguans. In sum, I urge my colleagues to consider the United States' historic commitment to fair immigration policies. Our country has been built and continues to be sustained by immigrants. In her poem, The Colossus, Emma Lazarus named our country the ``Mother of Exiles.'' Personified by the Statue of Liberty, the United States of America continues to shine her torch on refugees from instability and strife--We have opened our doors to people of all races and nationalities, and have prospered from their valuable contributions to labor, community, and culture. Now, failure to pass Fairness legislation will take away our promise of freedom to so many deserving residents, and deny us the gifts they have imparted to our shores. Contrary to what our critics say, supporting this bill does not condone illegal entry into this country. I am proud of our historic value of the rule of law and territorial integrity. At the same time, I am equally concerned that once certain people have resided in this country for years and contributed to our country's prosperity, some would have us uproot such valuable members of our society. Let us not eject Honduran, Haitian, Guatemalan, and Salvadoran nationals, who have, for so long, woven into the American fabric, making American families, paying American taxes, building American homes and businesses, and working for American labor. Let us not revoke the American promise of freedom, and help deport so many valuable members of our society. Let us vote for passage of this very American legislation, the Latino Immigration Fairness Act.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, a letter from the National Governors' Association on September 27th to the majority leader of the Senate expresses the National Governors' Association's views that any final version of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) legislation include stable funding and a strong commitment to the states by reinvesting Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) mineral revenues into assets of lasting value and sharing a meaningful portion of these revenues with states and territories. In addition, the letter points out that the essential strengths of CARA are that it assures a dependable stream of funding which enables states to implement long-term capital investments and to develop cost-effective fiscal strategies. I ask unanimous consent to print the letter in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I join my colleague from California and my colleague from Iowa in their remarks and thank our colleague from Iowa for spending the time to point out the important differences in the approaches as we get closer to this election. It is something the American people in our democracy will ultimately decide. I thank him. I also point out to my colleague from California that not only would we not be able to afford the right kind of prescription drug plan for America because of the huge tax cut proposal that the Governor of Texas has proposed, we would not be able to give the military the added investments that it may or may not need. We may be debating that, but the generals appeared yesterday to describe how they needed some increase in investments in the military in certain ways and we need to modernize and streamline and save money where we can. But there are clearly some areas where we will not even be able to do that, if the proposed tax cut plan is in effect. We won't be able to provide the kind of Medicare coverage we need, and we will not be able to strengthen our military in the ways that we perhaps need to as we restructure and reshape. Mr. President, our senior Senator from West Virginia has made a very important point. He has urged all of us in this Chamber to pay attention to a very important concept in our Constitution that is in the process of being violated. This affects Louisiana and States such as ours. Twenty-three are listed on this chart, as the Senator pointed out. No one brings a deeper understanding of the constitutional prerogatives and responsibilities of this body than does Senator Byrd, our esteemed colleague from West Virginia. I also know that he is intimately familiar with the writings of John Jay in one of the most cherished pieces of prose regarding our democracy, the Federalist Papers. In Federalist No. 64, he writes: As all the States are equally represented in the Senate, and by men the most able and most willing to promote the interests of their constituents, they will all have an equal degree of influence in that body, especially while they continue to be careful in appointing proper persons, and to insist on their punctual attendance. Although I agree with this, I don't know if our Founding Fathers ever thought there would be a day where there were women in the Senate, but obviously this quote would apply so that men and women in the Senate would have equal opportunity to represent their States. When we follow these rules, as we can see, our Founding Fathers intended this body to represent the great States of our Union equally. Sadly, after years of hearing of the importance of federalism, the Senate is proceeding down a course that makes a mockery of this ideal. I represent one of the 20 States without a member on the Appropriations Committee in either Chamber. Currently there is no one from Louisiana on the Appropriations Committee in the House or in the Senate. The only protection a State such as mine--one of the earliest additions to the Union, I might add--has is the power and process of this Chamber. That power and that process is being jeopardized. When the Senate leadership attempts to short-circuit that process, they trample on the rights of States and undermine our very constitutional structure. This Senator will be asked to vote, I am certain, on an enormous bill that I could not possibly have read, that has never passed out of this body, and which I will have no opportunity to amend. Let me say it again. The people in Louisiana, and these 23 States on this chart, will have no opportunity to amend this final bill that is going to be before us shortly. Our rules were written to give life to the intentions of our Founding Fathers that we have the opportunity to deliberate and amend any measure offered in this body. When we follow those rules, all States are truly equal--the most populous and prosperous, as well as the smallest and most in need. That is what our Constitution contemplated, but that is not what we are living out today. A measure very important to my State, as many of you know, is the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. I am concerned by virtue of the process we are following that this critical legislation, despite the support of 63 Senators, will not be debated on the Senate floor. That potential reality is unfair to Louisiana; it is unjust to the 4.5 million people who live in my State. It is certainly not what John Jay, one of our founders, had in mind 200 years ago. I think it is important to warn my colleagues now that this Senator intends to defend her State's place in this body. I thank my friend from West Virginia. I salute him for his ongoing leadership in this cause, and I look forward to helping him return this body to its appropriate place in the constitutional order. So whether we are debating Medicare or our military or the environment and the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, I hope that the people of my State can truly be represented in that process. That is why they elected me and I plan to defend that right.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. The Senator has made some wonderful suggestions as to what we all can do to celebrate Adoption Month, which is November, whether you have adopted children or perhaps adopted grandchildren; perhaps you yourself were adopted and you know someone, a neighbor, who has built a family through adoption. It is life affirming. This is what we can all agree on, whether you are conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican. It is an endeavor where we believe our Nation can step forward; we can do a better job of making sure that every child has a family to call their own. That is what this is about. The Senator mentioned the Hague Treaty on Intercountry Adoption. I would be remiss if I did not thank publicly the chairman of that committee, Senator Jesse Helms, and our ranking member, Senator Joe Biden. There are many treaties sitting on shelves, waiting to be acted on by this Senate. There are literally, to my understanding, hundreds. But this chairman, even with a busy schedule, with many demands about taking up a treaty on other international issues, brought forth a treaty for intercountry adoption. It is going to be and is already a historic milestone so that the United States can continue to lead, to say that there should be no barriers to adoption. We would love all children to stay with the parents to whom they were born or the parent or the family to stay within the country where they were born. But if we can't find a home for them in that country or in that community, we should not leave children in institutions or orphanages or, for Heaven's sake, living on the street by themselves in boxes and boxcars. We should do everything we can. This treaty will help us to do just that. It will help the governments of the world to shape laws and policies, minimize costs, stamp out corruption, and help us to have a system where we can all feel good about our work to bring help to these children. It will be done with the governments, in partnership with the nonprofit organizations, churches, faith-based organizations, and individuals throughout the world. It is quite exciting. Perhaps, because there are other Senators on the floor who may want to speak, we could submit the names of our 120 Angels into the Record. I know the Senator probably will want to at least mention his Idaho Angel. I will mention our Louisiana Angel. I was proud to present, with Congressman David Vitter, the award last night to Judith Legett from the New Orleans area, and Sister Rosario O'Connell from the Houma area. Both are doing extraordinary work. The sister, with her other sisters, originally from Ireland but now long-time residents of Louisiana, are taking care of approximately 22 abused and neglected children, helping them to move through that system and find permanent homes. Mrs. Legett has been an outstanding spokesperson in our State. I thank the Senator for the time and thank Chairman Helms for his great leadership in intercountry adoption and thank the Senators for their vote on that earlier this year. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the list of Angels in Adoption 2000 Awardees.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Idaho for being such a wonderful partner in this endeavor. He and I have quite enjoyed leading the Senate coalition on adoption and working with our counterparts, Tom Bliley and Jim Oberstar on the House side. Senator Craig is absolutely right. Last evening was a wonderful event with over 450 people from all around our Nation nominated by Members of Congress for the outstanding work they are doing in their communities and States to promote the great beauty and joy of adoption, that it is a wonderful way to be a family. Before I list some of the award winners from last night, it is our hope--and I think Senator Craig will agree with me--that every child who comes into this world is wanted, loved, and can remain with the family who brought them into the world--that would be ideal--to have someone love them and care for them. For many reasons, which we do not have the time today to go into, families disintegrate or break down and children are abandoned or left alone. The fact of the matter is, children cannot raise themselves. The other fact is, although the Government can help with policies, the Government itself cannot raise children. The children need to be raised by adults who are responsible and who love them. Today in our country--and the Senator from Idaho knows this because he speaks out regularly about it--there are 500,000 children, a half a million children--you could fill up the Superdome, which is in New Orleans, with which a lot of people are familiar; it seats 80,000 people--you could fill up that Superdome many times with the number of children who have been taken from their homes because of abuse, neglect, or other very difficult situations. About 130,000 of those 500,000 are right now ready for adoption. We believe there are no unwanted children, just unfound families. That is what our coalition is about: To promote the concept of reunification, obviously, when possible, but, if not, to move these children into loving homes. We want to focus our attention on the children in the United States who need our help, but also there are children all around the world. There are literally too many to count. Millions and millions of children are being raised by themselves on the streets or are in institutions or are languishing in foster care. We want to correct that. Last night, we nominated for our national Angels award Congressman Tom Bliley, who is retiring this year, the wonderful Congressman from Virginia. In his many years in Congress, he promoted tax credits for adoption, adoption awareness, family leave for adoptive parents, the formation of the National Adoption Information Center, foster care incentive payments, and aid to orphans and displaced children, which is one of the most recent things Tom Bliley has promoted. I say to Senator Craig, since you introduced Gale and Larry Cole, why don't you say a word on the record about this particularly wonderful family--Lynette Cole, Miss USA, and her parents.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, let me just add to that an extraordinary element about this particular story. Obviously, part of it is that Lynette Cole went on to become Miss USA. But 25 years ago, her father had a steady job at Chrysler. He gave up his job, moved out of State, and his wife had to go back to work, so that they could basically fight the Government system to allow them to adopt this child. When everyone said no--the Government said it was the wrong thing to do--this family, through sheer will and dedication, adopted this young lady. And she has grown up to be Miss USA. We are proud of them. These are the kinds of people who are helping us change the view of adoption and the way the system should work in this country. We are proud of them. Let me mention Bertha Holt, another person we honored last night. I presented this award to her daughters because, unfortunately, she passed away just this year, at 96 years of age, as we were preparing to give her this award. So last night I said, she truly is our angel because she was observing, watching from Heaven last night. But 50 years ago, Bertha Holt, and her husband Harry Holt, began breaking down the barriers for international adoption. They had six biological children of their own and were well on their way, raising those children, when the aftermath of the Korean war brought these two loving people basically to their knees. They said: What can we do to help? They went over to Korea and literally began trying to save children, one by one, picking them up off the streets, out of the hospitals, children who had been orphaned by the war, and said: Let's make a home for them here in our own home in the United States. It took an act of Congress, back in the late 1950s, to allow them to do this. They had to literally change the law to allow them to do this. Because of that ground-breaking work and their advocacy, decade after decade they have found homes here in the United States for 2,000 children from around the world. We honored Bertha Holt last night. She truly is an angel in Heaven. Finally, one of our national award winners was Children's Action Network, a group of individuals who have great stature and standing because many of them operate in movies and in videos. So they are quite familiar to the general public. They have come together to use their celebrity status to promote this idea, to bring attention to it. Last year, they raised money and contributed to a wonderful program that was filmed in our Nation called ``Home For the Holidays.'' It was shown, I say to the Senator, all across the country. Because of that video, and because of the issue that was raised to the American public, hundreds of children were adopted into homes here. So we had a grand night. These were our national Angels. I think for the Record we may submit these other names. There were over 120 of our award winners last night. I am happy to yield.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I couldn't agree with the Senator more. I thank the Senator for yielding for that question.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I appreciate being yielded the remaining time. I am a supporter of the H-1B visa legislation and have been so for quite some time, recognizing that it is very important for our country to make the accommodations to be able to supply this great and booming economy the skilled workers necessary. I have been voting accordingly. This debate should bring more urgency to our discussion on how to strengthen our public school system, our college training opportunities, and our technical college network in this Nation so that in the future we don't have to fill these slots with workers who are not Americans; that we can fill them with hard-working Americans because our school system and our education system have met the challenge the taxpayers have laid out for us. We cannot hold our industries hostage because perhaps there has been some failing on our part to provide the kind of educational system this Nation needs. That is why I have been supportive. In addition, I wish there was more support in this body for including the Latino fairness provision. I am disappointed that the amendment tree was filled in order to keep those of us on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, from considering this as a proper place to add this important legislation--not to kill it, not to slow it down, but to make it stronger. That is such an important issue to the Latino community, to Hispanic Americans who are looking for the same justice and equality that was promised for the Hondurans and Guatemalans as provided for the Nicaraguans. I will be supplying a more in-depth statement on that subject.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask a question of my good friend from Nevada. The Senator from Florida has raised some interesting questions about a particular group of people whom we, under our amendment, would seek to not give automatic citizenship to but the opportunity to apply. The Senator from Rhode Island has spoken eloquently about a fairly large group of applicants who are just seeking an opportunity to apply. Does the Senator know that there is a very large group of people from Honduras that are living in the New Orleans area of Louisiana with families that will really be disrupted and separated if we don't provide some kind of response? I wish the Senator could perhaps shed some light on how difficult it is going to be for me to have to go back to Louisiana and explain to my business leaders that I am trying to help them get visas for people to build the ships we need, to build powerplants to fuel this economy, and to bring people into this Nation, but yet I am not able to get our Senate to help us keep people who are already there employed and working in shipbuilding, running our hotels, and our hospitals. The leader has done such a good job. I just wanted to come to the floor to say it is going to be very difficult for me to go back and say: While we gave you some help with visas for people to be brought in to help, we are taking people away from you who are already employed, and we weren't able to correct that. Could the Senator shed some light for people who are following this debate on how it doesn't seem to make sense that on the one hand we are giving new visas to people to come into our country, and yet we are telling employers who are desperate for workers, particularly in my State of Louisiana in the New Orleans area, that we are going to actually take good workers away from them and ship them back to either Honduras or Guatemala or El Salvador?

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to call the attention of this body to some very important negotiations that are underway. We have debated many important subjects in this Congress as it comes to a close. Some of those larger subjects have been attempts to create a prescription drug benefit for the Nation, how should we go about doing that. We have had a long and intense debate on education. We have had debates on the privacy issue, on bankruptcy reform. One of the debates in which we have engaged that has captured the attention of many people around the Nation--Governors and mayors, local elected officials, chambers of commerce, outdoor enthusiasts, environmentalists across the board--is our debate about how we should allocate a small portion of this surplus; what is the proper way to allocate that to preserve and enhance the environment of our Nation. As we begin this century, this is a debate worth having because if we make the wrong decision, it will set us on a path where we will not be happy to end up. We need to make a good decision now. We are in the very crux of making that decision, as appropriators on both sides debate the final outcome of this year's Interior appropriations bill. I urge Senators to pay attention, as carefully as they can, to the ongoing debates on how to allocate this funding. On the one hand, there is a group saying: Let's just do more of the same. As it comes to our environment, we don't need to do anything differently. Let's just do more of the same. Let's just give a little more money to some Federal agencies to allocate the funding, and let's just come every year and decide year in and year out if we want to or if we don't, and how that money should be allocated. There is a group of us called Team CARA, representing the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, which has been negotiating since the beginning of this Congress for a better way--a way that will bring more money to States on a guaranteed basis, money that Governors and mayors and local elected officials can count on--a revenue sharing bill, if you will, for the environment. It is something that will turn in a direction that will set us on a new and bold and exciting course. I thank the President for his tremendous statements in the last couple of days urging Congress to move in this direction. He is urging us to do everything we can to make CARA--the Conservation and Reinvestment Act--the model. For the Record, I will submit something in which some States would be interested. I will be handing out this form later today. For instance, if we stick with the old method, Colorado would receive $3.6 million. It is a beautiful State with wonderful environmental needs. They would get $3.6 million. Under CARA, if it is passed, Colorado could receive $46 million a year, and the Governor and local elected officials would have input into how it was spent. Let's take Georgia. Under this bill, this year they would get a measly $500,000. Under CARA, they would be guaranteed a minimum of $32 million a year. Let's take Kentucky. Again, they would get a measly $500,000 in this year's environmental bill. Under CARA, they would get a guarantee of $15 million a year for the preservation of open spaces, for wildlife conservation, and for the expansion of our parks and recreation. Let's take Minnesota. Minnesota gets nothing in the bill being negotiated. Under CARA, they would get $29 million a year. I will be submitting the details because I am here to say let's allow the best proposal to win in this debate. Let us fight it on its merits. Let us discuss the benefits of CARA. These are some of the benefits that I am outlining. New Jersey is one of our most populated States--the Garden State, a State that has just levied on its people a billion dollar bond issue to preserve open spaces. People in New Jersey feel strongly about this. Under the old way, the way the negotiators are carving this up, they get a measly $875,000. Under CARA, they would receive $40 million a year. Let's take New York, another large State. They would get $2.8 million in the bill being negotiated, but if we stick to our guns and fight hard for CARA, New York could get $17 million a year. Most certainly, the population deserves those kinds of numbers. Finally, Washington State is a beautiful State, one that has a history of leading us in the environmental area. Washington gets fairly well treated in this bill with $12.7 million. Under CARA, if we hold true to the principles, Washington State could get $47 million a year. That is a big difference for the people of Washington State--from $12.7 million to $47 million. I could go on. Under CARA, we have a guarantee. Under the current negotiations, the same that has gone on for the last 25 years, there is no guarantee. I am saying that under CARA we can have full funding for the land and water conservation, help coastal States such as Louisiana that produce the necessary revenues. Under the old way-- the way that has been going on for 25 years--it has failed to meet our obligations and we get shortchanged. Under CARA, it is a real legacy. Under the negotiations, the stage is set. I thank the Senator from Utah for giving me his remaining time. I see another Senator on the floor who may want to speak on this issue. Let me conclude by urging the Members of the Senate to focus on these negotiations, and I will be back later to give some more information on this important issue. I yield back whatever time I have remaining.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor to say a brief word about an extraordinary and very positive statement that the President of the United States made in the last 45 minutes as he gathered on the south lawn of the White House with a group of supporters of another very important bill--an issue we have actually debated for many hours and helped to usher through called the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. The President, just this morning, called on us, in a bipartisan fashion, not to miss the opportunity to push forward on this very important piece of legislation--one which his administration has supported and helped to design. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act is really Congress's way of responding to a need that the American people have and have expressed themselves clearly on over and over, from the South to the North, from the East to the West, in meetings, through polling information that we have, through calls made to this Congress, through letters written, through e-mails sent--to say to us that now is the time to set aside a small but significant portion of the surplus that we have to invest--not for 1 year, or 6 months, not occasionally when we can, but to invest permanently a stream of revenue for conservation programs in our Nation. I guess I can speak so passionately about this issue because the money we are speaking about investing is coming from offshore oil and gas revenues, 85 percent of which are produced off of the coast of Louisiana. We are proud of that production. We are doing it in a much more environmentally sensitive way and have been doing it for 50 years. But all of the revenue generated off of that oil and gas production has gone to the Federal Treasury. It is hard to account for how they have been spent, and they have not been spent for environmental investments for our Nation--a promise that was made 30 years ago but not kept. So the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, which the President spoke about and continues to urge us to move forward on, is a way for us to redirect appropriately and in a very fiscally responsible way some of those revenues back to our States and local governments to help with the expansion of our parks and recreation areas in both rural and urban areas, for the preservation and restoration of our coastlines. We in Louisiana feel strongly about getting some help from Washington to restore an eroding coastline, helping us to invest in wildlife conservation and preservation and, in many ways, including historic preservation. I will give to the staff a list of the 63 Senators, Republicans and Democrats, who are supporting this legislation, to acknowledge again in the Record the great work that the House leadership did--Congressman Don Young, Congressman John Dingell, and Congressman George Miller, leaders in the House. It has truly been a bipartisan-bicameral effort. I will submit for the Record the names of 63 Senators who the President mentioned in his remarks this morning, thanking us for our support and joining with him in this effort, and finally shaping this bill in such a way that both parties can be proud, for which we in Louisiana can be grateful, and that Governors and mayors and elected officials and leaders all across our Nation can be happy to work on in partnership with the Federal Government to make a significant, meaningful, reliable investment now as we begin this century--something our children and our grandchildren can count on for a more beautiful nation in 2025 or 2050. We can't wait. This is the year to make it a reality. I thank the Chair. Again, I thank Senator Lott and Senator Daschle for their excellent leadership.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. I will be very brief, and then Senator Wellstone will need about 10 minutes. I thank my colleagues from Maine and Kansas for taking time to speak on the floor about such an important issue as health care. As we wrap up this session, I am very hopeful, in a bipartisan way, we can address specifically many of the questions that were raised in terms of the tough situation facing our home health care agencies and hospitals, our rural health clinics. It is something this Congress must address in the last few weeks. I thank them for their leadership.