Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Fifteen minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to speak for just a few minutes, as we are closing up today, on a very important policy question before the Senate, one that while actually not being debated on the Senate or House floors at this time, it is being hotly debated in private meetings and corridors and in some public meetings of the various committees; that is, the problem, the crisis, the challenge that this country is now facing with extraordinarily high oil prices. The price of crude oil today, according to the Wall Street Journal, is above $34 a barrel. For some, this causes--as in an oil-producing State--a bonanza; for others, it causes a real problem. I will speak for a few minutes about some of the steps we could perhaps take. Wild swings in and the volatility of the price of oil are not good. Senators heard troublesome testimony today from senior citizens and a young family struggling in the Northeast, which is the most dependent part of our Nation. Neither are these price swings good for the oil-producing States, of which I represent Louisiana. What a difference a year can make. Last year at this time, our committee was actually meeting about the world price of oil pushing $5 a barrel. Our Energy Committee met time and time again, trying to figure out what we could do to help stabilize a very important industry to our Nation, to help provide some relief, particularly for the small and independent producers who obviously were driven out of business. The oil and gas industry lost literally tens of thousands of workers over the course of the year because they simply could not turn any kind of profit at that low price. Just today, we had a hearing in the same committee, now talking about oil at $34 a barrel and the havoc it is wreaking in other places. In the Northeast, people are having great difficulty, understandably so, having not been able to predict this would happen. Adding $300 and $400 a month to home heating oil, it is tough for many families to make that payment. As in Louisiana last year, in Texas, Oklahoma, Alaska, and other places around the Nation, some families were not able to pay any bills because they lost an entire paycheck which rested on the strength of a domestic industry that had the rug pulled out from underneath it. We now face a looming energy crisis of a completely different nature--not extraordinarily low prices but extraordinarily high prices. It is said only in times of war do we really appreciate our military. At least this time, perhaps at times of high oil prices, we now can fully appreciate the importance of our domestic energy industry in the producing States--not just oil producers, who are important, but gas producers and producers of energy who will help our country be more self-reliant. Since we are the greatest consumer of energy in every sector, we must have a policy that encourages the strength and robustness of the energy-producing sector. I suggest we have a long way to go, given what is happening today. In 1959--quite a while ago, but not so long ago that many people in this Nation cannot still remember quite well--our Nation imported only 16 percent of its oil and gas. Today we import over 50 percent. We have moved from self-reliance to reliance on others, and in many instances it is not even allies on whom we are relying. It is one thing to have to rely on our allies and our friends such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, encouraging them to help in this difficult time, as we most certainly have stepped up to their aid and continue to do so. However, we also have to go hat in hand to countries that are not our allies--in fact, enemy nations--and have interests contrary in terms of freedom and democracy--Iran and Libya, to name two. It is a particularly difficult situation and one which I think is avoidable if this administration and others had a better policy regarding energy self-reliance for a strong and vibrant economy. I will make a few suggestions. First, let me comment on some of the things I hear other people suggesting as a remedy. I say to my colleagues, we should all be engaged in coming up with solutions. We should be putting remedies on the table. We might not adopt every one, but we most certainly should be engaged in finding solutions to this problem, not just turning our head and hoping it goes away, hoping OPEC will provide the relief we need. We need to get our fate back in our own hands. One suggestion being tossed around and has actually been filed as a bill by several Members of the Senate is using the Strategic Petroleum Oil Reserve to provide some temporary relief. That may or may not be a good idea. Let me quote from Chairman Greenspan who, when presented with this idea, made this statement in front of the House Banking Committee recently: It is foolishness to believe we can have any significant impact short of a very major liquidation short-term of that reserve. There is more to this than economics. It is a diplomatic security question. That reserve was created to protect the U.S. from a cutoff and keep the U.S. from being held hostage. While some think dipping into that reserve might move us out of this crisis, I suggest that before we make that decision we do the math. There are only 55 days of supply. We might be able to drive down the price if we liquidated a significant portion of that oil and gas for a certain amount of time, maybe at a 7 or 10-percent drop. But thinking we can liquidate our strategic oil reserve and drive down this price and sustain a low price, I am not sure that case has yet been made. For the purposes of this discussion, that should be kept on the table. We must be very careful not to give the American people the idea that we have a secret key, that we have a magic wand, that we can simply liquidate this reserve and prices will fall and all things will be made whole again. Not only am I not sure that would work, but it could leave our country in a very difficult position from a national security standpoint to have liquidated that reserve. Then it would be at a great expense to the taxpayer in that a lot of this oil that was purchased when the price was quite low, which was smart to do, would then, at great expense to the taxpayer, have to be replenished at three and four times the cost. So let us say I would agree to keep it on the table but not present the American public with the idea that liquidating the SPR is the answer. Another sort of false solution, I think, rests with some who are suggesting we simply need to call in our chips, that America can simply rely on the good will of our neighbors. Yes, we do many wonderful things for countries. We have stepped up to the plate to help Mexico and Venezuela most recently in a crisis. We have helped, obviously, Kuwait. We went to war on their behalf. But I think just relying on calling in our chips, calling in good will, at times such as this is, again, one small thing that can be done but we most certainly do not want to rely on that to keep prices stable and to sustain this great economic boom. I think, again, it is a false remedy. I believe, rather, that some of the things we can do internally would help us to better prepare for situations such as this. One would be to have more aggressive drilling and exploration in the United States. Instead of having oil and gas drilling moratoria as the rule and then making exceptions for drilling, we should have an aggressive drilling policy that is environmentally sensitive. Let me be quick to say the industry, contrary to popular opinion, has made significant efforts in this regard because there are now local, State, and Federal regulations, tough regulations, regulations many of us support from oil- and gas-producing States, to make sure this extraction is done with the minimum negative environmental impacts. So I am not suggesting going back to the days, 30 or 40, even 20, years ago when none of these regulations was in place. I am suggesting we can have an environmentally sensitive drilling policy, particularly that would give preference, perhaps, or give priority or help to encourage the extraction of natural gas, which is in itself a clean burning fuel. Let me read from ``Fueling the Future''--I will submit this for the Record--about the potential benefits of natural gas. It says: Changes in U.S. energy policy that favor increased use of natural gas could improve air quality, conserve energy and reduce reliance on imported oil from politically unstable countries. It would seem to me, since we have all of these natural gas reserves, some in the Gulf of Mexico, in shallow and deep water, some around Alaska, and some in other places in this Nation, that it would do us a world of good to be much more open to the idea of using natural gas in its many different forms to help us fill our energy grid and make it greener, to meet our own expectations and to meet new international standards for clean air. That is one thing that we most certainly can do. Another, we have taken the step in an aggressive policy to acknowledge what a good thing we did when we gave royalty relief for deep water drilling in the gulf. There were many Members of this body who not only did not vote for that, they vigorously opposed it. My predecessor was the lead sponsor of that legislation. I can only say thank goodness that that has given us a window of hope. Because new technologies have been developed, we are able to find reserves in deeper water in the Gulf of Mexico to give us the balance we need in domestic production. Whether it is necessary to extend that relief now, with prices going up, would be a question for another day. But thank goodness we did it at the time we did it so we now have increased reserves and because technology has been developed, that helps us to minimize those dry holes, and maximizes--and it makes much more efficient--this extraction. We can continue to do those things. Another thing, we should put our money where our mouth is when we talk about alternative fuels development. I mentioned natural gas, but we have solar; we have the potential for fuel cells; we have other potential sources of energy. We cannot take nuclear off the table, which we have discussed in this body for the last 20 years. I hope now people can appreciate the part that nuclear power can play when properly regulated and properly run to help make our grid greener. France takes 80 percent of their energy needs from nuclear. We should at least be open to the possibility of sustaining our current nuclear capacity and perhaps even increasing it to help us get our grid greener and again minimize our reliance on outside sources. So vigorous programs for alternatives, promoting the use of natural gas, and also, of course, continuing to promote conservation--whether it is in transportation or weatherization of our homes--are also important. My point is, in times of war we appreciate our military all the more and the great sacrifices our men in uniform make and how proud we are of them and how happy we actually are to support them with our tax dollars because we recognize their great value. I hope the country will take note that when prices are this high, we feel vulnerable. We feel scared and nervous and frustrated and angry. There is a lot of pain. When prices are high, truckers cannot move their product. Farmers have now been hit not only with tough weather and rock-bottom prices but high diesel fuel costs. It is a triple whammy for our farmers. I hope this country will recognize and express appreciation for our domestic oil and gas and other energy producers, and say we cannot take it for granted. We must nurture this industry, help it to be as environmentally sensitive as possible, but not allow this Nation, the greatest nation on Earth, to be so dependent on sources outside of our sphere of influence and outside of our boundaries. It would be the same as depending on other nations for our food. We would not do that. We would not import 100 percent of our food. I do not think people in this Nation realize how much we are importing from other nations. Let us take this opportunity to put all our suggestions on the table. Let us urge those running to be the President of our Nation to come up with a real, comprehensive, workable policy that will help to maintain stable prices where our producers can make money and turn a profit. Obviously, people would not be in business if they could not make money. That is why people are in business. We are in government for different reasons, but business people usually go into business only if they can turn a profit in that enterprise or activity. So we have to maintain a stable price at a level where our domestic industry can make a profit, where people can stay in and work. Tax policies can have a lot to do with that. We appreciated the help, although it was small and somewhat noncomprehensive, last year when our energy producers were feeling the pinch. We hope we can give some short-term relief to those who are clearly suffering from these high prices. Ultimately, the answer lies in long-term, comprehensive fixes, based on real-world economics and helping the American people understand with every choice to take some area away from drilling or with every choice to turn away from some source of energy, with every decision made, there are consequences to those choices. Then we can create a policy that Americans feel good about and a policy which expands our economy. I ask unanimous consent the article ``Fueling the Future'' be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

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

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of Senator Lieberman, Senator Bayh, and myself. Others may be joining. The amendment has to do with improving the quality of teaching in our public schools, to provide resources to our States and our local communities to help teachers gain additional professional skills to help them do a better job in the classroom. The amendment will provide an additional $1 billion to States and local governments. It will encourage States to design their own initiatives. Many States are well on their way in this regard and are seeing great progress. Other States and other communities have a long way to go. I am not going to spend my time right now relaying all the statistics in this regard, only to say that a large percentage--by some estimates, 40 percent; in some communities, 50 percent--of the teachers teaching in public elementary and high schools are not certified and, by the standards set by their own local communities and States, not qualified to teach a particular subject matter. In particular, we have had a shortage of teachers in the math and science areas. Although we have made great progress in that particular area in the last couple of years, we have a way to go. On the general issue of education, I thank my colleague from Georgia for his handling of this issue. I say to both of the leaders and to my colleagues, I hope we will stay on the issue of education. It is the most important issue to the American public. Whether our children are in public school or not, as taxpayers, as parents, as grandparents, as young people, this issue is weighing heavily on the American people today. They want the proper and appropriate response from Washington. They want us to discuss it, but, more importantly, they want us to act. Whether we agree to pass this bill or not, one thing is clear in our minds: We all agree that elementary and secondary education in America is in need of reform. We must accelerate the progress and the reforms that are underway. It is simply taking too long. We are not making enough progress in the areas where we need to, satisfied with the status quo. It is not because public schools aren't working, it is that they are just not working well enough for the children and families who need them the most and depend on them the most. And we have reams and reams and reams of material to back up this statement. We all agree that the current rate of student achievement is simply not satisfactory for a large number of our students. Again, there are many public schools that are working well. There are many classrooms--hundreds and thousands--that are functioning beautifully. Yet, under the status quo, many students are being left behind, many districts left out, many States not meeting the goals. We must begin in this year, the year 2000, to consider new ways to help increase the quality of learning for our youth. We are not alone in this sentiment in the Senate or in the House. Pick up any newspaper or magazine daily and you will see articles on the need for reform and the need for new testing results and smaller class size. School construction has been in the daily headlines for months--in fact, years. Speak to any parent and they will tell us about the need for change. Talk with teachers who are in the classrooms. Of the eight goals set by the National Goals Panel in 1992, which many of us and many Governors and grassroots leaders worked on, not one has been satisfactorily accomplished to date. Admittedly, some of the goals were quite lofty--if you will, reaching for the stars. Nonetheless, in the 6 years after a tremendous amount of work, a tremendous amount of money, we are not making significant progress. Up to 28 categories were chosen to monitor these 8 goals in the United States as a whole, and we have improved in only 12 of those categories. We have made no progress in 11, and we have actually declined in 5. Here is the National Education Goals Report which contains all of these details. They are discouraging, in my opinion. I am happy to see that we have made significant progress in increasing our math and science scores. But we have gone down in some very important areas--in teacher certification; reading scores at the 4th grade, 8th grade, and 12th grade levels have not appreciably improved. According to the National Commission on Teaching in America, fewer than 75 percent of all teachers have been licensed specifically in their area. This is not the kind of reform--or at least the pace of reform--we should accept, or we need to accept, or we need to embrace. We need to say, yes, while we are doing some things very well, we have to accelerate the pace of reform and make some fundamental changes. My husband and I are building a house here on Capitol Hill, and it has been a wonderful experience--if we can get through this without fighting too much and all of the things that go along with building a house. It sort of reminds me of this debate. We spend a lot of time in the Senate and House floor giving speeches about specific areas. We talk about school construction, early childhood education, teacher quality, or new reading programs, which are all good. It is like talking about redesigning a window or redesigning a kitchen or redoing a living room. I am talking about something many of us feel strongly about--a new foundation. We need to build a ``bigger house'' so that all the children can find a place in this house. We need to build a much better house. You can't do it by arguing about the size of windows, or the color of the carpet, or the decor of the living room, which is how we are spending a lot of our time here. We need to talk about fundamental, foundational change in the way the Federal Government helps to reform and accelerate the pace of reform in America today. Let me outline a few principles that I think are very important. No. 1, in my opinion, we can't do this in the piecemeal manner in which we have been approaching it--whether it is a great idea for a new tax gimmick or scheme, or a good tax policy, depending on how you look at what we have debated, whether it is about a specific amendment, or school construction, or a new bond issue that will give us interest- free loans for our local governments or even extend the debt. We need to accept the fact that comprehensive reform is necessary. We have that opportunity in this Congress. As we go to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which is now in committee and being debated in our Education Committee, it is my great hope that out of that committee and to this floor will come not a piecemeal approach, but a fundamental, foundational approach that would have a couple of components: One, that we would trust our local government and our Governors and our mayors and our legislators, and that it would be a bipartisan trust, and say that many Governors-- not all--have been making considerable headway in their States with new accountability standards, new innovation, pressing hard to make sure the resources get to the classroom. One of the great changes we need to make in a comprehensive way is saying that we don't have all the answers, and we don't want to micromanage, that we want to trust our local government officials and give them the flexibility they need toward this accelerated reform about which I am speaking. We need to reward them for their performance, reward them for being successful. Stop rewarding failure. Stop giving more money to the schools that have poor results, and start encouraging our local officials through the way we fund elementary and secondary education, and base our funding on the rate of improvement so each school area competes against its own standards; and when a school fails, encourage the local system, when there is a failing, to take real measures. Don't leave the children in a school that is not working. They have already been punished enough. Let us create a comprehensive system of reform that rewards innovation, that expects excellence, and that stops being satisfied with failure, and trust our local officials to do that. I feel very strongly about the word ``accountability,'' but we toss it around so much. I am not sure we all agree on what it means. I don't want them accounting for the number of pencils purchased or the numbers of textbooks. I don't want them accounting for the number of computers. I want to have the locals account for the improvement of test scores of their students. How are the teachers improving? Is there greater parental involvement? These are the measures of accountability on whether a school is working or not. And I will also go so far as to say it is not only test scores, although that is clearly important, and we need to have national standards set perhaps at local levels, but national measurements of achievement. But also the morale of the school, the enthusiasm of parents, and the spirit of the teachers and the principals all should be considered in terms of the way we fund schools and what we expect. I can walk into a school--and I have walked into hundreds of them, as you have, Mr. President, and as many of our colleagues have--and tell from the minute I walk in the door whether the school is working or not, and whether there is learning going on. It doesn't matter if the place is shiny and painted, although that helps and lifts your spirit. But it is also about the brightness in the eyes of the students, and the brightness in the eyes of the teachers and the principals, that they are a team, that they are working together and accomplishing great things. Some of the schools I have visited in very poor areas with very poor children are doing a beautiful job. In some places, it seems everything should be going well because on the outside it all looks good, but there is not a lively spirit. It is hard to legislate along these lines. But I think it is a real goal we should strive for to determine our funding in a way that encourages that kind of light and commitment at the local level and to join with our Governors and with our legislators and not against them in this effort. It is my great hope we will continue this debate. I know we are going to vote on this particular bill tonight. But, again, this is like discussing a particular window dressing. It might help the overall look of the house and actually make the house be part of a great looking building, but we need to be talking about the great foundation. I hope this Congress will stay on education week after week this year, and next year if necessary, until we get the new foundation laid for the way the Federal Government should work with our local governments so that we can have accelerated, positive reform in public schools. I know people are frustrated. The answer is not to abandon the public school system. It is not to walk away through vouchers or other systems. It is to stand steady and redo the foundation in a comprehensive reform at the national level, which is only 7 to 9 percent of the budget, but an important 7 to 9 percent of the total education budget, and stand steady and produce comprehensive Federal legislative reform from this level to ensure every school is working in every community for every child. I believe we most certainly can meet that test. One of my colleagues, Senator Herb Kohl from Wisconsin, is also supportive of this amendment and wanted to associate himself with the statement. I certainly appreciate his help and his support. Let me close by saying, again, I thank the leaders who have been helping us with this particular debate and thank all of my colleagues who have spent their time coming down to the floor and talking about very important and significant issues. But, again, I believe the time is now, since this report was issued in 1999, to recognize that while some good things are happening, they are not happening fast enough. We cannot be satisfied with the status quo. We cannot continue to be piecemeal in our efforts. A comprehensive overhaul of the way the Federal Government funds education, trusting our local officials, granting flexibility, focusing on accountability, and, yes, increasing resources. I am one of the Members of this body who has agreed on a tax cut that can be reasonable and responsible. I also agree it is a great time to make some strategic investments. I, for one, would be willing to make a huge investment in education but not unless structural reform is in place. We cannot continue to throw more money at an old problem and be satisfied with a rate of result which is not good enough and is leaving too many of our students behind. I believe the budget is at least poised to make some significant investment in education. Let us do it with comprehensive reform and a new direction of Federal support that will result in greater performance of our schools at the local level. I think we are up to the task. I know we can do it in a bipartisan way. I thank the Senators who have joined me in this particular amendment. I may or may not ask for a vote on this particular amendment before we finish this debate. But I also wanted to mention Senators Lincoln and Breaux. I mentioned Senator Bayh. Senator Lieberman is supportive of this particular amendment. We may or may not ask for a specific vote on it, but, again, I want to reiterate how important comprehensive reform us and to take the time this year to get it done. I yield the remainder of my time.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, most certainly I hope the cameras can get a great shot of this beautiful poster. It says: Parks and recreation: The benefits are endless. This is a picture of a Little League team. I do not exactly know from which State they hail, but it is from one of our great States. This is a team; and you can tell they are having a lot of fun. To me and many of us who are working on a very important environmental bill, this poster represents something that is absolutely essential for our country today and is something that has been a joy to work on in this Congress and something on which we are making such progress. Besides a great education for kids, we also have to give them a place to grow up and ball teams to belong to. It builds character and it teaches them how to work together and how to be productive. Really, life is a lot about teamwork. We learn that in the Senate. We learn it in classrooms. We also learn it on ball fields all over this great country and around the world. I want to take a moment, if I can, to say a couple words about a bill introduced last night by a group of us. I thank Senators Trent Lott, Frank Murkowski, John Breaux, and Dianne Feinstein for being cosponsors. Senator Evan Bayh indicated to me a few minutes ago he is anxious to join with us; and also Senator Campbell mentioned his interest. I am sure there will be many who support us as the word gets out about this particular bill. It is S. 2123 that was filed. It is the exact version of a bill that was worked out in a great compromise in the House about the ways we should reinvest our oil and gas revenues to provide for the expansion and full funding of our land, water, and conservation funds, which would fund thousands of opportunities such as this for the children I just mentioned. It would fund significantly our wildlife conservation programs in this country, not necessarily dictated from Washington but actually decisions made at the State and local levels where, with regard to game and nongame species, special methods can be used; one size doesn't fit all. Significant to my State of Louisiana as a producing State, this particular bill would provide some significant resources to address the great coastal needs of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, but also of New Jersey, California, Washington, and all of our coastal States, including our Great Lakes States. Whether we drill or not--and there are no incentives for drilling--it will be a great resource to help restore our coastlines, help stop the erosion, and help preserve wetlands in this Nation and our State of Louisiana, which represents over 60 percent of the coastal wetlands in the United States, and 40 percent of the commercial fisheries, the habitat of which rests in these wetlands. So it is a tremendous treasure. This bill was introduced along with others we have before our Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. I thank the growing number of Senators who have stepped up to the plate to try to help us pass what is arguably the most important conservation and environmental bill in the last 100 years. To my friends who are concerned about more acquisition of Federal land, I will share a few thoughts from Don Young, who has been the leader on the House committee, who has been a champion of private property rights, a champion of the outdoors. They joked earlier today that he carries a knife. I guess it is OK in the House because he has one. If worse comes to worst, he may use it to help get this bill passed. I think that is probably going too far. But trust me, he is an outdoorsman from Alaska; he knows about private property rights. He says the bill we are debating, S. 25, and also this new bill, S. 2123, which reflects the compromise he and Congressman Miller from California worked out, would actually improve the position of Western States that are concerned that perhaps this bill gives even more money to purchase land because, in fact, any administration can do that, and right now some administrations have done it without much oversight from Congress. This bill provides the proper partnership and balance between the administration and Congress. This bill gives the appropriators and the authorizing committee the authority and encourages them to actually make the decisions about what lands will be purchased. In addition, what I think is so right about what Chairman Don Young says, is that our environmental efforts need to be about much more than just acquiring more land; we have to take care of the land we already own. I think the Chair would agree with that. That is what the bill does. I reach out to my colleagues from Western States, many of whom have supported this effort, many of whom have other concerns and have hesitated so far with their endorsement, to ask them to really look at western values within the Conservation and Reinvestment Act piece that is being circulated and really look at what an improvement this bill offers over the current status quo. My last point is actually a word to the White House and to the President, first to thank the President for his leadership in lands legacy. He has a tremendous idea about trying to leave a great legacy. Of course, he has done many good things in his time as President for these 8 years. He has been a leader in the environmental effort. I so appreciate that; many of us do. I thank him for laying down a mark on lands legacy but urge him to consider that this piece of legislation is permanent in nature. It is broader than the vision he has outlined. And it is an improvement. It brings in the East and the West, the North and the South. It helps urban areas and rural areas because we have added urban parks and historic preservation. There have been some great improvements demonstrated through the development of this piece of legislation. I thank him for his great leadership, acknowledge the work of many people in the White House, but urge them to embrace the concept that is now supported by over 300 Members in the House. We have a growing number of Members in the Senate to pass this bill now. Some people think we can't afford it. If we can't afford to take $2 billion, which our bill is calling for, out of arguably a $3 trillion surplus--if you want to take Social Security completely off the plate, which I want to do, and give very conservative estimates, it leaves us with about $800 billion to allocate. We can do it through some tax cuts, which I support, reasonable and targeted. We can do strategic investments in education. But there is one investment I know, besides education, the American people want us to make. That is preserving land that is lost every hour and every minute, preserving parks for these children, preserving opportunities to hunt and fish, to take your grandchildren to the pond outside of your farm or down the road or across the State line to spend a weekend in the woods. I am positive people in Louisiana and all over America want us to act now. Ten years is too late. Next year is too late. My question is, if we can't afford to take this money now, which in my opinion should not be going into the Federal Treasury because it is taxes from a resource that is depleting--we should not be using it in our operating expenses anyway because one day, probably in my lifetime, these oil and gas wells will be dried up--why do we not take this opportunity in the dawn of this new century to take some of this money and give it back to our kids and our grandkids in ways that are responsible and meaningful and for something that is permanent. In conclusion, I know many people will thank us for passing this bill, but the most important group will be our grandchildren. We will be proud that we did it. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to get this bill out of committee, passed on the floor, and be there for the signing when the President will enthusiastically embrace what we have done to improve his lands legacy approach to provide security for Western Senators, to provide urban help to our urban areas, and to do it in a way that is very fair to all parts of the country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print a document in the Record entitled ``Western Values Within the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999.''

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, on Thursday February 17th, the House Resources Committee filed their report on a historic piece of legislation, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, H.R. 701 which would reinvest a portion of offshore oil and gas revenues in coastal conservation and impact assistance programs,the Land and Water Conservation Fund, wildlife conservation, historic treasures and outdoor recreation. This remarkable compromise was developed by Congressmen Don Young, George Miller, Billy Tauzin, John Dingell, Chris John, Bruce Vento, and Tom Udall and was passed by the House Resources Committee by a vote of 37-12 on November 10, 1999. To date, the bill has accumulated over 300 co-sponsors. Hopefully, this legislation will be considered by the full House sometime this Spring. The H.R. 701 compromise is a companion to the Senate version of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, S. 25. Today I would like to acknowledge the remarkable work done by Mr. Young, Mr. Miller, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Dingell, Mr. John, Mr. Vento, and Mr. Udall as I, along with Senators Murkowski, Lott, Breaux and Feinstein introduce the H.R. 701 compromise in the Senate. While I would like to take a moment to note that there are some provisions of S. 25 that I along with several other co-sponsors strongly believe need to be incorporated into H.R. 701, today I am introducing the exact version that the House Resources Committee reported out on February 17th. This compelling and balanced bi-partisan proposal: will provide a fair share of funding to all coastal states, including producing states; is free of harmful environmental impacts to coastal and ocean resources; does not unduly hinder land acquisition yet acknowledges Congress' role in making these decisions; reflects a true partnership among federal, state and local governments and reinvests in the renewable resource of wildlife conservation through the currently authorized Pittman-Robertson program by nearly doubling the Federal funds available for wildlife conservation and education programs. This legislation provides $2.8 billion for seven district reinvestment programs. Title I authorizes $1 billion for Impact Assistance and Coastal Conservation by creating a revenue sharing and coastal conservation fund for coastal states and eligible local governments to mitigate the various impacts of OCS activities while providing funds for the conservation of our coastal ecosystems. In addition, the funds of Title I will support sustainable development of nonrenewable resources without providing incentives for new oil and gas development. All coastal states and territories will benefit from coastal impact assistance under this legislation, not just those states that host federal OCS oil and gas development. Title II guarantees stable and annual funding for the state and federal sides of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at its authorized $900 million level while protecting the rights of private property rights owners. The bill will restore Congressional intent with respect to the LWCF, the goal of which is to share a significant portion of revenues from offshore development with the states to provide for protection and public use of the natural environment. Title III establishes 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. This new source of funding will nearly double the Federal funds available for wildlife conservation. This program enjoys a great deal of support and would be enhanced without imposing new taxes. Title IV provides $125 million for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery program through matching grants to local governments to rehabilitate and develop recreation programs, sites and facilities. The Urban Parks and Recreation program would enable 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. Stable funding will provide greater revenue certainty to state and local planning authorities. Title V provides $100 million for a 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. Title VI provides $200 million for Federal and Indian Lands Restoration through a coordinated program on Federal and Indian lands to restore degraded lands, protect resources that are threatened with degradation and protect public health and safety. Title VII provides $150 million for Conservation Easements and Species Recovery through annual and dedicated funding for conservation easements and funding for landowner incentives to aid in the recovery of endangered and threatened species. Finally, there is up to $200 million available for the Payment In-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program through the annual interest generated from the CARA fund. 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. I want to thank the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, Senator Murkowski, the majority leader, Senator Lott, my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux as well as the other co- sponsors of S. 25 for all their continued support and efforts in attempting to enact what may well be the most significant conservation effort of the century. I look forward to continue working with the other members of the Energy Committee on this legislation this year so that we may reach a compromise and give the country a true legacy for generations to come. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, on Thursday February 17th, the House Resources Committee filed their report on a historic piece of legislation, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, H.R. 701 which would reinvest a portion of offshore oil and gas revenues in coastal conservation and impact assistance programs,the Land and Water Conservation Fund, wildlife conservation, historic treasures and outdoor recreation. This remarkable compromise was developed by Congressmen Don Young, George Miller, Billy Tauzin, John Dingell, Chris John, Bruce Vento, and Tom Udall and was passed by the House Resources Committee by a vote of 37-12 on November 10, 1999. To date, the bill has accumulated over 300 co-sponsors. Hopefully, this legislation will be considered by the full House sometime this Spring. The H.R. 701 compromise is a companion to the Senate version of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, S. 25. Today I would like to acknowledge the remarkable work done by Mr. Young, Mr. Miller, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Dingell, Mr. John, Mr. Vento, and Mr. Udall as I, along with Senators Murkowski, Lott, Breaux and Feinstein introduce the H.R. 701 compromise in the Senate. While I would like to take a moment to note that there are some provisions of S. 25 that I along with several other co-sponsors strongly believe need to be incorporated into H.R. 701, today I am introducing the exact version that the House Resources Committee reported out on February 17th. This compelling and balanced bi-partisan proposal: will provide a fair share of funding to all coastal states, including producing states; is free of harmful environmental impacts to coastal and ocean resources; does not unduly hinder land acquisition yet acknowledges Congress' role in making these decisions; reflects a true partnership among federal, state and local governments and reinvests in the renewable resource of wildlife conservation through the currently authorized Pittman-Robertson program by nearly doubling the Federal funds available for wildlife conservation and education programs. This legislation provides $2.8 billion for seven district reinvestment programs. Title I authorizes $1 billion for Impact Assistance and Coastal Conservation by creating a revenue sharing and coastal conservation fund for coastal states and eligible local governments to mitigate the various impacts of OCS activities while providing funds for the conservation of our coastal ecosystems. In addition, the funds of Title I will support sustainable development of nonrenewable resources without providing incentives for new oil and gas development. All coastal states and territories will benefit from coastal impact assistance under this legislation, not just those states that host federal OCS oil and gas development. Title II guarantees stable and annual funding for the state and federal sides of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at its authorized $900 million level while protecting the rights of private property rights owners. The bill will restore Congressional intent with respect to the LWCF, the goal of which is to share a significant portion of revenues from offshore development with the states to provide for protection and public use of the natural environment. Title III establishes 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. This new source of funding will nearly double the Federal funds available for wildlife conservation. This program enjoys a great deal of support and would be enhanced without imposing new taxes. Title IV provides $125 million for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery program through matching grants to local governments to rehabilitate and develop recreation programs, sites and facilities. The Urban Parks and Recreation program would enable 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. Stable funding will provide greater revenue certainty to state and local planning authorities. Title V provides $100 million for a 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. Title VI provides $200 million for Federal and Indian Lands Restoration through a coordinated program on Federal and Indian lands to restore degraded lands, protect resources that are threatened with degradation and protect public health and safety. Title VII provides $150 million for Conservation Easements and Species Recovery through annual and dedicated funding for conservation easements and funding for landowner incentives to aid in the recovery of endangered and threatened species. Finally, there is up to $200 million available for the Payment In-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program through the annual interest generated from the CARA fund. 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. I want to thank the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, Senator Murkowski, the majority leader, Senator Lott, my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux as well as the other co- sponsors of S. 25 for all their continued support and efforts in attempting to enact what may well be the most significant conservation effort of the century. I look forward to continue working with the other members of the Energy Committee on this legislation this year so that we may reach a compromise and give the country a true legacy for generations to come. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as we attempt to conclude our business for this session of Congress, I wanted to mention an important decision that has just occurred in Istanbul. Mr. President, as you know, Turkey is hosting the annual summit of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Our President was in attendance, and from reports, this summit has been a robust forum for debate. Given recent history, it is impossible to overstate the importance that the OSCE might play in maintaining Europe's peace and stability. It is the only forum available where all the nations of Europe meet to discuss European concerns. Clearly, the status of European Security is more fluid at this time then at any other in the last 40 years. Therefore, one of the very important decisions that the OSCE must make at the Istanbul Summit, is who will chair the OSCE in 2001. I am very pleased to announce that the OSCE has chosen the nation of Romania to undertake this important leadership role. The United States and several leading European nations had advanced Romania's candidacy, and I believe that the OSCE has made a very wise choice. Romania's value as OSCE chair derives from a number of factors. First, Romania's geostrategic position places it in the heart of the region where stability is needed most. Despite lying at the crossroads of the Balkans, the Caucasus, and European Russia, Romania has managed to maintain excellent relations with all the parties. The OSCE desperately needs leadership that understands the problems of this region, while having no vested interest in any particular outcome. That is the sort of leadership that only Romania can bring to the table. Second, Romania is a role model for other Balkan nations. The economic and political reforms that Romania has undertaken, have not come easy--but that is part of her attraction to the other nations of the region. Romania's experience demonstrates that if willing to make the necessary sacrifices, democracy and a liberalized economy are within reach. Finally, Romania has a strong tradition of cooperation with this nation. Our friendship has been formalized through the 1997 Strategic Partnership, as well as Romania's vigorous participation in the Partnership for Peace. Mr. President, Romanian chairmanship is a very positive harbinger for the future of Europe, and for the future of the Balkan Region. I congratulate the OSCE for their excellent choice. I wish Romania's leadership the very best wishes upon assuming this very weighty responsibility. We look forward to another session of productive dialogue and meaningful diplomacy upon their accession to the chairmanship.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am appreciative of the 10 minutes granted to speak on a different subject. I understand that mining is an important issue and deserves our attention. Until it is resolved, we will probably be working for many days. I know that the Senior Senator from West Virginia feels very passionately about this issue, and other Members may want to add their remarks as the evening goes on, so I will try to be brief. A week from tomorrow, many of us will head home to be with our families and celebrate Thanksgiving. In my mind, it is extremely appropriate that Thanksgiving falls in this month, which many of you know is National Adoption Month. For like Thanksgiving, National Adoption Month is a time not only for celebration but also for reflection. So let me begin with some facts about adoption that people may find interesting in hopes that this would be something the American people will embrace. In 1992, the last year for which adoption statistics were available, there were 127,000 children adopted in the United States. Forty-two percent of these children were adopted by step parents or relatives; 15 percent of these adoptions were from foster care; 5 percent adopted children from other countries; and 37 percent of these children were adopted by private agencies. The poster behind me is a collage of just a few of the 130,000 legally freed children awaiting permanent families. Some of them are only children and some are sibling groups, some are younger children some are older. Although they are all different, all of these beautiful children are looking for someone to love and care for them and to make them a part of their home. The fact remains that there are half a million children in foster care. By way of comparison, allow me to refer to a hometown landmark, the Superdome. The Superdome has hosted several superbowls--the Saints have never been to one there, but other teams have. We can seat about 80,000 people in the Superdome. To get an accurate vision of the number of children, picture 5 superdomes filled with children, one in every seat. That is a lot of children--if you think about one in each seat in five Superdomes--in need of homes in America. The average age of children in foster care is 9.5 years. The problem is many children spend the average of 3 years in foster care. Three years is too long to live without the love and security of a permanent family. We need to shorten that time. If a child has to be removed from their biological parents because of terrible, unfortunate circumstances, they should spend a short time in foster care and then be placed permanently with a loving family. Seventy percent of the children available for adoption and foster care are under the age of 10. They should not spend their tender years without a home. True, we are making progress and we should be proud. In 1996, 28,000 children in foster care were placed in permanent homes. It is projected that, in 1999, the number will be 36,000, an increase of about 30 percent. In celebration of those who made this progress possible, the Congressional Coalition on Adoption instituted a wonderful idea that we hope will go on year after year, The Congressional Angels In Adoption. We asked all of our colleagues to send in recommendations for individuals in their respective States and districts who had done something extraordinary in the area of adoption. I would like to submit for the Record a list of the 55 families who have been nominated and selected for the first 1999 Angels In Adoption Awards. I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Here are some examples from around the country. I will read into the Record just a few. First of all, the Congressional Coalition on Adoption has recognized the Freddie Mac Foundation of Virginia, nominated because of countless contributions to the promotion of adoption. In this year alone, Freddie Mac has donated millions of dollars to help fund programs for adoption and foster care. Their commitment and dedication demonstrates their unique understanding that there is more to a home than four walls. We thank the Freddie Mac Foundation for their effort. I will read a few more brief entries to give an example of some of the people that were honored. My friend, the Senior Senator from Arkansas, submitted a family from Russellville, Arkansas, Lori and Willie Johnson. In an increasingly self-absorbed world, Lori and Willie Johnson remind those around them of the meaning of the word ``selfless.'' They are the proud parents of 17 children, 13 of whom are adopted and have special needs. Because of their love and dedication, these children have a family to call their own. From Spartanburg, South Carolina, we have selected Fletcher Thompson and Jim Thompson, nominated by our colleague in the House, James Demint. Having practiced adoption for over 25 years, they are rightly considered adoption experts. They place over 100 children a year. They practice law in a way that helps build families and brings hope to children and joy to parents. We thank them for their great work. I would also like to mention, the Angel from Idaho--since the Senior Senator from that State was on the floor earlier speaking about the important mining issue,--as Co-chair of the Congressional Coalition he nominated Earl and Judy Priest from Caldwell, Idaho. For over 25 years, the Priests have opened their hearts and home to children of all ages and abilities. They are parents of five children, three of whom are adopted. In addition, they have fostered 160 other children. Hays and Gay Town, from my own home State of Louisiana, founded and personally funded an agency that has placed over 200 children. They have also reached out to help young mothers in crisis. There are many examples, from California to New York to Louisiana to Michigan. There have been examples of judges, attorneys, parents who have adopted children, advocates in the community, agencies, who are really contributing to making our goal of finding a home for every child in America and the world a reality. In closing, I would like to remind my colleagues, of several pieces of pending legislation concerning adoption. First, we look forward to passing, with Senator Helms' and Senator Biden's leadership, the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. This treaty will, for the first time, lay out a framework for international adoption. Mr. Chairman, as a lawyer and a former prosecutor, you most certainly know the importance of laying out a legal framework to prevent fraud and abuse, reduce costs and make the process easier for families adopting abroad. Together with Senator Abraham, I have introduced the Adoption Awareness Act to fund a nationwide campaign promoting adoption. Through this campaign, we hope to encourage potential adoptive parents to open their homes to a waiting child. Finally, we hope to be able to increase the present adoption tax credit from $5,000 to $10,000. As you can see, there is a lot of work we have to do when we come back. I want to take this opportunity, once again, to recognize all of our ``Angels in Adoption,'' and to thank my colleagues for all the good work they have done on this issue. I look forward to working with them when we return to make the reality of a permanent and loving home real for so many children who need it. Thank you. I yield the remainder of my time.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator. I do wish to speak. I am happy to wait until the Senator has completed his remarks, if he could let me know how long he will be.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I will read one paragraph from this petition. Let us grab the opportunity now, to: Pass legislation that would make a substantial and reliable investment in the conservation of our Nation's wildlife; public lands; coastal and marine resources; historic and cultural treasures; State, local and urban parks, and recreation programs; and open spaces. [Let us] design a bill that provides significant conservation benefits, is free of harmful environmental impacts to our coastal and ocean resources and does not unduly hinder land acquisition programs. I believe we can meet these goals as we negotiate the detail and compromise in the next session. The Presiding Officer, being from the State of Alabama, has been a great leader in this effort. I look forward to working with the Senator next year. I am pleased to tell our leader I will be removing my hold on foreign ops because we have made some progress on this, and I look forward to working harder to make this a reality for the people of America the next time we meet. I yield my remaining time.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I know the underlying amendment we have just debated is quite important, and the bankruptcy bill we are debating is one of the things we have to reconcile in order to wrap up our business and do the work for the American people. But I come to the floor just for a few moments this afternoon to speak on another subject because I would like to do my part to help us bring this session to a positive close. I was one of the Senators who placed a hold on some of the business before the Senate. I felt compelled to do so because of some actions the administration was taking in the negotiations process on the Interior bill. I believe I had to try to stop, or reverse, or change it. With other things that have taken place, I believe we have been somewhat successful. I want to speak about that for a moment. As you are aware, Mr. President, about 2 years ago a great coalition of people came together from different perspectives in this country-- different parties, different areas of this Nation--to begin to speak about the great need in America and the great desire on the part of the American people, from Louisiana, California, New York, and all places in between, to try to find a permanent way to fund very important environmental projects--the purchase of land, the expansion of parks, the creation of green space, the preservation of green space, the restoration of wetlands, the commitment to historic preservation, the expansion of our urban parks, the ability of all families, not just families who can afford to fly in jets or take long automobile vacations, but for families who live in the U.S., to be able to enjoy the beauty of nature; for us as a Nation as we move into this next century to take this opportunity to try to find a permanent way to fund some of these programs so they won't be subject to the whims and wishes of Washington, something that is fiscally conservative in terms of our balanced budget. We tried to look for funding that would be appropriate to dedicate in this way. We found a source of funding. That is where the funding is-- offshore oil and gas revenues that were the subject of an earlier debate today. As the prices go up, it helps some parts of our Nation; it is a challenge for other parts. But it brings more tax revenues into the Federal coffers. For 50 years, we have been drilling off the shores of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and the gulf coast. We have brought over $120 billion to the Federal Treasury by depleting one important resource for our Nation. That money has gone to the general fund. It has been spent on a variety of projects--not reinvested but just spent in operating budgets. Many of us think a more fiscally conservative approach, and a more sound and responsible approach, would be to take a portion of those revenues produced by basically the gulf coast States and reinvest a portion, if you will, or share a portion of those revenues, with States and counties and parishes, as in Louisiana and communities around the Nation, to help in all the ways I have just expressed in all of our land acquisition, land improvements, expansion of our parks, and wildlife conservation programs. Two years ago, a great coalition came together. On one side, we had the National Chamber of Commerce; on the other side, we had a variety of environmental groups; we had elected officials, both at the Federal level and State level. As I said, it was a bipartisan coalition that came together to back a bill, which was introduced on the House side and in the Senate, known as CARA, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, to do just that. This bill has picked up tremendous support in the last 2 years. It is pending before our Senate Energy Committee with Senator Murkowski and me as the lead sponsors, with many Members of this body. The great news is that just last week in the House, under the great leadership of Don Young from Alaska and George Miller from California, the ranking member, this bill passed out very similar to ours on a 37-12 vote to try to help bring us to a bipartisan consensus. I am hopeful, as we wrap up this session and as we begin to get ready for the next session of Congress, that we are now in a very good position to be able to take some final actions in moving that bill through committee, onto the floor, and into a conference where the final details can be worked out because if we are going to have any permanency of funding from this source, it is going to have to be something that is shared with the States that produce the money in the first place. Louisiana produces about 70 percent of our offshore oil and gas revenues. We have great needs as a coastal State, along with States such as New York that just got hit very hard by Hurricane Floyd, causing tremendous damage. There are great coastal needs in our States to fully fund the land and water conservation and wildlife conservation programs. I am very hopeful as we position ourselves for next year, that we are in a position to grab this opportunity supported by this grand coalition and do something very positive for America's environment. I am pleased to say I will be prepared to release my hold on the foreign operations bill in an attempt to do my part to move to reconciliation because we have effectively stopped the administration's efforts to permanently allocate funding but in a way that will not cover all of the things as I outlined. We want to make sure this investment in the Nation is not just about Federal land acquisition, although that is a very important piece of this. We want to make sure it is balanced, with the opportunity for Governors and local officials to purchase land at the local level. We want to make sure it is truly a partnership. We want to make sure the coastal impact assistance is there as well as funding for historical preservation, urban parks, and wildlife programs. While we didn't reach every goal we set out, we have raised this issue. We have built a strong coalition. We have raised this issue and we have stopped the permanent allocation of these funds until the whole package can be dealt with. We have made a very positive step. On behalf of the great coalition, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter to the President, signed by 14 Senators, along with a letter to Members of Congress from 865 organizations, business and government agencies, that are funding this effort.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. That is correct. As we know, the cost-of-living escalates and is very different from place to place and region to region. This chart is quite deficient. After this debate, I will be looking at ways the IRS should improve their own schedule. For the purposes of this debate, we most certainly do not want to take a schedule that is flawed for the purposes of collecting taxes and then apply it to a bankruptcy which is an equally difficult situation in which our families find themselves. In conclusion, I realize there is fraud and abuse, and I will be the first one to step up and vote for a bill that will clamp down on it. No one deserves special privileges, whether they are poor, middle income or wealthy. This bill, as written, goes too far, and we will be sorry if we do not adopt some amendments to fix it and make it more fair. Let us fight hard for our families. Many of them are having a tough time already. Let's not have the children pay the price for us trying to expedite a bill that does not work for them or for their parents. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Correct. That is my understanding. Under the current bill, we are adopting an IRS schedule that, in my opinion--and I imagine a majority of people in Louisiana will feel that way--this is an inappropriate schedule for that purpose. It most certainly is an inappropriate schedule for bankruptcy since nowhere on the schedule does it even mention the word ``child'' or children's needs. It does not mention medicine. It does not mention some of the essential things, as the Senator from Connecticut has pointed out.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I will.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment, which attempts to enhance a bill that is intended to do some good things to stop fraud and abuse. But this amendment attempts to take that bill and make it work for everyone and continue the tradition of protecting our children and our families, which is so important. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his great leadership and the way he has articulated this issue so well. Neither one of us is on the committee that considered this piece of legislation. I know there were many good Senators from the Republican side and many good Senators from the Democratic side who have come at this with the right intention--to eliminate fraud and abuse. But I thank him for his leadership because, frankly, without this amendment, this bill falls very short of those good intentions. We, in Louisiana--I know the people in Kansas are like this, too, and I know the people in Connecticut are like this--believe in paying our debts. We do not like freeloaders. We do not like people who are reckless with their finances, although every now and then sometimes we might be, in small instances or large. We do not like that. It is not a value we hold. We believe in being fiscally responsible. We believe in taking care of your own. We believe in taking care of our debts. So I certainly want to support a bill that would clamp down on fraud and abuse. If it was a poor person who was using fraud and being abusive of the system, they would certainly have to follow the same rules as a middle-class family or as the wealthiest person in my State. I am not asking, and neither is Senator Dodd, for any special privilege for any man or any woman. We do ask for special consideration for children. They are not the ones who are ``guilty.'' But we ask no special provision. This bill as it is currently written goes much too far. I also join Senator Dodd in asking the President, if this amendment is not adopted--and I do not know; it may be I will join him in asking the President to veto this bill because this would be a terrible blow to families, to children, and particularly single parents, many of whom are women but not all. There are some fathers who have custody of their children--one, two, three or four--who would fall under the same draconian terms of this bill. There is no denying, as I said, that there is need for reform of the current bankruptcy law and practice. However, it is important the final bill accurately reflect the needs of those most affected by bankruptcy. This amendment we offer does just that. It has four parts. I am going to speak briefly about only one. Over the past two decades we have witnessed a 400-percent increase in the use of bankruptcy courts in this country. That figure is alarming. That is why we are trying to see what is causing that and trying to offer some solutions. The figures show a rising number of those claiming bankruptcy, however, are single women. In fact, single women comprise the fastest growing group to file bankruptcy, surpassing men and married couples. In 1999, more than a half-million single women will file for bankruptcy, 10 times the number who filed in 1981. Despite the overwhelming number of women who find themselves in this untenable state of economic instability, S. 625, as written, does not at all reflect the needs of this population of debtors. This amendment simply revises necessary sections of the bill so it is more realistic, more flexible, and more reasonable in dealing with women and their children, single women and their children--sometimes one child, sometimes two, sometimes three, and in a few cases more than that. Our amendment does not ask that women with children be treated any differently under the law. It simply ensures the standards which apply to all debtors be sensitive to the very different situations which cause a person to file for bankruptcy. So, in our zest to curb the abuse of some, the rights and needs of others should not be ignored. S. 625, as currently written, makes it significantly easier for credit card debt to be considered nondischargeable, which is necessary in ending fraud and abuse. However, I think this bill inadvertently puts the claim of credit card companies at a distinct advantage over single mothers or single fathers who are trying to claim their child support. In most cases that is going to be a single mother. I concede the language clearly is written in the bill that states women and children are the ``first in priority.'' The practical reality, as the Senator from Connecticut has pointed out, as it is currently drafted, is they are first in line for nothing. Given their circumstances of bankruptcy and their lack of resources, how would they ever find the money to hire a lawyer or get the professional services they need to compete in this legal, cumbersome, complicated, time- consuming, and actually spirit-breaking system we are attempting to create here. Let me demonstrate with an example. I think if people can see an example they might understand this. For the purposes of this argument, let's take Doris, who is a divorced mother of three children ranging in age from 3 to 13 years old. She works at a job earning more than minimum wage but not much. Her ex-husband is 5 months behind in child support--not atypical, given the millions and billions of dollars that are owed. If this bill passes, this is what will happen. In September of this year, she goes to Kmart where she purchases food, clothing, and other essential items for her family totaling $260. I go to Kmart and Wal-Mart. That is not an unreasonable bill. It is hard to support a family with food and clothing and essentials for much less than that. Actually, I spend more than that in a month. But she spends only $260, trying to be frugal. In November, she comes to grips with the reality that her income will not get her through the winter. She files for bankruptcy. Under the bill this Senate is about ready to pass, she is going to have to hire a lawyer and go to court to prove that her Kmart purchases were necessary for her family and were not made in an attempt to defraud the system. I could not under any circumstances vote for a bill that would ask any of my constituents who live in Louisiana, or any who live in Connecticut or any place, to hire a lawyer to go to court to claim that the orange juice, milk, diapers, cookies, some snacks for school, maybe part of a school uniform, is a luxury item. When they come knocking at my door, saying, Senator, why does the law say this, I am going to say we made a terrible mistake. But I didn't make the mistake because we were on the floor trying to explain this to people. Hopefully, they are listening. Our amendment makes a simple change to this process. Rather than putting the burden on proving the necessity of the purchase on a single mother who has no money, a lot of heartache, a lot of children to take care of, it just puts the onus on the credit card companies to prove these purchases were unnecessary. As the Senator has pointed out, they already have lawyers; they are a credit card company. They have accountants and lawyers to see, perhaps, if something does look amiss. Perhaps if the charges are quite large, they most certainly should be able to pull them into court and make sure the judge would take the proper action. Credit card companies, as I said, have these investigators to check fraud. The people in my State of Louisiana, in that situation, I promise you, they do not. Under our system of justice, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Under S. 625, as it stands right now, a woman is guilty of fraud unless she can prove her innocence. This is not what we want to do. I am positive this is not what this President of the United States wants to support. It is unacceptable. If our amendment does not get on this bill, I am going to vote against it. There may be some other amendments that we need to put on, but this clearly is one. I thank Senator Dodd for his leadership in this piece of legislation and will only add this to this discussion: One of the wonderful things I like about being a Senator is I learn something new every day. I guess my colleagues here feel that way, and I hope the staff does, because it is one of the most interesting things about this job. I got, today, the gross monthly income schedule for the IRS. I have never had to file for bankruptcy. I don't think I have ever owed any taxes where I had to go according to this schedule. So this would be the first time I will have seen something like this. I am not a lawyer. I want to say how surprised I am that our Government would have a schedule that basically says if you make $830 or less a month, and you owe taxes to the Federal Government, that you get to eat $170 worth of food. But if you are wealthy and you owe taxes to the Government, you get to eat $456 worth of food every month. If you have children, if you have one child who happens to be in diapers, you get to buy $71 a month at the store. But if you are wealthy and you have a child--not wealthy but you make $5,000 a month, which would be fairly wealthy--and have one child, you get to buy almost $350 worth of diapers and apparel or services at the store. My husband and I have a 2-year-old. I spend more than $40 a month on diapers alone--diapers. I don't want anyone in my State to have to hire a lawyer to prove that the expenses they have on their credit card to purchase food or clothing or diapers or milk or formula for their children is not a luxury. I urge Members who might not have ever looked at this schedule that indicates, when you owe taxes, how much you get to keep--it has no mention of children, no educational expenses. I guess the IRS just assumes children should stop going to school while their parents pay back their taxes. This is the same schedule I think the Senator from Connecticut has pointed out. I wish I had it blown up because I think people in America would have a hard time believing this.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I object.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few important things to say tonight. I will try to fit that in with the time that has been allotted to me. There are many important issues that need to be resolved in the next few days in order for us to wrap up this year and move on. The minimum wage debate is clearly a very significant issue for us. I am glad we will be voting on it and, hopefully, come to a resolution tomorrow. There are other issues pending that have yet to be resolved. That is why I rise tonight to speak for a few minutes about one of them that is very important to the people of my State, the State of Louisiana. I say at the outset as respectfully as I can that I am going to object to proceeding to any additional actions of the Senate until this issue is resolved, or until there is an answer in terms of what our options are. Some of us are not party to some of the discussions that are going on behind closed doors and some being reported. There is some information that I am very interested in receiving, and many people in Louisiana are interested in the information because it has to do with money that our State is producing. It has to do with the kinds of investments we are either going to make or not make to the environment of our Nation, to the coast of Louisiana, which is critical to preserve and help restore that coastline. It is a very important issue to the American people in terms of our opportunity to use a small percentage of the non-Social Security surplus to invest in the Land and Water Conservation Fund to fully fund it, to invest in some extraordinarily successful wildlife conservation programs, to invest in historic preservation, and to invest in coastal restoration and impact assistance for States that produce oil and gas and for States that do not. This is an issue that we have now been debating actually for many years. This debate has gone on for 30 years in terms of funding for land and water. It has gone on for over 50 years in terms of what percentage would be fair for Louisiana, the producing State, to receive. Texas is in that position. Mississippi is in that position to a certain degree. Alaska could be in that position. So there are a few States that are producing States. This debate has raged on, in my opinion, for too long. In my opinion, there is broad bipartisan support for a concept that would take a portion of these revenues. They are estimated to be about $3 billion a year; $120 billion has been generated off the coast in offshore oil and gas production in taxes that the companies are already paying and many continue to pay. These are not new taxes. These are not new revenues. These are revenues that are coming into the Federal Treasury. There is bipartisan support for taking a portion of those revenues and investing in the things that I have just outlined. Let me tell you why it is important for me to respectfully object to moving on to any further business. I know that I am going to be the skunk at the garden party because Louisiana is not a huge State such as California or Texas or Illinois. We have a small delegation. Sometimes, because our numbers are smaller, we aren't able to get all the attention I think we need and the people of our State deserve. Fortunately, the rules of the Senate allow each Senator to be able to speak at length, to be able to express their will and their opinion. As respectfully as I can, I am going to object to any further business until some of these things can be resolved. Let me begin by telling a story that is not well known. I think Americans are very interested judging from all of the correspondence my office has received over the last year and a half from thousands of individuals and groups who seem to be very sympathetic about this issue. Let me read from a brochure called ``Coast 2050,'' discussing sustaining coastal Louisiana. I will read a few pages that tell a story about a great and mighty river. At the end of Old Man River, the mighty Mississippi, lies the largest expanse of coastal wetlands in North America. This dynamic and bountiful landscape was literally built and sustained by the sediment-laden waters that drain to the river from 31 states and three Canadian provinces. This is not a river that just drains a few States. This is a river that drains our entire Nation. The economy of our Nation depends on the taming of this river and this ecosystem. The future of our Nation depends on how well we manage the resources of this great river. The Louisiana coast is home to 2 million Americans. The wetlands, bays, and islands of the coast constitute an enormously productive ecosystem and resource base that support the livelihood and well-being of the Nation. The statistics are awesome: the ecosystem contributes nearly 30 percent by weight of the total commercial fisheries harvest in the lower 48 states and provides overwintering habitat for 70 percent of the migratory waterfowl using the Central and Mississippi Flyways; 18 percent of U.S. oil production and 24 percent of U.S. gas production * * * Louisiana's ports rank first in the Nation in total shipping tonnage. Again, not a river that just serves Louisiana or serves Mississippi but a river that serves the entire Nation. It would be all for naught for the Midwestern States to produce any agricultural product if they couldn't get it to market. That is the great benefit and strength of this Mississippi River--and we sit at the mouth--in terms of the transport of goods for hundreds of years. The unique human culture and beautiful setting of southern Louisiana is world-renowned. We are losing it at an enormous and frightening rate. Since 1930, Louisiana has lost over 1,500 square miles of marsh. The State is still losing 25 to 30 square miles each year, nearly a football field of prime wetlands every 30 minutes. Environmentalists should be alarmed. There are great needs in California, the West, and in the Everglades, but there is a tremendous need that should call us to arms, call citizens to action, to help preserve and restore the south Louisiana coast and this tremendous ecosystem not just for the benefit of Louisiana and the 4 million people who live in our State but for the benefit of the 260-plus million population of this Nation. There is no one reason for this land loss. Some of our coastal wetlands have always been subsiding, but in the past the river built and sustained the wetlands and built new ones, which offset the natural losses. Since Europeans came to Louisiana, we have been building levees to protect against the floods. Levees keep homes, businesses, and farms safe, but they prevent the sediments from flooding to refurbish the marsh. In addition, levees were built to tame the route and flow of the Mississippi River to allow for the great transport and trade on which this Nation is dependent to grow and prosper. Canals were dug through the marshes to promote navigation and to recover petroleum resources that have helped fuel this Nation, to turn the lights on, to run our machinery, to run our factories. We are happy to make that contribution, and we are trying to do it in a more environmentally sensitive way. This ecosystem supports a tremendous amount of commerce, and I don't think I should have to explain it much more. However, we are losing it. Today, Louisiana has 3,800 square miles of marsh and over 800 square miles of swamp. Even at the current pace of restoration efforts--which have been, by the way, successful, albeit minimal because we don't have the financial resources that we deserve, that we should get for this restoration--we will lose more than 600 square miles of marsh and almost 400 square miles of swamp by the year 2050 if we do not take action. Consequently, nearly 1,000 square miles of Louisiana wetlands will become open water. The Nation will lose an area the size of the State of Rhode Island if we fail to act. That is why I come to the floor tonight to speak about this issue. I know some colleagues think perhaps there is nothing we can do or we just can't make this happen. I am compelled to speak again because of this story, because of this great resource, and because I know what the serious consequences will be for my State and for the entire Nation if there is no solution. It is not a difficult solution. It is not even an expensive solution. It is a real solution that has been laid on the table in this Congress. If we do nothing, we face significant reductions in the $20 billion- per-year shipping and export industry in addition to our ports, our commercial fisheries, and oil and gas, and leave ourselves open to serious hurricane damage. There is a consensus about what we can do. We have learned two things: We already know how to fix most of the problems; second, coastal recovery will require much more effort than has been undertaken so far. We know what it will take to fix the problem. We just need to get the job done. That is why I am here tonight to try to get this job done because it is most certainly something that is within our grasp. I want to read for the record a letter from over 800 environmental organizations circulated last week. I want to take the time to read it. It is a good letter using good common sense that is within the grasp of the Interior appropriations bill that is now being debated. We have the opportunity to make this happen. Without adding any new money, we can make this happen. As the 20th century draws to a close, Congress has a rare opportunity to pass landmark legislation that would establish a permanent and significant source of conservation funding. A number of promising legislative proposals will take revenue from nonrenewable offshore oil and gas resources and reinvest them in the protection of renewable resources such as wildlife, public lands, our coast, our oceans, our cultural resources, historic preservation, and outdoor recreation. Securing this funding would allow us to build upon the pioneering conservation tradition that Teddy Roosevelt initiated at the beginning of this century. The vast majority of Americans recognize the duty we have to protect and conserve our rich cultural and natural legacies for future generations, a diverse array of interests including sports men and women, conservationists, historic preservationists, outdoor recreationists, the faith community, the business community, State and local governments. Over 40 Governors, Democrat and Republican, have supported this initiative, and they support conservation funding for this legislation because they recognize it is our obligation to make these commitments for future generations. So this letter goes on to call on our body here, the Senate and the House, to: * * * seize this unprecedented opportunity to pass legislation that would make a substantial and reliable investment in the conservation of our Nation's wildlife, public lands, coastal and marine resources, historic treasures, urban and rural parks, open spaces * * * design a bill that provides significant conservation benefits free of harmful environmental impacts to our coastal and ocean resources, and one that does not unduly hinder land acquisition programs. We have this within our grasp. It says: We look to Congress to make this a reality. I hope, as I slow down this process, perhaps we can get some answers from the White House, from the negotiators, about the real possibilities of this taking place. There are some on the right who say we do not need any more public land. There are some on the left who say if we do anything that might encourage drilling, no matter how great the benefits, we are not for it. Let me say, in a markup that is being done, hopefully this Wednesday in the House, many of those criticisms will be put to rest. In the markup that is being considered on the House side on this bill, there are no incentives for oil and gas drilling. We can fight that battle another day. There is an incentive and language that will help us spend this money for coastal restoration in ways that are environmentally sensitive and that do not encourage drilling. There is language, on the other hand, that is going to suggest that Congress has a legitimate role to play in the purchasing of lands, along with the administration--whether it is this administration, President Clinton, or whether it is a future President--that it is right that this Congress and the President would make decisions about the purchases of land, how much, and when, and where. Those differences could be worked out. So there is bipartisan agreement we should take a portion of these revenues. I want to show a graph, because people think, Why does Mary keep speaking about this issue over and over again? It is because the revenues that are being considered for this come from basically one State. I know you would be able to guess what that State is. This is Louisiana. I know this is a very small sheet, but I think the camera can pick this up. This red represents the contribution Louisiana makes to offshore oil and gas revenues which totaled, in this particular year, $4.8 billion. The average is about $3.5 billion. But Louisiana contributes over 90 percent. When we talk about taking this money and funding programs I have outlined--and I am for all the things I have just suggested--we need to be fair to the producing States. Louisiana produces the most, then Texas; Mississippi contributes; Alabama is a contributor. Of course, California did contribute. There is a moratorium there. This bill does nothing to upset that political decision, but it does save, for the States that are producing, a portion. Let me talk about a portion because I believe in fighting for your State. But I also believe in being fair. If I did not think my State was correct, I would be the first one to stand up and say we should do it another way; we simply do not have an argument. But it is widely known the interior States in our Nation get to keep 50 percent of the revenues they produce. States such as Wyoming and New Mexico get to keep 50 percent of their revenues, and they can spend it basically as they wish, with few restrictions. I am not coming to this body, nor have I introduced a bill, to give Louisiana 50 percent of this offshore oil and gas revenues. It is not on our land, but it is right outside of our coast. If it were not for our land, this industry simply would not exist. Very few can dispute that because I don't know where you would launch the helicopters, Honduras or Guatemala; or where you would build the machinery, the canals, the barges, the railroads, or highways that allow this industry to exist. I do not know if a good option would be Honduras or Guatemala, but if you don't do it from the coast of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, you do not have many options. But I did not come here to ask for 50 percent. I am asking the President and the administration and this Congress to give Louisiana not even 30 percent. I am not even asking for 25 percent. I have simply said to the producing and coastal States, let us keep at least 10 percent of the dollars for Louisiana and the producing States, and share with all the other coastal States, whether they produce or not, to give them moneys from this source of revenue because it does not just belong to us, it belongs to everyone. But surely we should, since we produce 90 percent of the money, get a fair share as we try to distribute this money. Whether we do it for 1 year--we have been doing sort of hit or miss over the last 30--or whether we try to take the step and do it permanently, recognizing the needs and legitimate concerns of the Western States and some others that are concerned about purchasing land--then clearly Louisiana deserves its fair share. So do the other coastal States. For the record, we have produced over $120 billion since 1955 and have received less than 1 percent. I guess that is worth it, to me, to be a skunk at the garden party, because it is just not fair. One of the things about the Senate and about Congress and about this whole body, and about America and the debate, is trying to pass legislation the American people care about. The American people can understand fairness. Whether they are from a Western State or California or Washington, or from a Southern State, I think they would say: Senator Landrieu, you are correct. It is not fair for your State to produce 90 percent and get virtually nothing when we have a bill that will share this with everyone and do something the American people want to do. Let me talk about that for just a minute. Sometimes we come to Washington and I think we have the tendency to forget, or maybe just temporarily lose our memory, about some of the things we promised to do when we came. Sometimes we get busy with the talk in Washington and we forget about what the talk at home is. There was research done just recently, in fact a couple of months ago, by Luntz Research Companies, one of the foremost pollsters in America. He said some things that really brought this issue home to me. Even though I knew this was important to people, I frankly did not think to take a survey which would have been a good thing, but the environmental groups did. The results are staggering. I am just going to read the overview: What matters to Americans most these days is ``quality of life'' and ``peace of mind.'' Our nation's prosperity has brought with it the need both to think beyond simple hand-to- mouth economics and to address the anxieties posed by perceived threats to our own health and safety. The public's mood on the environment speaks to the opportunity to deliver positively on a rising public priority. More than 50% of Americans tell us they will head to the outdoors on vacation this year. What they expect to find when they get there is part of the legacy they most want to pass along to the next generation. There is an emotional intensity to issues that define the legacy of what this generation will leave to the next. At the turn of the Millennium--as we enter the 21st Century focused more than ever on the future and rapid change--what drives people's attitudes on protecting the great outdoors may be the need to identify and carry with us those defining ideas and principles that have made America the great pioneer. To deliver on the call for preservation and progress, policymakers can succeed by focusing more on the benefits the public wants and expects and by spending less time talking about the process that the public really doesn't care to follow in a debate. And no issue speaks more directly to Americans' environmental ``quality of life'' than their ability to enjoy open spaces, parks, and wilderness areas. Whether they want a place to visit alone or with their families on vacation--or just having the peace of mind that those places will still exist (for themselves, for future generations, and for the plant and animal species that assure diversity)--this desire presents an opportunity to deliver on a political priority. Anyone who wants to close their own ``credibility gap'' on environmental issues can do so by talking about conservation of open spaces. . . . And by actually doing something about it, not just speaking about it. Let me give some of the findings: People like to spend their time outdoors. Over half of Americans polled cite an outdoor location like a national park, forest, wilderness areas, beach, shoreline, lake, river, or mountain as their preferred place to spend a vacation this year. Ninety-four percent would justify spending more on Land & Water Conservation because ``Parks, forests, and seashores provide Americans a chance to visit areas vastly different than their own.'' Those who think the overall quality of the environment is deteriorating outnumber those who think things are improving. Eighty-eight percent of all Americans agree that ``we must act now or we will lose many special places, and if we wait, what is destroyed or lost cannot be replaced.'' They also say this poll defies a myth that some people think of as real, too much public land. That meant, according to this survey which was conducted by a Republican pollster, it does not hold even in mountainous Western States where over 90 percent, in some places of the land is already owned by the Government. This poll indicates that even in places in the West where lots of land is already owned by the Federal Government, people still want us to make the effort and the small investment it will take to preserve these precious resources to provide wilderness, parks, and forest for our children and grandchildren. Let me finally read one very startling result because all of us voted for the highway trust fund. We thought we should apply our gasoline taxes to improve the highway system which has been an extraordinary benefit for the growth of this Nation. We did it because we knew it was popular at home, because it was the right thing to do. In my State of Louisiana, and probably in your State, Mr. President, Illinois, people overwhelmingly support it. Let me share this: In a head to head between land and water and highway, the wildly popular highway and airport funds head to head was 45 percent for the conservation of land and water and 37 percent for highways. We know how popular that highway bill was, but people in America--in Louisiana, in Illinois, in Mississippi, in other places, in Washington State--want us to take some of these revenues--not new taxes, not raising taxes, not robbing it from other places--but taking it from the Federal Treasury where it has gone into sort of a nondescript fund and reinvest it into the environment and to do that in a way that shares with the States and local governments--not a Federal land grab, not a Federal takings, but in partnership with local and State governments, and that is what our bill does. In conclusion, there are over or close to 200 Members of the Senate and the House, Republicans and Democrats. It is the only environmental initiative--there are others that have been filed and talked about and are being debated in committee, outside of committee, in the negotiations taking place right now--but there is not a single proposal that has Democrat and Republican support except for this one. I urge the White House, I urge the President, I urge the negotiators, whatever is in the bill, if we can afford $300 million, fine. If we can afford $500 million, fine. If we can afford $1 billion, whatever the offset is, I am not asking for more money. But I am asking if we are going to spend offshore oil and gas revenues for 1 year or permanently, that it be done giving Louisiana and Mississippi and Texas and Alabama and the other producing States their fair share; that it will fund to the degree that is possible the coastal initiatives we have outlined. Yes, there are authorized programs to fully fund land and water conservation and to fund wildlife conservation, historic preservation, and urban parks, which is a package that makes sense. Do my colleagues know why? Because it is fair. It is fair to the east coast; it is fair to the West; it is fair to the South; it is fair to the North; it is fair to the Great Lakes States that do not have an ocean or a gulf, but because they have the Great Lakes, they similarly have situations that need attention. We have not written a bill that is selfish. We have written a bill that is generous. We have written a bill that we can afford. I urge the President not to move to take a portion of the revenues that two of the poorest States in the Nation contribute--Mississippi and Louisiana--and give them away without giving us a fair chance at preserving our coastline, helping us restore a tremendous ecosystem that not only benefits our State and the 4 million people who live there, and the 2 million people who live on the coast but literally serves as a treasure for this Nation--an environmental treasure and a commercial base--without which this country could not possibly continue to grow and prosper without. I am sensitive to the Florida Everglades. I have been to the redwoods. I believe in the preservation of the great lands of the West. I want to be fair to many places in this Nation, but I cannot in good conscience represent the State that is contributing 90 percent of the money and allow these negotiations to go on knowing there is some intention to take this money permanently away from us and give it to everyone else without sharing this with us to help us in our quest to restore this coastline for the benefit of the entire Nation. I thank my colleagues for their patience. I hold up our plan: ``Coast 2050.'' It is a beautiful picture of Louisiana's coast. I ask my colleagues to be sensitive to our great needs. I am sorry to have to object, but I do it respectfully, and I do it because I know this is the right thing for our country and the Nation at this time. I yield back the remainder of my time, if I have any.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, a few minutes ago I posed a few questions to the majority leader about a very important piece of legislation, an appropriations bill that is still pending. As we know, there are several important appropriations measures being debated and negotiated, and that is the process. Some of that happens, a lot of it, behind closed doors, which is the way it has worked for many, many years and will probably continue to work that way. However, there are some questions I want to raise or some points I want to bring up. There are a great number of Members--Senators from the South, the East, the North, and the West, Democrats and Republicans, a great group of House Members, led by Don Young of Alaska and George Miller of California, Chris John from Louisiana, Billy Tauzin from Louisiana, a Democrat and Republican respectfully, and Representative Udall in the House--who have worked very hard to come to some bipartisan agreements about a new way to spend offshore oil and gas revenues in a way that is fair to all the coastal States, particularly those States including Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Alabama to a certain degree, that produce these offshore oil and gas revenues. Without our States acting as a platform, this industry would not exist. Many Members have worked on a bipartisan redirection of some of those revenues to come back to the States and local governments instead of going into the Federal Treasury as they do now, and as they have been since 1955, redirecting those revenues back to help the coastal restoration programs, to help restore our coastlines particularly in Louisiana, which is so fragile, and the Florida Everglades, which need a tremendous amount of help. In addition, we have the idea these moneys could be permanently allocated to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund which has been funded intermittently--hit and miss--through the decades. We think the American people should have something to count on, so they know every year their Federal Government is going to take a very small portion, but an important portion, of money for land purchases and acquisitions and conservation easements to help expand our park system, both at the Federal level and to improve our park system, as well as giving Governors and mayors and county officials the ability to create recreational opportunities. As a Governor, Mr. President, you know how important that is to the people of your State and my State. They believe strongly in recreation and access to the outdoors. In addition, this bipartisan group believes it can also take a portion of those moneys and expand the very successful Pittman- Robertson, which is one of the most successful Federal programs, working in partnership with local outdoors enthusiasts--hunters, fishermen and women, conservationists in those areas--and to fully fund historic preservation and urban parks, to name just a few. It is a very comprehensive approach. It is an innovative approach. Although we do not have a bill out of either House yet, we do have a great markup that I want to share with the Members, Chairman Young's markup that came out this morning. Their bill, which is reflective of some of the things I have said, will be considered next week. It would be a tremendous accomplishment for this administration and for this Congress to come together in a bipartisan way to make at least a downpayment this year. If we cannot fully fund what I have generally just described, let us at least make an effort this year to fund, for 1 year, these programs that are currently already authorized, that have been in existence for many years, to actually put some money where our mouth is--within the budget caps and the balanced budget agreement we have reached--so we could perhaps build on this year and, over the next several years, fully fund the programs I have talked about. I will ask to have printed in the Record today a letter I received from 800 individuals and organizations supporting this initiative. It is signed by 800 of some of the leading environmentalists and activists in the country today, groups representing all different aspects of the environmental community from the east coast to the west coast, from south to north. They have submitted a letter to us today supporting the efforts I have just articulated. I ask unanimous consent the letter, dated November 1, 1999, as well as a table of Federal offshore mineral revenue collections for 1989- 1999 and projects for 1999-2000, be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to say, as we get down to the final days of these negotiations, even though we do not have a bill out of the Senate or out of the House, we do have a lot of language that helps to show there is bipartisan support for this effort. I am hoping the appropriators, who are at the negotiating table, will hear loudly and clearly from hundreds and thousands of individuals and groups that there is a better way to spend this money. We realize we do not have all we would like, but we would like the final product of this Interior bill to come out in a way that is reflective of the principles I have outlined--Federal/State partnership, coastal impact assistance, full funding for land and water, historic preservation, and wildlife conservation, with current appropriated and authorized programs--not anything new, just something a little better, a little different, a little improved. As we are waiting for the final decisions of today and how we are going to proceed I wanted to take some time to have these documents printed in the Record and to thank my colleagues on this side of the aisle, particularly my senior Senator from Louisiana, for his tireless work; particularly Chairman Murkowski for his terrific work on this issue as chairman of our committee; particularly the members of the committee, Senator Johnson, Senator Bayh, Senator Lincoln, and others; Senator Sessions, who has been a terrific supporter. I thank them for their work on this bill and tell them we are moving forward. We are building support and building a bipartisan bill. Today was good news when Chairman Young and the ranking member, George Miller, who had competing versions, came together and signed an agreement that is very reflective of what I think the American public wants us to do in this Congress. We may not be able to get it all done this year, but we could make an important downpayment, a first step towards this historic conservation bill and leave a real legacy for our children and our grandchildren-- not just a 1-year appropriation but a real legacy, as this century ends, of which we can all be proud and all share credit for something well done. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, basically they are saying there is a way, a better way, to allocate these revenues from offshore oil and gas to fund a variety of programs that are fair to all the different parts of this Nation, one that is environmentally friendly, one that focuses on the needs of our coastline and also recognizes the proper role of Congress in authorizing the purchases of land because that is something that should be done not only by the administration, whoever the President may be, Republican or Democrat--whether it is the current President, who has been terrific in many ways on this issue--but it is something that must be worked on in conjunction with the Members of Congress. They have signed a letter that is going to be distributed. I will have it printed for the Record. In addition, I would like the Record to reflect we received 2 weeks ago an endorsement from the National Chamber of Commerce. They usually do not get into environmental issues such as this, but the Chamber of Commerce realizes, as businesspeople representing some of the finest businesses in our country, that a clean environment, access to parks and recreation, improving the quality of life for Americans everywhere, is the Chamber's business because we are about improving the quality of life, improving our economy. They see this as an important bill. It is not that usual to have the environmental community and the business community together. This is one idea they have both said is terrific; let's move forward. Finally, for the Record, I want to resubmit a letter from 40 Governors--not 10, not 12, not Democratic Governors, not Republican Governors. Mr. President, you were a Governor at one time, and a great leader, so you know it is not easy to get 40 signatures from the Governors' Association of Democrats and Republicans who have said the same thing. I ask unanimous consent those letters be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 15 minutes to speak in morning business.