Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. So I think we would be shortchanging these students, our students, our teachers, our parents, if we cannot get this bill straight by giving the flexibility, adding some additional money for class size reduction, adding some additional bonding capacity for school construction and modernization, so we can begin this next century with a real investment in the things that count, that is in our education system, K through 12 particularly.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank my colleague from Vermont. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 280, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act, which we have spent most of the afternoon speaking about today, for several reasons. First, this Ed-Flex bill, as we have come to call it, represents a very solid bipartisan effort to provide greater flexibility in our public schools and, hopefully, improvement. Passage now at this early stage in this Congress sends a very positive message, I think, to the American people that we want to put first things first; we want education to be a priority. We are willing now, with the ordeal of the trial behind us, to work together across party lines for the things that are important to people back home. Second, expanding the Ed-Flex program gives every State and school a chance to temporarily waive sometimes very restrictive specific Federal regulations to help them better meet their new standards and to help them to better utilize the tax dollars that we send to them and that they generate on their own. Thirdly, for its timeliness, I am happy to join this debate because, next Monday, it will be my honor to host Secretary Riley in Louisiana for the first yearly conference on educational excellence in our State, as we reach out to develop stronger Federal-State partnership for reforms in education. As you know, Mr. President, it takes more than just the Federal Government's actions, but it takes our actions, with the States and local governments, to make real these kinds of reforms for the children in our schools. The conference this week in Louisiana and this bill will move us closer to that goal. I also support Ed-Flex because it has proven to be effective over the last 4 years. As my colleague from Oregon has so eloquently pointed out, these pilot programs have worked, and that is why the bill is before us today. We know it works. States and local school districts under Ed-Flex have received waivers for several Federal education programs. These waivers will free States and school districts from unnecessary regulations that stifle innovation in education, while still ensuring the core principles that have been outlined so clearly; specifically, the civil rights principles will be honored with this bill. At the same time, Ed-Flex is voluntary. No State, no school, no district has to apply for these waivers, but they will be available should a school or a district choose to apply. And for accountability's sake, waivers can be revoked under the current draft of the bill, if the Secretary of the Department of Education determines that these waivers granted have not improved significantly the performance of the students in that school or that district. We know that the data resulting from certain demonstration States is very encouraging. For instance, in Texas, where this has seen its greatest use, students with Ed-Flex waivers outperform those in districts without the waivers in the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills in reading and math. In Maryland, the Ed-Flex waiver provided the opportunity for that State to provide for one-on-one tutoring in early grades in reading and math, in grades 1 through 5, and in lowering the student-teacher ratio from 25 to 1, to 21 to 1. Mr. President, with a 6-year-old who is in first grade now, let me tell you that those student-teacher ratios at that level are crucial as our young boys and girls, sons and daughters, learn the skills necessary in reading. That is something I will speak about in a moment. But that is a flexibility that this waiver will provide. Oregon has used the waiver authority to simplify its planning and application structure to allow districts to develop one consolidated plan that meets all State and Federal requirements. Let me thank the distinguished authors of this bill for including language also that is already presented in the bill as drafted that will increase the accountability. Some people are worried that if you grant more freedom, we know that then comes more responsibility, and as more responsibility comes, obviously there is more accountability. We want this bill to hold us all accountable, and through the language that we were able to submit earlier, I think with an additional amendment that may be acceptable to both sides, that accountability piece will be made clear. Let me be quick to say, as I conclude my remarks, that while Ed-Flex is a move in the right direction, much more must be done to improve education. We need to be very clear about this bill. It is a good step in the right direction. It tries to reduce bureaucracy, reduce regulation, give greater flexibility; but it is only one step. We need to do other things. I urge this Congress, my colleagues on both sides, to support initiatives to decrease class size, particularly in the early grades. Let me share with you an alarming statistic from Louisiana that my acting superintendent and staff shared with me earlier. In the recent test of third graders in Orleans Parish in the basic reading test, 72 percent of the students failed their basic proficiency in reading at that level. In a parish outside of Orleans, a more suburban parish that is still struggling and growing, it was 14 percent. I think 14 percent is too high; I think 72 percent is tragic. We need to do everything we can to reduce class size in those early years--kindergarten, first, second and third grade--so we can prevent scores like this from being a reality. So I urge that we pass additional amendments to decrease class size and modernize our school buildings so that our children believe what we say when we say they are important. We want them in an atmosphere to learn and not in buildings that are falling down around them, with roofs that are leaking and situations that are unsafe. I think the Federal Government has an obligation to help spend some of our dollars in that regard, in cost-effective ways. We, as a Nation, face hundreds of issues that affect millions of lives every day, but no single issue is as important to our Nation's future as education and the challenges that our children face in the next century. I was, as you were, Mr. President, a proud author of our pay raise increase for the military. We have a real problem, as the Senator knows, with our readiness in the military forces because the economy is so good. It is hard for us to maintain this voluntary, well-qualified active force. Why? Because the private sector competes. Let me say, in Louisiana a beginning teacher makes $14,000, and in some of our parishes up to $24,000. That is bad enough, but even after teaching 15 or 20 years, with a good record, the salaries are not that much higher, unfortunately. Our State is doing what it can in that regard, but if we can come together and pass $10 billion additionally for the military, in terms of getting our troops ready for the new threats of the future, we most certainly can put our money where our mouth is and pass Ed-Flex and look forward to school construction and class size reduction, so that we can prepare our children for the threats that face them if they are not technologically literate, if they don't read well and communicate well. Our whole Nation will be at risk. I am proud to join my colleagues in support of this important piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to consider that this is a step in the right direction, but we need to do so much more. I hope we can make good progress in this Congress on these important issues. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise in support of S. 314, the Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act. I also want to thank Chairman Bond and Senator Kerry for their leadership on this issue. Without this legislation a large percentage of the 97,000 small businesses in Louisiana and nearly 5 million small business nationwide would not have access to needed credit necessary to repair Year 2000 computer problems. According to recent studies and information provided to the Senate Small Business Committee, as estimated 750,000 small businesses are at risk of being temporarily shut down or incurring significant financial loss. Another four million businesses could be affected in other ways. In fact, any small business is at risk if it uses any computers in its business or related computer applications. For example, any e-commerce business or other businesses that use credit card payments, the use of a service bureau for its payroll, or automated manufacturing equipment could be affected. It is difficult to predict how serious the implications could be. But it is clear that if the Congress does not act, millions of small businesses, so important to our national economy, and millions of families dependent on these enterprises will suffer greatly. A recent survey conducted on behalf of National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, by Arthur Andersen indicated that many small businesses will incur significant costs to become Y2K compliant and are very concerned. The survey found that to become Y2K compliant, 29 percent of small to medium sized businesses will purchase additional hardware, 24 percent will replace existing hardware and 17 percent will need to convert their entire computer system. Then, when asked their most difficult challenge relating to their information technology, more than 54 percent of the businesses surveyed cited ``affording the cost.'' However, according to the NFIB, while these studies indicated many are worried, 40 percent of small businesses don't plan on taking action or do not believe the problem is serious enough to worry about. Fortunately, the Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act, tries to address this problem as well as other credit issues, facing small businesses. First and foremost, it allows the Small Business Administration the authority to expand its guaranteed loan program to provide these businesses with the means to continue operating successfully after January 1, 2000. Moreover, it will provide technical assistance in order to help educate lenders and small firms about the dangers that lie ahead. And, finally, this measure allows small businesses to use Y2K loan proceeds to offset economic injury sustained after the year 2000, due to associated computer glitch problems. Mr. President, with less than a year to go, and many small businesses not prepared for the unforeseeable consequences, Congress must respond expeditiously with the passage of this legislation. Without adequate capital and computer related costs that could result in millions of dollars of damages, the economic consequences could be severe. This legislation is a very positive step to help mitigate the potential loss of thousands of small businesses and the associated impact on our States' and national economies. I ask that my colleagues join me in support of this critical legislation and know that the Congress will be able to send a positive message with the enactment of this legislation in the very near future. Thank you, I yield the floor. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you.

Ms. LANDRIEU. If I could, on behalf of Senator Feingold, who is unable to be here because he is in a committee hearing, to offer this amendment on his behalf. I send it to the desk. This amendment would correct special duty assignment pay inequities between the Reserve components and their active duty counterparts. I understand this is acceptable to you, and the amendment will be accepted.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I spoke with Senator Jeffords earlier about being added as a cosponsor to both amendments 12 and 13.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President and Mr. Chairman. Amendment No. 25 (Purpose: To amend title 37, United States Code, to ensure equitable treatment of members of the National Guard and the other reserve components of the United States with regard to eligibility to receive special duty assignment pay)

Ms. LANDRIEU. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I will make a brief comment. First, I thank the Senator from Vermont for bringing these two important amendments for our Guard and Reserve, and I thank the chairman for accepting them. I will make, just for the Record, a comment about the amendment that we are unable to accept because of its fairly high cost--stipulated to be about $900 million. My staff has informed me and the staff for the committee on our side that this seems to be a very, very important issue to the rank and file. One of the more popular aspects of our bill is the fact that we are now going to allow, at some additional cost, but I, frankly, believe, and I think most Members on both sides believe, it is well worth it to allow this Montgomery GI bill to be transferred to spouses and children--perhaps the most important incentive for people to remain in the military and to be active participants for a longer period of time. I hope we will consider perhaps next year, if not this year, extending the same benefits to the Guard and Reserve. The retention issues are somewhat different, but let me say that the Guard and Reserve are very, very important components to our military forces as we redesign and reorganize our military and depend more on the Guard and Reserve to step in, particularly in terms of our peacekeeping missions. It is very important that we maintain good and adequate benefits for the Guard and Reserve. So while we cannot accept that amendment at this time, I wanted to put this statement in the Record and ask our chairman to perhaps consider next year that we offer the same benefits to our Guard and Reserve unit. I thank the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I understand that.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Four minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today, along with my colleagues, in support of S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights Act. Our military has the finest hardware and equipment in the world, but, as any general or admiral will tell you, the real source of America's strength is America's fighting men and women. We spend billions of dollars to train and equip our troops. I believe the investment has paid off, but we have neglected one very important aspect of this equation. As we now have an all-volunteer force, our training and weapons will be wasted if we cannot keep quality personnel in our Armed Forces. Everyone has seen, I think, the recent press accounts about the personnel shortfalls, particularly in the Navy and Air Force. The discussion in the Washington Post about the status of the U.S.S. Harry Truman, our newest aircraft carrier, provided dramatic evidence of how deep this crisis has grown in our inability to man this vessel. Fortunately, the Senate is able to act now to begin to reverse this trend. S. 4 provides us with a very significant across-the-board minimum pay increase of 4.8 percent. In addition, there will be other increases staggered on top of this targeted to specific areas of the military. As Secretary Cohen has stated, I do not believe we can pay our troops too much, but I do believe we can pay them too little. That is the state we find ourselves in today. In a booming economy, Mr. President, with low unemployment, our well-trained soldiers and sailors can walk off a base and often double their salary for less work. It has made retention very difficult, and we are taking a great stride in alleviating the situation with S. 4. The value of this bill is not just in the actual pay increase, it is also an important gesture that tells our fighting men and women that their Government cares about their well-being and appreciates the very difficult task that we ask them to perform and we are hearing them loudly and clearly. We will keep in mind that pay increases alone, however, cannot solve this problem, as many of my colleagues have said earlier this morning. The military will never be competitive with the private sector on a dollar-for-dollar basis. My friend, Senator Cleland from Georgia, made a similar remark in committee the other day that stuck with me. I think he was quoting someone else, but he said the armed services may recruit a soldier, but we retain a family. And that is so true. When we talk about keeping our troops in the service, we have to remember that the quality-of-life issues for the family is really the core issue--soldiers wanting to be good spouses, soldiers wanting to be good parents, soldiers wanting to have a good quality of life for their family. So while pay is certainly part of the equation, it also extends to housing, medical care, education benefits for spouses and children, day care, operations tempo, and a myriad of other issues that make up a family's quality of life. There is still much to do. This bill is only a beginning, but it is a good step. One of the important steps taken in this bill--and it is quite innovative and I thank, again, the Senator from Georgia for bringing this up in committee--is that we will allow military personnel to transfer their Montgomery GI bill benefits to their spouses or dependents. For midcareer, officer or enlisted person, the knowledge that their children will have access to a quality education by enabling them to use their benefits is a smart incentive and one that is cost effective for us. It is an example of how we can tailor our benefits in a way that meets the needs of precisely the kind of people we want to retain. I also believe it is very important for us to remember the contribution of our Guard and Reserve forces in these discussions. For this reason, I have a series of amendments that address some of the inequity between the benefits programs for our regulars and the Guard and the Reserve units. With a leaner military, Mr. President, we cannot perform the complex missions of our military without a strong Guard and strong Reserve component. We must always keep our eyes on this reality when addressing retention issues. I am proud of the statement that the Senate is making with this legislation. I commend our chairman and our ranking member for bringing this bill to the floor this early in this Congress. I hope that this will not be the end of our work, but rather a strong beginning, a bipartisan beginning. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee to make the real difference in the quality of life for America's military personnel. I thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. Chief Justice, as I begin, as so many of my colleagues have, I would like to thank our leaders for their tremendous patience--Tom, for your steady hand and, Trent, for your good sense of humor. Before I get into the core of my remarks, I would like to say that this ordeal has been, indeed, trying for all of us, but I believe it has strengthened us individually and as a body. We have come to know each other far better. We have gained a deeper appreciation of our individual strengths and gifts. And I am more than satisfied, particularly in listening to my colleague, Olympia Snowe, that this country is in good hands with the men and women here in this chamber. Besides gaining a deeper appreciation for each other and for the Senate itself, we have also shared a great history lesson. For some of us, it has been our first in-depth study of these portions of our history; for others, it has been a timely refresher course; and to one among us, Senator Robert C. Byrd, I trust a rewarding experience as your words and writings on this important constitutional question have brought calm and clarity to our deliberations. So many excellent points have been made in these last days. And I don't want you all to repeat this outside--and I know you can't-- because people would say I am crazy, but I have enjoyed every single moment of these last three days. There has been a lot of talk about our Constitution and the Framers intent regarding the impeachment clause. Many have been mentioned. I will only venture to offer one that has to my knowledge not been mentioned yet because it strikes me as particularly timely, important and ironic. That is the argument of the anti-Federalist faction who fought vigorously for an impeachment provision, because they believed according to Madison, ``. . . that the limitations of the period of service''--and they were speaking about an Executive--``was not sufficient security.'' They believed that in creating a federal government it would quickly get out of control and out of step with the sentiments of the American people. Their fears were palpable. According to some scholars, as outlined in Senator Biden's brief, this charge of possible ``corruption, intrigue, tyranny and arrogance'' between elections by the chief executive was so strong that it was almost fatal to the ratification of the Constitution by the states. It is, indeed, ironic that we are in the process of conducting an impeachment against a president that seems by all impartial and objective analysis--despite his personal failings--to be in step with the American people, in step with their wishes and their hopes for this country, in step with their ideas for a domestic and an international agenda. The latest independent analysis by the New York Times and CNN published today shows that 70% of the American people--a clear majority--believe that the President should not be removed from office. I know that people have rejected talk of analysis and polling. When I was writing this, I felt some hesitation of even bringing it up because I come from a family that wears as a badge of honor the ability to stand alone against great odds. In the 1950's, 60's, and 70's, as one of nine siblings born to parents who were civil rights leaders, it is the only way I knew. I grew up listening to my father tell stories about his lone vote against the Jim Crow laws in the Louisiana Legislature. I grew up thinking that was the right thing to do. I believe at this time, it still is. But as the Bible would infer, there is a time to lead and there is a time to listen. For those who are still struggling at this last hour with your decision, regardless of how strongly you might feel about what the President did, I respectfully suggest that you can find comfort in the wisdom of the people. Should we make all of our decisions based on polls and public opinion surveys? Absolutely not. However, this particular situation is different. Let me point out two important distinctions. One, this is not a regular issue. The people know a lot about this case. They have a clear high-tech, 20th century view of the currents and events shaping it. All of them: the good, the bad, and the ugly. It has been the most publicized and analyzed political/legal case of this century and perhaps all of history. Two, this is the greatest and most admired democracy on the face of the earth. As Patrick Moynihan so eloquently pointed out: One so rare and precious, it is truly a treasure. In such a democracy, the people's voices should count. Thomas Jefferson said, ``Democracy is cumbersome, slow and inefficient.'' Over the last twelve months, we can certainly attest to that. ``But,'' he said, ``in due time, the voice of the people will be heard and their latent wisdom will prevail.'' As for me, I voted to dismiss both articles at the first appropriate opportunity. I did so after careful review of the facts, the evidence and a reading of the relevant parts of the Constitution and the other appropriate historical documentation. My colleague, Olympia Snowe, and others have eloquently gone through many of the details of the case, and I will not take time to repeat them now. I concluded that the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, while serious indeed, overlaid an immoral but not a criminal act against the state, one that is essentially private and not a public act. Therefore, in my judgment the charges did not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, a high constitutional bar which has served us exceedingly well over the last 223 years. So today for those same reasons, and in respect for the people of this democracy, I will vote to acquit the President on both charges. As I said in an earlier statement, which at this time I would like to add to this record, this vote should not be interpreted as approval of the President's actions which were reckless, irresponsible and showed a serious lack of judgment. A sexual dalliance with a White House intern and the subsequent breach of the public trust will cast a deep shadow over his other notable accomplishments and will forever tarnish his presidential legacy. I cast this vote and find my comfort in a clear conscience, in the Constitution, and in the will of the people. In closing, let me make one last appeal. Let us put forth a strong censure resolution. One that doesn't attempt to provide cover for either political party or to make us feel better or worse about our votes. We can all defend our votes, and certainly we will be called on to do so. Let us, rather, craft a resolution which could receive a majority support of both parties. The wording should condemn the President's actions in the strongest terms and call for a national reconciliation. Upholding the Constitution Several weeks ago the Senate took up the somber Constitutional task of sitting in judgment of a president in an impeachment trial. Throughout the trial, I have limited public comment to underscore the impartiality I have brought to this process. Both sides have now spoken and I have reviewed all of the evidence as required by the Constitution. My decision has been made: the actions of President Clinton, while wrong, indefensible and reckless, do not meet the Constitutional standards for removal from office. Therefore I have voted to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment against the President. From the start, I have tried to focus on what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind when they carefully crafted the Impeachment Clause. It is important to remember that for more than 100 years the colonies suffered under the thumb of the tyrannical kings of the English monarchy. A principle goal of the Framers was to have a mechanism to protect the populace from corrupt and oppressive leaders. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison argued that impeachment be used only for ``distinctly political offenses against the state.'' Our Founders were trying to guard against tyranny and oppression, and not personal actions no matter how reprehensible. More than 700 noted legal and historical scholars, both conservative and liberal, agree with this constitutional interpretation of the impeachment clause. The Founders were also rightly concerned that impeachment might be employed as a partisan tool to undermine, even destroy, high ranking government officials--especially the President. They worried a ``powerful partisan majority'' might misuse it for public gain. The House impeachment vote, which essentially fell along party lines, is troubling. Such partisanship was absent during the Watergate proceedings. At that time Republicans and Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee joined together to vote for impeachment because the evidence showed crimes were committed against the government. I also voted against calling witnesses because it is clear that a complete and fair trial can and should be conducted on this voluminous and well-publicized record. Our nation deserves to be spared this protracted spectacle, particularly at a time when public disillusionment of government is at an all-time high and issues like Social Security, education and international crises demand our immediate attention. Critics of this position will somehow believe that President Clinton has avoided punishment. On that issue, let me make two points. First, the power of impeachment was never meant to punish the president, but to protect the nation. Second, the president has already suffered by his reckless behavior and, unfortunately, so has his family. In addition, criminal charges could be brought against him once he leaves office, and he is still subject to civil charges. Worst of all, his inappropriate and reckless behavior and the subsequent breach of public trust will cast a permanent shadow over his other notable accomplishments and will forever tarnish his presidential legacy. In 1868 Senator James G. Blaine voted to convict and remove Andrew Johnson, the only other president to be impeached. Twenty years later he said he had made a ``bad mistake'' and recanted. Upon further reflection he realized that the charges did not warrant the ``chaos and confusion'' of removing President Johnson from office. Likewise, these charges do not warrant the ``chaos and confusion'' that could occur should our last presidential election be overturned. At the conclusion of this trial, I plan to cosponsor a strong censure resolution of President Clinton concluding that his conduct in this matter has brought shame and dishonor to himself and the Office of the President. In my opinion, it would bring a sensible end to this regrettable chapter in American political history. Finally, the ultimate political judgments will be made by the people in future elections. And the lasting judgment will be made by the only One who can.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today with great enthusiasm and pride to introduce a very important piece of legislation. I worked with my colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as well as with other members for over a year before introducing this legislation during the 105th Congress. Now, on this first date of introductions in the 106th Congress, I am reintroducing that legislation with a broad array of cosponsors. We have worked hard to arrive at this long awaited and anticipated point to introduce a bipartisan piece of legislation that may well be the most significant environmental effort of the century. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Murkowski, Lott, Breaux, Sessions, Cleland, Johnson, Gregg, Cochran and Mikulski. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 will go farther than any legislation to date to make good on promises that were made to the people of this country decades ago. In addition, it will begin to right a wrong endured by oil and gas producing states for over 50 years, particularly for the states along the Gulf of Mexico, and my state of Louisiana. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act first provides a guaranteed source of funding equal to twenty-seven percent of all Outer Continental Shelf revenues for Coastal Impact Assistance to states to offset the impacts of offshore oil and gas activity, as well as to non- producing states for environmental purposes. This funding goes directly to States and local governments for improvements in air and water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, wetlands, or other coastal resources, including shoreline protection and coastal restoration. These revenues to coastal states will help offset a range of costs unique to maintaining a coastal zone for specific enumerated uses. The formula is based on population, coastline and proximity to production. Second, the bill provides a permanent stream of revenue for the State and Federal sides of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as well as for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program. Under the bill, funding to the LWCF becomes automatic at sixteen percent of annual revenues. Receiving just under half this amount, the state side of LWCF will provide funds to state and local governments for land acquisition, urban conservation and recreation projects, all under the discretion of state and local authorities. Since its enactment in 1965, the LWCF state grant program has funded more than 37,000 park and recreation projects throughout the nation, including in Louisiana the Joe Brown Park Development in New Orleans, the Baton Rouge Animal Exhibit, the Veterans Memorial Park in Point Barre and the Northwestern State University Recreation Complex in Natchitoches. The Urban Parks 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, not subject to appropriations, will provide greater revenue certainty to state and local planning authorities. A stable baseline will be established for Federal land acquisition through the LWCF at a level higher than the historical average over the past decade. Federal LWCF will receive just under half of the amount in this title of the bill. And, nothing in this bill will preclude additional Federal LWCF funds to be sought through the annual appropriations process. Some very worthy national projects that have received funding in the past include the Atchafalaya National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana, the Mississippi Sandhill Crane Wildlife Refuge, the Cape Cod National Seashore, Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota and the Sterling Forest in New Jersey. Federal LWCF dollars will be used for land acquisition in areas which have been and will be authorized by Congress. Property will be acquired on a willing seller basis. 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. Finally, the wildlife conservation and restoration provision include guaranteed funding of seven percent of annual OCS revenues for wildlife habitat protection, conservation education and de-listing of endangered species. Moreover, this funding may be used by states for habitat preservation and land acquisition of wintering habitat for important species, therefore preventing listings under the Endangered Species Act. There is an incredible groundswell of support for this legislation that is growing. Just a few days ago, in recognition of the efforts undertaken here in Congress in both the House and the Senate, our Nation's President unveiled the Lands Legacy Initiative, which mirrors a number of provisions in the bills introduced here in Congress. I want to acknowledge this praiseworthy effort by the President. Such a development goes even further to emphasize the importance of this bipartisan, bicameral inititative--it is the will of the people. During last November's elections, many states enacted bond initiatives totaling almost $700 million that overwhelmingly demonstrate the value that the public places on green space and recreational opportunities. It is our duty to support those efforts for the benefit of future generations by reinvesting in our renewable resources. It is the right thing to do. While I am proud of the accomplishments represented by the introduction of this bill, I feel compelled to mention other interests that are not included in the legislation, but for which I maintain a strong level of support and commitment. The National Historic Preservation fund is an important authorized use for Outer Continental Shelf revenues. In fact, I introduced legislation last Congress to reauthorize the fund for its continued viability and vitality. In addition, I would like to work with proponents of historic preservation over the course of the 106th Congress to see their needs addressed in the future. This would include similar consideration for Historic Battlefield Preservation. I see the Conservation and Reinvestment Act as a starting point for debate and consideration of additional issues. My cosponsors and I have made some changes to the legislation to reflect the concerns and desires of interested groups. As we move forward on this measure, in the hearing and committee consideration process, I also wish to work with other Members and groups. Indeed, this is a measure that should enjoy broad support, and I want to continue to work toward that end. All three portions of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 will effectively free up State resources which in turn may then be used for other pressing local needs. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act is a perfect opportunity to reinvest in our nation's renewable resources for our children's future and our grandchildren's future. It is an idea whose time has come. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider this proposal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill appear in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today with great enthusiasm and pride to introduce a very important piece of legislation. I worked with my colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as well as with other members for over a year before introducing this legislation during the 105th Congress. Now, on this first date of introductions in the 106th Congress, I am reintroducing that legislation with a broad array of cosponsors. We have worked hard to arrive at this long awaited and anticipated point to introduce a bipartisan piece of legislation that may well be the most significant environmental effort of the century. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Murkowski, Lott, Breaux, Sessions, Cleland, Johnson, Gregg, Cochran and Mikulski. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 will go farther than any legislation to date to make good on promises that were made to the people of this country decades ago. In addition, it will begin to right a wrong endured by oil and gas producing states for over 50 years, particularly for the states along the Gulf of Mexico, and my state of Louisiana. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act first provides a guaranteed source of funding equal to twenty-seven percent of all Outer Continental Shelf revenues for Coastal Impact Assistance to states to offset the impacts of offshore oil and gas activity, as well as to non- producing states for environmental purposes. This funding goes directly to States and local governments for improvements in air and water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, wetlands, or other coastal resources, including shoreline protection and coastal restoration. These revenues to coastal states will help offset a range of costs unique to maintaining a coastal zone for specific enumerated uses. The formula is based on population, coastline and proximity to production. Second, the bill provides a permanent stream of revenue for the State and Federal sides of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as well as for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program. Under the bill, funding to the LWCF becomes automatic at sixteen percent of annual revenues. Receiving just under half this amount, the state side of LWCF will provide funds to state and local governments for land acquisition, urban conservation and recreation projects, all under the discretion of state and local authorities. Since its enactment in 1965, the LWCF state grant program has funded more than 37,000 park and recreation projects throughout the nation, including in Louisiana the Joe Brown Park Development in New Orleans, the Baton Rouge Animal Exhibit, the Veterans Memorial Park in Point Barre and the Northwestern State University Recreation Complex in Natchitoches. The Urban Parks 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, not subject to appropriations, will provide greater revenue certainty to state and local planning authorities. A stable baseline will be established for Federal land acquisition through the LWCF at a level higher than the historical average over the past decade. Federal LWCF will receive just under half of the amount in this title of the bill. And, nothing in this bill will preclude additional Federal LWCF funds to be sought through the annual appropriations process. Some very worthy national projects that have received funding in the past include the Atchafalaya National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana, the Mississippi Sandhill Crane Wildlife Refuge, the Cape Cod National Seashore, Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota and the Sterling Forest in New Jersey. Federal LWCF dollars will be used for land acquisition in areas which have been and will be authorized by Congress. Property will be acquired on a willing seller basis. 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. Finally, the wildlife conservation and restoration provision include guaranteed funding of seven percent of annual OCS revenues for wildlife habitat protection, conservation education and de-listing of endangered species. Moreover, this funding may be used by states for habitat preservation and land acquisition of wintering habitat for important species, therefore preventing listings under the Endangered Species Act. There is an incredible groundswell of support for this legislation that is growing. Just a few days ago, in recognition of the efforts undertaken here in Congress in both the House and the Senate, our Nation's President unveiled the Lands Legacy Initiative, which mirrors a number of provisions in the bills introduced here in Congress. I want to acknowledge this praiseworthy effort by the President. Such a development goes even further to emphasize the importance of this bipartisan, bicameral inititative--it is the will of the people. During last November's elections, many states enacted bond initiatives totaling almost $700 million that overwhelmingly demonstrate the value that the public places on green space and recreational opportunities. It is our duty to support those efforts for the benefit of future generations by reinvesting in our renewable resources. It is the right thing to do. While I am proud of the accomplishments represented by the introduction of this bill, I feel compelled to mention other interests that are not included in the legislation, but for which I maintain a strong level of support and commitment. The National Historic Preservation fund is an important authorized use for Outer Continental Shelf revenues. In fact, I introduced legislation last Congress to reauthorize the fund for its continued viability and vitality. In addition, I would like to work with proponents of historic preservation over the course of the 106th Congress to see their needs addressed in the future. This would include similar consideration for Historic Battlefield Preservation. I see the Conservation and Reinvestment Act as a starting point for debate and consideration of additional issues. My cosponsors and I have made some changes to the legislation to reflect the concerns and desires of interested groups. As we move forward on this measure, in the hearing and committee consideration process, I also wish to work with other Members and groups. Indeed, this is a measure that should enjoy broad support, and I want to continue to work toward that end. All three portions of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 will effectively free up State resources which in turn may then be used for other pressing local needs. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act is a perfect opportunity to reinvest in our nation's renewable resources for our children's future and our grandchildren's future. It is an idea whose time has come. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider this proposal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill appear in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for the next 20 minutes for the purpose of introducing a piece of legislation.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I begin by thanking my colleague from Louisiana Senator Breaux, a cosponsor on this measure, as well as Senator Murkowski, Senator Lott, Senator D'Amato, Senator Cleland, Senator Johnson, Senator Cochran, Senator Sessions and Senator Mikulski as cosponsors of this measure, and also thank the many leaders on the House side that are today introducing this bill on the House side. Surely, with the time so short, we will not be considering this bill in this session, but we plan for a very lively debate as the 106th Congress meets in January on this very important piece of environmental legislation for our country. I will take a few minutes to outline in a highlighted form what this bill will attempt to do, something that we have worked on, a group of us, earnestly and very excitedly for the last year. Then my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, will say a few words about the bill. This is the Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act of 1998. It is going to attempt to take 50 percent of the moneys that are now flowing into the Federal Treasury from offshore oil and gas revenues-- which have been very significant; $120 billion since 1955--and redistribute those revenues in a smarter way, in a better way, and in a way that our country can be proud of. We are going to ask that 27 percent of those revenues be distributed to coastal States for coastal conservation impact assistance, 16 percent to fund more fully the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and 7 percent to fund the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Act. These are the major titles of this bill. Let me very briefly hit on each one. I am from Louisiana, a State that has supported, proudly supported, oil and gas drilling and exploration. It has created many jobs in our State. We try to do it in a more environmentally sensitive way each and every year, and every decade we make tremendous progress. Other States like Texas, Mississippi, and to a certain degree, Alabama, although not as much, and Alaska, join in that effort. There are many States that do not have drilling and many States that have a moratorium on drilling. This bill is not a pro-drilling bill or anti-drilling bill. The purpose is to say that the production of those resources off the shores of our States, although they are offshore, have tremendous impact--both positive and negative--on the States that host drilling. Louisiana has contributed since the 1950s over 90 percent of these revenues that I spoke about, the $120 billion, and we have gotten less than 1 percent back. It is time to correct that inequity. That is what the first title of this bill does. It says to Louisiana, thank you for your commitment to our energy security and for the way that you have contributed to this oil and gas drilling. We believe that some of this money should go back to help your State and the coastal areas to shore up our wetlands and to reinvest in our environment. That is Title I of this bill. It will distribute funds to all coastal States, whether they have drilling or not. As I said, there are no incentives; there are no disincentives. It is a revenue-sharing bill to all the coastal States. These revenues are collected from a nonrenewable resource. One day these oil and gas wells will be dried up. It might be 10 years from now or 20 years from now, but some day they will be dried up, and we want to make sure that a portion of this money is reinvested back into our States for environmental infrastructure and wetland conservation so that we have something to show for it. The second part of this bill amends the Land and Water Conservation Act in an attempt to restore this fund, or to more fully fund it. I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an excerpt from an editorial from the New York Times on this subject. I will read the first short paragraph of this editorial. More than 30 years ago, Congress passed a quiet little environmental program that offered great promise to future generations of Americans. Conceived under Dwight Eisenhower, proposed by John F. Kennedy and signed into law by Lyndon Johnson, the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund was designed to provide a steady revenue stream to preserve ``irreplaceable lands of natural beauty and unique recreational value.'' Royalties from offshore oil and gas leases would provide the money, giving the program an interesting symmetry. Dollars raised from depleting one natural resource would be used to protect another. The problem is, this promise was never fulfilled. That is what the second title of this bill will do. It seeks to make this promise real for our families, for our children, and for the next generation. It will take, as I said, 16 percent of these revenues to almost fully fund the State side and the Federal side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It will provide a reliable and steady stream of revenue to do just that. Let me share with you that on the Federal side in only 6 out of the last 33 years have we really lived up to the promise that we made to the land and water conservation side. On the State side, the funding record has been even more dismal. Only 1 year out of 33 years since this Land and Water Conservation Fund was enacted did we live up to that promise. So title II happens to fully restore funding so that we can plan and count on these moneys to help expand our parks and our recreation for our children and families in rural and urban areas around this great country. Finally, title III is a new title, a new chapter, but an attempt to sort of weave together some of the attempts by my colleague, Senator Breaux, and others to improve the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Act. I believe it makes little sense to spend all of our money in this area on the back end, after species have become endangered. Then we have problems not only with the species in question but with property rights. We have questions with economies that can be very negatively affected when industries have to move out or can't proceed because of this. So we believe it is time to start investing some money on the front end. That is what this title does--helping species, helping States to give educational and technical assistance to stop these species from becoming endangered, and therefore saving the taxpayers a lot of money and local economies a lot of anguish, and to give some much-needed revenue to our State wildlife agencies around this country. So those are generally the titles of the bill. I just want to say that it is high time that we live up to the promise made 30 years ago, and we can do that by more wisely spending this money. It makes no sense to take 100 percent of these revenues and spend them on Federal operating expenses that have nothing to do with our environment, or with this promise that was made, or with our investments in future generations. It is time not just for Louisiana, Texas, Alaska, and Mississippi, who have contributed so much to this industry, but also it is high time for all of our States to benefit in a more direct way than they are currently. This is a wiser fiscal policy, it is a much wiser environmental policy, and it most certainly is an idea whose time has come. To reiterate, the Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act of 1998 will go farther than any legislation to date to make good on promises that were made to the people of this country decades ago. In addition, it will begin to right a wrong endured by oil and gas producing states for over 50 years, particularly for the states along the Gulf of Mexico, and my state of Louisiana. The Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act first provides a guaranteed source of funding equal to twenty-seven percent of all Outer Continental Shelf revenues for Coastal Impact Assistance to states to offset the impacts of offshore oil and gas activity, as well as to non- producing states for environmental purposes. This funding goes directly to States and local governments for improvements in air and water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, wetlands, or other coastal resources, including shoreline protection and coastal restoration. These revenues to coastal states will help offset a range of costs unique to maintaining a coastal zone. The formula is based on population, coastline and proximity to production. Second, the bill provides a permanent stream of revenue for the State and Federal sides of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as well as for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program. Under the bill, funding to the LWCF becomes automatic at sixteen percent of annual revenues. Receiving just under half this amount, the state side of LWCF will provide funds to state and local governments for land acquisition, urban conservation and recreation projects, all under the discretion of state and local authorities. Since its enactment in 1965, the LWCF state grant program has funded more than 37,000 park and recreation projects throughout the nation, including in Louisiana the Joe Brown Park Development in New Orleans, the Baton Rouge Animal Exhibit, the Veterans Memorial Park in Point Barre and the Northwestern State University Recreation Complex in Natchitoches. The Urban Parks 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, not subject to appropriations, will provide greater revenue certainty to state and local planning authorities. A stable baseline will be established for Federal land acquisition through the LWCF at a level higher than the historical average over the past decade. Federal LWCF will receive just under half of the amount in this title of the bill. And, nothing in this bill will preclude additional Federal LWCF funds to be sought through the annual appropriations process. Some very worthy national projects that have received funding in the past include the Atchafalaya National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana, the Mississippi Sandhill Crane Wildlife Refuge, the Cape Cod National Seashore, Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota and the Sterling Forest in New Jersey. Federal LWCF dollars will be used for land acquisition in areas which have been and will be authorized by Congress. 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. Finally, the wildlife conservation and restoration provision includes guaranteed funding of seven percent of annual OCS revenues for wildlife habitat protection, conservation education and de-listing of endangered species. Moreover, this funding may be used by states for habitat preservation and land acquisition of wintering habitat for important species, therefore preventing listings under the Endangered Species Act. While we are proud of the accomplishment represented by the introduction of this bill, I feel compelled to mention other interests that are not included in the legislation, but for which I maintain a strong level of support and commitment. The National Historic Preservation Fund is an important authorized use for Outer Continental Shelf revenues. In fact, I introduced legislation earlier this year to reauthorize the fund for its continued viability and vitality. We see the Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act as a starting point for debate and consideration of additional issues. I would like to work with proponents of historic preservation over the course of the year to see their needs addressed in the future. This would include similar consideration for Historic Battlefield Preservation, which is important to other members in this body. I also wish to work with other groups to address their concerns about other provisions in the bill having to do with formulas. Indeed, this is a measure that should enjoy broad support, and I want to continue to work with groups to that end. Mr. President, all three portions of the bill will effectively free up State resources which in turn may then be used for other pressing local needs. The Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act is a perfect opportunity to reinvest in our nation's renewable resources for the benefit of our children's future and our grandchildren's future. It is an idea whose time has come. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider this proposal. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Murkowski, and I thank the majority leader, Senator Lott, for all of their help in making this legislation possible. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and New York Times editorial be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I begin by thanking my colleague from Louisiana Senator Breaux, a cosponsor on this measure, as well as Senator Murkowski, Senator Lott, Senator D'Amato, Senator Cleland, Senator Johnson, Senator Cochran, Senator Sessions and Senator Mikulski as cosponsors of this measure, and also thank the many leaders on the House side that are today introducing this bill on the House side. Surely, with the time so short, we will not be considering this bill in this session, but we plan for a very lively debate as the 106th Congress meets in January on this very important piece of environmental legislation for our country. I will take a few minutes to outline in a highlighted form what this bill will attempt to do, something that we have worked on, a group of us, earnestly and very excitedly for the last year. Then my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, will say a few words about the bill. This is the Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act of 1998. It is going to attempt to take 50 percent of the moneys that are now flowing into the Federal Treasury from offshore oil and gas revenues-- which have been very significant; $120 billion since 1955--and redistribute those revenues in a smarter way, in a better way, and in a way that our country can be proud of. We are going to ask that 27 percent of those revenues be distributed to coastal States for coastal conservation impact assistance, 16 percent to fund more fully the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and 7 percent to fund the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Act. These are the major titles of this bill. Let me very briefly hit on each one. I am from Louisiana, a State that has supported, proudly supported, oil and gas drilling and exploration. It has created many jobs in our State. We try to do it in a more environmentally sensitive way each and every year, and every decade we make tremendous progress. Other States like Texas, Mississippi, and to a certain degree, Alabama, although not as much, and Alaska, join in that effort. There are many States that do not have drilling and many States that have a moratorium on drilling. This bill is not a pro-drilling bill or anti-drilling bill. The purpose is to say that the production of those resources off the shores of our States, although they are offshore, have tremendous impact--both positive and negative--on the States that host drilling. Louisiana has contributed since the 1950s over 90 percent of these revenues that I spoke about, the $120 billion, and we have gotten less than 1 percent back. It is time to correct that inequity. That is what the first title of this bill does. It says to Louisiana, thank you for your commitment to our energy security and for the way that you have contributed to this oil and gas drilling. We believe that some of this money should go back to help your State and the coastal areas to shore up our wetlands and to reinvest in our environment. That is Title I of this bill. It will distribute funds to all coastal States, whether they have drilling or not. As I said, there are no incentives; there are no disincentives. It is a revenue-sharing bill to all the coastal States. These revenues are collected from a nonrenewable resource. One day these oil and gas wells will be dried up. It might be 10 years from now or 20 years from now, but some day they will be dried up, and we want to make sure that a portion of this money is reinvested back into our States for environmental infrastructure and wetland conservation so that we have something to show for it. The second part of this bill amends the Land and Water Conservation Act in an attempt to restore this fund, or to more fully fund it. I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an excerpt from an editorial from the New York Times on this subject. I will read the first short paragraph of this editorial. More than 30 years ago, Congress passed a quiet little environmental program that offered great promise to future generations of Americans. Conceived under Dwight Eisenhower, proposed by John F. Kennedy and signed into law by Lyndon Johnson, the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund was designed to provide a steady revenue stream to preserve ``irreplaceable lands of natural beauty and unique recreational value.'' Royalties from offshore oil and gas leases would provide the money, giving the program an interesting symmetry. Dollars raised from depleting one natural resource would be used to protect another. The problem is, this promise was never fulfilled. That is what the second title of this bill will do. It seeks to make this promise real for our families, for our children, and for the next generation. It will take, as I said, 16 percent of these revenues to almost fully fund the State side and the Federal side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It will provide a reliable and steady stream of revenue to do just that. Let me share with you that on the Federal side in only 6 out of the last 33 years have we really lived up to the promise that we made to the land and water conservation side. On the State side, the funding record has been even more dismal. Only 1 year out of 33 years since this Land and Water Conservation Fund was enacted did we live up to that promise. So title II happens to fully restore funding so that we can plan and count on these moneys to help expand our parks and our recreation for our children and families in rural and urban areas around this great country. Finally, title III is a new title, a new chapter, but an attempt to sort of weave together some of the attempts by my colleague, Senator Breaux, and others to improve the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Act. I believe it makes little sense to spend all of our money in this area on the back end, after species have become endangered. Then we have problems not only with the species in question but with property rights. We have questions with economies that can be very negatively affected when industries have to move out or can't proceed because of this. So we believe it is time to start investing some money on the front end. That is what this title does--helping species, helping States to give educational and technical assistance to stop these species from becoming endangered, and therefore saving the taxpayers a lot of money and local economies a lot of anguish, and to give some much-needed revenue to our State wildlife agencies around this country. So those are generally the titles of the bill. I just want to say that it is high time that we live up to the promise made 30 years ago, and we can do that by more wisely spending this money. It makes no sense to take 100 percent of these revenues and spend them on Federal operating expenses that have nothing to do with our environment, or with this promise that was made, or with our investments in future generations. It is time not just for Louisiana, Texas, Alaska, and Mississippi, who have contributed so much to this industry, but also it is high time for all of our States to benefit in a more direct way than they are currently. This is a wiser fiscal policy, it is a much wiser environmental policy, and it most certainly is an idea whose time has come. To reiterate, the Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act of 1998 will go farther than any legislation to date to make good on promises that were made to the people of this country decades ago. In addition, it will begin to right a wrong endured by oil and gas producing states for over 50 years, particularly for the states along the Gulf of Mexico, and my state of Louisiana. The Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act first provides a guaranteed source of funding equal to twenty-seven percent of all Outer Continental Shelf revenues for Coastal Impact Assistance to states to offset the impacts of offshore oil and gas activity, as well as to non- producing states for environmental purposes. This funding goes directly to States and local governments for improvements in air and water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, wetlands, or other coastal resources, including shoreline protection and coastal restoration. These revenues to coastal states will help offset a range of costs unique to maintaining a coastal zone. The formula is based on population, coastline and proximity to production. Second, the bill provides a permanent stream of revenue for the State and Federal sides of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as well as for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program. Under the bill, funding to the LWCF becomes automatic at sixteen percent of annual revenues. Receiving just under half this amount, the state side of LWCF will provide funds to state and local governments for land acquisition, urban conservation and recreation projects, all under the discretion of state and local authorities. Since its enactment in 1965, the LWCF state grant program has funded more than 37,000 park and recreation projects throughout the nation, including in Louisiana the Joe Brown Park Development in New Orleans, the Baton Rouge Animal Exhibit, the Veterans Memorial Park in Point Barre and the Northwestern State University Recreation Complex in Natchitoches. The Urban Parks 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, not subject to appropriations, will provide greater revenue certainty to state and local planning authorities. A stable baseline will be established for Federal land acquisition through the LWCF at a level higher than the historical average over the past decade. Federal LWCF will receive just under half of the amount in this title of the bill. And, nothing in this bill will preclude additional Federal LWCF funds to be sought through the annual appropriations process. Some very worthy national projects that have received funding in the past include the Atchafalaya National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana, the Mississippi Sandhill Crane Wildlife Refuge, the Cape Cod National Seashore, Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota and the Sterling Forest in New Jersey. Federal LWCF dollars will be used for land acquisition in areas which have been and will be authorized by Congress. 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. Finally, the wildlife conservation and restoration provision includes guaranteed funding of seven percent of annual OCS revenues for wildlife habitat protection, conservation education and de-listing of endangered species. Moreover, this funding may be used by states for habitat preservation and land acquisition of wintering habitat for important species, therefore preventing listings under the Endangered Species Act. While we are proud of the accomplishment represented by the introduction of this bill, I feel compelled to mention other interests that are not included in the legislation, but for which I maintain a strong level of support and commitment. The National Historic Preservation Fund is an important authorized use for Outer Continental Shelf revenues. In fact, I introduced legislation earlier this year to reauthorize the fund for its continued viability and vitality. We see the Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act as a starting point for debate and consideration of additional issues. I would like to work with proponents of historic preservation over the course of the year to see their needs addressed in the future. This would include similar consideration for Historic Battlefield Preservation, which is important to other members in this body. I also wish to work with other groups to address their concerns about other provisions in the bill having to do with formulas. Indeed, this is a measure that should enjoy broad support, and I want to continue to work with groups to that end. Mr. President, all three portions of the bill will effectively free up State resources which in turn may then be used for other pressing local needs. The Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act is a perfect opportunity to reinvest in our nation's renewable resources for the benefit of our children's future and our grandchildren's future. It is an idea whose time has come. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider this proposal. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Murkowski, and I thank the majority leader, Senator Lott, for all of their help in making this legislation possible. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and New York Times editorial be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, after two and a half months of debate on the economic and disaster crisis facing rural America and thousands of farm families, we are voting on a measure that provides $4.2 billion in economic relief to our farmers. During the course of this debate, we have heard from our Democratic Leader, who I want to commend for his leadership on this issue, our President, and many others who believe that much more assistance is needed to adequately address the serious situation facing rural America. I fully agree that the relief provided in this legislation is far less than meaningful for Louisiana and other Southern states who are suffering one of the worst droughts in 100 years. Already, we have thousands of farmers whose crops and pasture land have been burnt up by the heat and an estimated $450 million in crop losses in Louisiana alone. These same farmers are also facing some of the worst commodity prices in over a decade. Not only are Louisiana farmers hit with low prices, they also have no crop. Therefore, I have argued and strongly supported additional funding to address this crisis. This funding is justified and should be provided. However, Mr. President, we also have a conference report before us, a bill that provides a total of $55.7 billion in essential funding for some very important agriculture, rural development, and nutrition programs. Additionally, included in this measure is over $25 million for much needed research and education projects in Louisiana. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Louisiana and I have both advocated for additional funding for our farmers. However, the bottom line is that many members in the House and Senate have differing views about how this assistance should be delivered. Furthermore, many members have strong philosophical reasons for opposing even the $4.2 billion provided in this relief package. Therefore, with only a few days remaining, before the Congress adjourns and the $450 million in associated crop damages facing Louisiana, the $4.2 billion provided in this legislation, is the best option on the table for providing immediate assistance to my state. Therefore, I am rising in support of this measure, which as stated by the Chairman and Senator Bumpers has been one of the most difficult conference reports ever considered by the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. Mr. President, before I conclude my remarks I want to make two additional points. While I recognize that this is not the appropriate bill to reform crop insurance, I want to make a prediction that if this issue along with revisions to the current loan rate structure are not addressed early next year, we will be back on the Senate floor debating an even greater economic farm crisis. Then, we will not only be hearing from farmers, but bankers, retail store owners and state chambers of commerce. I know that many of my colleagues strongly support crop insurance reform. However, many Senators are opposed to revisiting any of the loan rate provisions included in the 1996 Farm Bill. From my discussions with several reputable farmers in Louisiana this issue should be reconsidered. Mr. President, with the many complicated issues facing farmers, only through a bipartisan effort can we begin to address these matters. Therefore, I hope that the Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and Senate will take the additional steps needed early next year to address and resolve this pending economic agriculture crisis. I thank the Chairman for yielding his time and I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, on Monday, the Senate adopted the conference report on H.R. 4103, the Department of Defense Appropriations bill. I wanted to take this opportunity to discuss a relatively small part of this budget which has a huge impact on my state. Outside of the City of New Orleans, we have one of the few remaining shipyards in the country that still builds ocean-going ships for the Navy. Avondale Shipyards is a key employer in the area. With over 5,000 working men and women, it is the largest private employer in the region. Louisiana has a proud maritime tradition, and has a particular expertise in ship building. As a shipyard of tremendous capacity and infrastructure, and the host of the Maritime Excellence Center, Avondale has played an important part in the development of this industry. However, Avondale has also maintained a record of labor relations which Judge Evans of the National Labor Relations Board termed ``outrageous and pervasive.'' This is not the image of Louisiana's growing maritime industry that I want projected. I believe that Louisiana should be the world leader in shipbuilding, but I also believe that we cannot attain that status through substandard wages and unsafe working conditions. Many manufacturing sectors in our country have been faced with international competition that created difficult times. The way these industries rebounded was not to turn back the clock on progress made in working conditions and wages. Instead, our industrial sector did just the opposite: they grew more hi-tech and more specialized; they invested in their workers, and they invested in new technologies. This is the only route to true success and leadership. Louisiana's shipyards will never be able to compete with countries like China and the Phillippines on the basis of wages--the key is to concentrate on American strengths: technology, craftsmanship and quality. That is my goal for Avondale. To help them become a world leader, and transition away from practices which threaten that objective. The seemingly endless dispute between management and labor at Avondale is a huge impediment to the process. I am ready to work with anyone who in good faith seeks to resolve the problem. In this spirit, I have talked to the Navy about Avondale and inquired about the significance of labor relations in Navy contracts. Let me be clear, I did not make these inquires to block contracts from being awarded to Avondale. It benefits no one to have workers loose their jobs and the state diminish its industrial base in order to make a point. This is especially true when we should have a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on the union election in the near future. I voted for the Defense Appropriations bill, because I believe in a strong defense. I also voted for the Defense Appropriations bill because I believe in a strong Avondale. The government provides over eighty percent of Avondale's contracts. The shipyard cannot function without them. I have no intention of jeopardizing Avondale's future. My sole objective is to facilitate my state's future success in the maritime field. Avondale must be part of that success. This long- standing labor dispute should be resolved at the earliest possible time to achieve that end.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, over the past several weeks the senior Senator from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, and I have expressed grave concerns about the pending economic crisis that Louisiana and other Southern states face as a result of the worst drought in Louisiana and the South's history. Earlier this week, more disturbing information was brought to our attention by Terry Smith, a second generation farmer, cotton gin manager and marketing consultant from Jonesville, Louisiana who testified before a hearing called by Senator Daschle on the farm crisis. The plea by Mr. Smith and others in Louisiana is a wake up call. If the Congress fails to respond to the natural disaster crisis in the South for this crop year, not only will farmers be forced into bankruptcy, but banks, hundreds of small businesses and the rural economy that is supported by the agriculture industry will suffer greatly. Mr. President, Louisiana began the year with record rainfall during the Winter and early Spring followed by the hottest Summer on record. Just during the last three months, Louisiana has had 71 days of 97 degree or higher temperatures with 36 days higher than 100 degrees. Things are not looking any better and we are told that with the past and current extreme weather conditions the current loss estimates of $450 million are expected to increase even more during the coming weeks. This is not good news especially for Louisiana corn, cotton, soybean and livestock producers in North Louisiana who have been hit hardest. To explain the difficulties that Louisiana farmers are experiencing I would like to take a few moments to highlight some of the high points of Terry's remarks. His recent statement very clearly tells the story of the projected impact this natural disaster has had on thousands of family farms and the future economy of some of the poorest areas in Louisiana. Specifically, his testimony focuses on the economic losses projected for Louisiana's major row crops--corn, cotton and soybeans. Mr. President, corn farmers in Louisiana under normal weather patterns are able to produce about 100-200 bushels per acre for non- irrigated corn. To date, the best corn yields in Louisiana have been in the 40-50 bushel per acre range. In addition, a large percentage of Louisiana's corn crop is infested with aflatoxin, a toxic mold that results from heat stress and is harmful to humans and animals at certain levels. Due to the toxic nature of this mold, corn harvested with aflatoxin in excess of 20 parts per billion can not be sold to most grain elevators. The grain elevators that will except infested corn is only paying $1.00 per bushel--less than half of what is needed to cover the farmer's production costs. Therefore, the farmer has two options--(1) sell the crop at discounted price of $1.00 an acre or (2) leave it in the field to rot and collect about the same amount, if the farmer has Catastrophic Crop Insurance. Most farmers with aflatoxin in their corn above 20 billion parts per million are finding it unpractical to even harvest. Those farmers who are lucky enough to have corn without aflatoxin will not be able to cover even half of their production costs due to low yields and low prices. What is the result of this situation? The Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service recently estimated that corn farmers in one North Louisiana Parish will lose about $154 per acre or about $3.85 million this year. Our cotton farmers just began their harvest last week, but the outlook is not much better. Cotton yields in Louisiana generally average about 800 to 1000 pounds per acre. As of last week, cotton yields have been averaging 100 to 650 pounds per acre, one third to one half of normal production yields. Also, the quality has been extremely poor due to the hot dry summer and will discount the price the farmer gets for his crop by several cents per pound. With production costs of cotton in Louisiana ranging from $500 to $600 per acre, it is estimated that the average cotton farmer will lose approximately $131,000 this year. Soybean harvest has also just begun. Yields thus far are less than 10 bushels per acre, which is down approximately 65% from normal. Most fields in North Louisiana are averaging about 4-5 bushels per acre. Also, because of the hot, dry weather, chemicals have not been preforming and weeds have been a tremendous problem. With the extreme low prices of soybeans and low yields, farmers in hardest hit areas can expect to lose approximately $85 per acre or about $42,500 this year. These are just a few examples of how the major row crops will be impacted. In addition, our larger agriculture lending institutions are expecting very low repayments this year. One of the larger banks in the state says that of $18 million in crop loans, they are expecting to be repaid only 30-35% of the outstanding loans. Another bank expects that 40-50% of the agricultural loans will not be totally paid this year. Not only will crop loans not be repaid, but outstanding bills for crop inputs such as chemicals, fertilizer and fuel may not be paid in full. In the words of one banker ``spendable income will be down 75% of normal. This is the money used to buy clothing, household goods and for paying the utilities.'' Mr. President, these are real examples of the economic hardships facing farmers, their families and the rural communities they support. Many farm families do not know what they are going to do in order to make it another year. Many may end up in the local unemployment office. I hope that this Congress does not let this happen. Farmers in Louisiana and other Southern states need disaster assistance, and they need it before the Congress adjourns. They need this assistance delivered in a manner that is fair. Thus, this relief should only be provided to those farmers with demonstrated crop losses. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in support of direct disaster payments to the thousands of farmers who provide us with three square meals a day. This source is so often taken for granted every day when we feed our families. Mr. President, before I conclude my remarks, I would like to talk about some specific relief measures needed to address the 1998 crop losses in Louisiana and other Southern states that have lost a large portion of their crops due to the drought and associated disease. These measures include: 1. The Secretary should deliver direct disaster payments to compensate all farmers for 1998 crop losses through the Farm Service Agency (FSA). 2. Payments should be based on actual farm yields using the past five years of actual production history, excluding the crop year with the lowest yields per harvested acre and any crop year in which the crop was not planted on the farm. Actual production losses should be adjusted because of quality losses caused by damaging weather and related conditions, including diseases such as aflatoxin. If no five year history is available, the Secretary should use the average county yields. 3. With respect to livestock producers, direct payments should cover the cost of feed, the establishment of supplemental pastures and other losses due to natural disasters, including livestock and poultry weight losses, poultry mortality and livestock milk production losses. 4. With respect to tree farmers, direct payments should cover the cost of replanting seedlings and cover production costs of pecan and peach farmers who suffered losses due to a natural disaster during the 1998 crop year. 5. Presently, any farmer who collected a Catastrophic Crop Insurance Payment (CAT) or Non-Insured Crop Insurance Payment (NAP) is ineligible for a low-interest Emergency Loan. This should be amended. 6. Also, there is presently a seven year limit on the amount of credit that can be extended through the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA). On an emergency basis, the Secretary of Agriculture should be granted the authority to waive the current limitation. 7. Finally, Mr. President, all the farmers that I have spoken with tell me the crop insurance program is not working. I think we do have some serious problems that can not be addressed in three weeks and should be revisited next year. However, one valid problem that can be addressed this year is to require USDA not to exclude from coverage approved existing planting methods. Currently, all broadcast soybeans planted in Louisiana are ineligible for crop insurance coverage due to the fact that they are seeded by broadcasting means such as aerial application. This is wrong and should be amended. Mr. President, this concludes my remarks and I ask unanimous consent that the crop damages as reported by the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. The oil industry is reorganizing itself in such a way that all it is asking for, I say to the Senator from California and others, is a fair rule that is clearly understood so that they can pay their fair share, get out of the courtrooms, cut their cost of their lawyers and accountants, pay the taxpayers their fair share, and get on with their business. It is in nobody's interest for this to continue in this way--not for business, not for jobs, not for the taxpayer. That is what this argument is about, with all due respect to everyone who has said, I think, very tough things about oil companies wanting to cheat. Most of the oil companies I know do not want to cheat. Most of the oil companies are happy to pay their tab, they just would like a clear signal about what tab it is that they owe. And they do not want to spend their time in court. I am afraid if we let this rule go through, we are going to spend more time in court, waste more taxpayer money and not move us 5 feet down the ballfield on this subject. So that is why I am opposing Senator Boxer's amendment and supporting to give us additional time to work out some language so that everybody can pay their fair share, and the taxpayers can benefit, and we can all get out of the courtrooms and get on to running our businesses. Thank you so much. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President.