Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, I yield.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I say to my wonderful colleague from Arkansas before I get into the substance of my remarks, I have tremendous respect for him for his tremendous fight over such a long period of time on issues like this. Yesterday, we were together in our arguments because we have very similar feelings, which I think is shared by many in this body, about paying the taxpayer their fair share when it comes to minerals. I say to Senator Bumpers, he is going to be missed. I am going to pick up the fight, as I told him before, on hard rock mining, but there are some big differences between what we talked about on mining yesterday and what we are speaking about today. One of those big differences is in hard rock mining there are no royalties paid. It is a system that cries out for reform and change. In this instance--and I know you say, ``Well, there is Landrieu; she's from an oil and gas State. We knew she was going to say this.'' Trust me, when this issue first came up, I didn't know what I was going to say, for a number of reasons. Maybe I should say something about that first. Before you came here, you were a Governor, but I was a State treasurer and I managed a billion dollars that came from the Outer Continental Shelf. Because we are a poor State, because we haven't managed our resources as well as we could have in the past, and because of other issues--we didn't have computers in the classrooms--I managed that money more carefully than I manage my own. It came from these royalties, and I treasured every single penny, because with every dime, we could then hire a new teacher or put a computer in a classroom or buy software for kids. I am there with you on that 100 percent. We had that billion dollars, and it is growing every day and we are happy for it in Louisiana. I believe as deeply as I can express that we want the taxpayers to receive their absolute fair share to the penny because these dollars can be put to good use, and I hope they will be put to better use, because the other point I want to make is I am getting ready to introduce--I hope with Senator Bumpers and others and Senator Hutchison from Texas--a bill that will help redistribute these royalties that we get and have been getting since 1955 to the tune of $120 billion, which the Federal Government has received from these royalties; to redistribute it in a better way; to invest it in our environment; to invest it in the expansion of our national parks; to invest it for the expansion of our urban parks; to prevent species from becoming endangered, a real investment in our environment, a real payback in the right and noble sense to the taxpayer. I am 100 percent on the record for just royalties being paid, for substantial royalties being paid when appropriate, so I don't want there to be a question--and I so much respect the Senator for his fight--but this issue is about really litigation and lawsuits and unclear regulations. It is not necessarily an environmental or antienvironmental issue, and it shouldn't be a drilling or a nondrilling issue. It is about whether we should adopt a rule that is either going to stop the litigation, or we are going to adopt this new rule that isn't going to stop the litigation. The rule that we have to consider for which we are now asking for a suspension is not going to do anything, as much respect as I have for Senator Boxer, in stopping the litigation. To put this in perspective, let me say to my colleagues that last year, Minerals Management Service received $6 billion from royalties. At issue here is $66 million, which is less than 1 percent of the total. This isn't about oil companies not wanting to pay royalties. I say to the distinguished Senator from California, they sent to the Federal Treasury $6 billion last year, and the year before it was $4 billion, and since 1955 it has been $120 billion. They are not opposed to sending their fair share, but because the regulations are complicated, they are difficult--the oil industry is reorganizing itself, driven by technology and the pressures--may I have 2 more minutes?

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague from Arkansas to add just a moment of my thoughts to the tremendous argument he has made to strike this language from the Interior appropriations bill and to try to move us on in a path of real reform on this issue, reform that is so long overdue. Since 1971, attempt after attempt after attempt has been made, either to pass laws to reform the 1872 statute-- attempts that have failed because there is not enough support--or we have tried to take some steps through regulations. Yet delay after delay after delay has taken place. I want to submit for the Record, to date $71 billion in damages have occurred at taxpayer expense from hard rock mining--$71 billion. Mr. President, we have 557,000 abandoned hard rock mining sites in the United States alone that have to be dealt with, 300,000 acres of Federal land left unreclaimed, 2,000 sites in national parks in need of reclamation, as well as 59 Superfund mining sites on the National Priorities List and 12,000 miles of polluted rivers. When will the taxpayers get some relief from this law that is so far outdated and has long since met its original intent? Besides the giving away of the land for pennies, the taxpayers are then held to pick up the tab for the damage that is caused. There are some reasonable solutions that do not devastate the industry but they do begin to clean up our environment. I support the Honorable Senator from Arkansas and ask all of our colleagues to join with him in this amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, two months ago, I joined my colleagues in requesting assistance for our Nation's farmers in Louisiana and other parts of the Nation who are on the brink of bankruptcy. Not because they are bad farmers but as a result of natural disasters and prices that they cannot control. In Louisiana, farmers are experiencing the most severe agriculture disaster it has been subjected to in the last 100 years. The Louisiana State University (LSU) Agricultural Center has estimated crop losses at $391 million. When losses due to aflatoxin in corn and livestock losses are added, the State is projecting escalated losses of $450 million. If no effective disaster relief is provided, Louisiana will lose 35-40 percent of its farmers. Without these farmers the State projects that its economy will lose an additional $1 billion. Mr. President, this is a very serious situation, one that warrants an effective solution for the disaster situation facing the South and the income losses facing the Midwest. For Louisiana, relief needed is twofold: One, production loss related to the drought and heat and two, economic. For other areas, income loss assistance needed is different. The major problem in providing equitable relief is that while the Midwest has bumper crops and no price, the South has no crops and no price. Therefore, I am very concerned that while this amendment will provide help to some, it does not go near far enough to ensure that Louisiana farmers are provided the emergency disaster assistance that they need to make it another year. For example, under the current legislation being debated a corn farmer in the Midwest who produces a normal yield of 120 bushels per acre under a loan rate of 30 cents per bushel would receive a Loan Deficiency Payment (LDP) of $36 per acre. In the South, a corn farmer who produced only 50 bushels per acre, due to the drought, under the same loan rate would only receive a LDP of $15 per acre. A corn farmer in the South whose corn had to be destroyed due to aflatoxin would receive no LDP whatsoever. The bottom line is that higher loan rates only benefit producers on actual production sold. The only way higher loan rates would benefit producers whose production was substantially reduced would be to make an economic payment on the lost production in addition to the bushels harvested. Therefore, while this may help farmers in the Midwest, it provides little to no assistance to farmers in the South. The other provision in the underlying amendment that may be more helpful in providing disaster assistance to Louisiana is the $1.5 billion included in the amendment to replenish the national disaster reserve. However, the details in how USDA would implement this measure to provide disaster assistance to farmers with only one year losses, such as in the case of Louisiana, is unclear. As I have previously stated, the reasons for the income loss related problems facing farmers in Louisiana and other parts of the U.S. are quite different, but the results are the same. Only through direct assistance, can Louisiana farmers be helped. For Louisiana and other Southern States, many farmers will not see next year and grow the crops that provide Americans with the safest food supply in the world. Time and time again, when a natural disaster has struck, the Congress has provided the help needed to rebuild our cities and towns. Should we provide help to family farms that are facing an economic disaster beyond their control? Absolutely. It is now time that the Congress work on the bipartisan basis to provide direct financial assistance to our farmers just like we provide assistance to other individuals who have faced disasters beyond their control. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me and my senior colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, in working to ensure this assistance is provided fairly to all farmers, including farmers in Louisiana and the South.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, let me join my distinguished colleague from New Jersey in thanking our distinguished colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, for bringing this issue to the floor today for comments. In addition, let me thank Senator Craig and Senator Graham for their sponsorship of this bill. I wanted to add a few words, because this has been said so eloquently by these two Senators before me, but I would only add just a few thoughts. We celebrate many things in America. We have many special days to commemorate many special individuals and events. We have many months that we set aside to celebrate all sorts of things that are important. This particular 30-day period from September 15 to October 15 is important because it recognizes the Hispanic community and allows us to celebrate together the great contributions that Hispanic-Americans have made to our country as a group and as individuals. They have made valuable contributions decade after decade and century after century, from explorers to pioneers to inventors to entrepreneurs to statesmen and stateswomen who have served our country so admirably. It would take me all day--all year--to stand up and enumerate all the many contributions. But that is what this month is about, to take a moment to recognize the great strengths that the Hispanic community brings to America. It's also to recognize that is in fact what makes our country so different, what makes it uniquely admirable, what makes it the strongest country in the world. It is our diversity and our respect for diversity that makes us so different. In that light, we could give many emotional and moving speeches about these individuals and communities. But I frankly think, as one Senator, that actions speak louder than words. One thing that we could do to take specific action that could express in no uncertain terms our acknowledgment of these contributions, our gratitude toward the Hispanic community, our acknowledgment that we all share responsibilities, obligations and duties equally to make this country strong and also to equally enjoy the protections of our Constitution and what our flag represents than to let Puerto Rico decide it's own political future. There would be no greater, or better, or more appropriate action than to pass the Craig-Graham bill for the status of Puerto Rico, to allow the people to make a choice between either commonwealth or statehood or independence; but, Mr. President, to allow them, when they make that choice, to know the details of what each of those choices will actually mean, to not be unclear. So this is something we have to do together. The people of Puerto Rico have to vote. But this Congress--and the House has already recognized this by a vote of only one, but still a decisive victory, a victory in the House--must recognize that only those efforts are not enough for the people of Puerto Rico, but we have to act to have a bill with the definitions of commonwealth and statehood and independence, so the consequences of their choices would be clear to them and to us and to all the people that we represent. That is why it is important for this bill to pass, regardless of individual Members' feelings about what the outcome should be. Passing this bill would be the best action we could take. I know my constituents are well aware that the 4 million citizens in Puerto Rico do not enjoy the right to vote in Presidential elections, although they do share the obligation of military service and the draft. They do not pay income tax, but they do pay other obligations. The situation needs to be clarified. We can do that by passing this bill and giving them a chance to vote so their responsibilities and duties and protections can become more equal in their alignment. Finally, I reiterate that this group of patriots from Puerto Rico have fought and died for the United States in wars beginning, not just a few years ago, but since the Revolutionary War. For Louisiana it is especially significant, for our first Governor, Bernardo de Galvez, led soldiers that included men from Puerto Rico in an effort to thwart the British in the territory of Florida, which extended from the State of my distinguished colleague, Senator Graham of Florida, all the way to what is now Louisiana and the territory and State which we know in present day as Louisiana. So for our State there is a particular, emotional, long-standing attachment to this issue. With all of what my colleagues have said--and I reiterate, we can give all the great speeches we want, but actions speak louder than words--in light of that, the truth of that, in the light of fairness and what is appropriate, I urge my colleagues to take this month to do something meaningful and real, something more than words, that could have a lasting effect on millions of Puerto Ricans and Americans, and the strength of our country.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I note with sadness the passing of a leading citizen of my hometown, New Orleans, Louisiana. Carolyn Gay Labouisse, a community leader and civic activist for many decades, died this past weekend at the age of 83. She was the daughter of Edward James Gay, a Senator from Louisiana from 1918 until 1921. Known to everyone as ``Blondie,'' she was the classic Southern woman who, when she saw something lacking in the community, would immediately step forward, roll up her sleeves, and set about making things right. For example, when she saw that New Orleans had an inadequate, out-of- date library facility, she immediately began to spearhead efforts to build a new, modern Main Library. She also worked to develop and expand public affairs programming at our local public television station (WYES). She was an active participant in several task force committees dealing with education in New Orleans. Blondie was dedicated to progressive politics. In the 1940's and 1950's, she was part of a circle of young people in New Orleans who fought hard to eliminate corruption from politics and to make state and local government more responsive to the needs of its citizens. She campaigned to elect reform candidates as governor of Louisiana and mayor of New Orleans. She was one of the founding members of the Independent Women's Organization, which is a leading reform organization in New Orleans. She received the 1991 Times-Picayune Loving Cup, the single most prestigious award given annually in New Orleans for community service. The selection committee, in recommending her, noted that ``few show more care and compassion for community and fellow man.'' I extend my sympathies to her family. Blondie Labouisse meant a great deal to the people of New Orleans. She will be missed.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to join my colleague in thanking the Subcommittee for its action last year in providing funding for this vital initiative. I fully agree with my distinguished colleague that the completion of the new communications system for the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office is a high priority project that deserves funding under the FY 1999 COPS Technology Grant Program. The Sheriff's Department has committed to at least a 50-50 cost share with the federal government for this initiative which can serve as a national model. Further, the new communications system will help meet a clear public safety need by supporting interoperability and thus enhancing communication between the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Department and a number of other local and national law enforcement and public safety agencies throughout the region. This interoperability will enhance the Sheriff's Department's effectiveness in combating crime and responding to area-wide public safety emergencies. I would also like to add that funding is needed in order for the Sheriff's Office to meet FCC requirements and the procurement implementation schedule for the new system.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I join my colleague from Louisiana in urging my distinguished colleagues to work in conference to finish the federal commitment we have made to this much-needed system.

Ms. LANDRIEU

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand that the amendment by my distinguished colleague, Mr. Wellstone, has been accepted. I wanted to say how much I admire him for bringing this issue to the attention of the Senate and for his eloquent presentation on what I think is a real problem in our Nation. As he outlined, in Louisiana, during his last visit, he found that one of our facilities sure could stand great improvement. I am also positive that there are many facilities in other States in our Nation that can also use improvement and attention. I wanted to say for the Record that we talk, in campaigns particularly and finally when we get here to this body, a lot about being ``tough on crime.'' We talk about being smart and tough because it takes a combination of that to really drive down these juvenile crime rates, drive down crime rates in America. We need to remain tough, with tough penalties; but we also have to be smart. This was a smart amendment that we accepted just a few minutes ago. This was maybe one of the smartest things we have done in a couple of weeks here--and maybe for a long time --because we have allowed States to take some of their money for construction and use it for mental health services. It does us no good, Mr. President, as we know, to keep juveniles in facilities that are inappropriate and don't offer the proper training and counseling, only to turn them into hardened criminals--for them to then be released to go back into our neighborhoods and communities and wreak havoc when we could have done the smart thing, which Senator Wellstone has urged us to do, and what we have now done, by intervening earlier and providing this counseling, which would prevent us from spending extra money. But it is not just the extra money that we spend, it is also the loss of life, the loss of property, the pain and suffering that is caused when we don't do these things early on. So spending a small amount of money for the proper mental health counseling would go a long way, I think, in our Nation toward getting us to our goal of reducing crime across the board in America. I want to thank the Senator for his visit to Louisiana. I am familiar with this facility. I had some dealings with this and three other facilities when I was State treasurer in Louisiana. At that time, many years ago, I objected to the construction of these facilities based on the thought that it was profits driving them and not good policies about how to incarcerate, when to incarcerate, and what kind of counseling these juveniles would get. Sometimes they are first offenders, sometimes they are nonviolent offenders. The lack of those services has provided a prospective. I did not prevail, obviously, because these facilities were built. We can clearly see now that there are problems when our policies are driven by profits, not good crime- fighting policies and good prevention. I am thankful and glad that we adopted this amendment. I want to voice my support for what we are doing. Hopefully, we can do more of it. Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank our leader for yielding time to me. I wanted to speak earlier for the Record to give my distinguished colleague from Iowa some words from Louisiana. We talk a lot about the Midwest and the Northwest, and the difficulty that our farmers are experiencing, actually all over our country. And the South, Mr. President, is no different. I had a very lengthy conference call with the leaders of many of our commodity groups. I am sorry to bring to this floor that the situation is fairly urgent in Louisiana. I am sure that is true in other places in the South. They are facing economic hardships, unparalleled in many instances. In fact, I asked Ken Methavin, one of our cotton producers from Natchitoches, LA, if he could describe the situation. He said, ``Ms. Landrieu, there ain't nobody alive that has ever seen anything like this for a hundred years.'' We are experiencing in Louisiana a 100-year drought, and for us with usually an ample supply of water it is hard for me even to be able to speak here about the situation that the farmers are experiencing. It is very unusual. Over the past 3 and a half months, our State has received virtually no measurable rainfall in the crop-growing regions of the State. As of this week, the average rainfall totaled 13 inches below our State average. In addition to facing one of the worst droughts in our history, the State is experiencing very high temperatures, over 100 degrees. The combination has resulted in extensive damage to our corn crop. Our soybean farmers, in addition, tell me that about a third of their crop will be in jeopardy. Our dairy farmers continue to face not only the weather conditions-- the lack of water and the high temperatures--but depressed prices are also driving many of them out of business. Milk production has decreased more than 50 percent, in addition, due to damaged pastureland. Our cotton and rice farmers are also expecting to suffer from the drought. In addition, the Asian financial crisis, which has not yet completely hit, threatens to further complicate the situation. Our forest production report is equally disturbing. We planted 100 million seedlings this last year and to date have lost over 50 million, and 15,000 acres of forest in Louisiana have burned, resulting in fire not to be compared to what is happening in Florida, but still a significant amount of acres has been lost. In parish after parish, I am hearing nothing but grim news about the impact of the drought on depressed prices in some areas, and the extreme heat. I am told that even with crop insurance under the current Crop Insurance Program, many of our farmers will not be able to recoup any measurable portion of their input costs. Other farmers who are not eligible for crop insurance have no similar assistance at all to avail themselves of. So I am pleased to be here today on the floor to join our leader, Senator Daschle, in his plea--his urgent plea--for this Congress to come together and to give appropriate assurance and appropriate measures to our farmers at this time. It is not enough, Mr. President, I don't think, to pass a sense of the Senate. What is appropriate is to give meaning to that resolution that we passed yesterday. We should have specific, concrete relief and a safety net for our farmers to get them through a difficult time and to realize that perhaps the laws that we have outlined are not perfect and could be improved with some changes that our leader has put forward. So I am happy to join him today, and Senator Harkin, to continue to fight and to support our farmers not only in Louisiana but around the Nation. Thank you, and I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you. Another 5 minutes. So I urge my colleagues to support cloture so that we can get to the merits of this legislation and debate it, to give it a full debate, because it most certainly is necessary. In closing, let me just say a few words. My distinguished colleague from Vermont painted a most beautiful picture of the way Vermont looks. I hope to get to see it for myself someday. I sure have seen it in pictures, and I want to take my children there. Now, myself, I have spent many days on the shores of Lake Pontchartrain and flying over the marshes of Louisiana, seeing the beautiful sunsets, and have spent time on the west coast and on the east coast. And just this past weekend I was at a beautiful place in Maryland. I am well aware, as all of our colleagues are, how beautiful this land is and how grateful we should be to God for the land that He has given us. But I do not think there is anything really, Madam President, that is more beautiful than the Constitution of the United States, and particularly the Bill of Rights. And I just want to remind our colleagues of the beautiful words of the amendments, the 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights, of which this is one that we speak today--the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right of people to peacefully assemble, the right of people to petition their Government for redress of grievances, the right to life, liberty, and property, due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. These are beautiful words. And it is our job to make sure that these words have meaning, that they are not just written on a piece of paper to be talked about or referred to in speeches, but that they actually work. And that is what this bill is--a modest attempt to clarify something that most certainly needs clarification. Let me quote from the Washington Post editorial that my distinguished colleague from Vermont also referred to, an editorial opposing this bill. It takes exceptions with this bill. Actually, when I read this article, I thought it was a great example or outlined the three points of why this bill should be passed. And I would like to quote: Current takings law is murky [the Washington Post says], but its murkiness strikes a useful balance, allowing government to implement zoning, environmental and other rules that can restrict the use of private property while still permitting compensation where that property is physically invaded or grievously devalued. That balance [it says] should not be altered [because it is murky]. Madam President, I do not think our constitutional rights should be murky. I do not think people in America think that our constitutional rights should be murky--the right of free speech, the right of free press, the right to own your own property. And if it is taken from you, and totally eliminated of its value, you should be compensated. And everyone in America has their right for their day in court. I do not believe, Madam President, that our rights should be murky. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture later this afternoon. Thank you, Madam President, and I yield the balance of my time. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU. May I please have additional time as I may require, another 2 minutes?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I have not often found myself at odds with my distinguished colleague from Vermont whom I have come to respect and admire a great deal in every aspect of his work. But I do rise in support of this bill, in opposition to the comments made by the distinguished Senator from Vermont. I will, however, agree with him on one point, and that is we most certainly need to have our positions in our Federal courts filled in a timely manner. This is not the only issue in our country that needs attention. This is not the only issue where people, individuals and parties, are aggrieved and need their grievances remedied in a timely manner. So I do join him and thank him for his valiant efforts to try to get the nominations of many qualified individuals, nominated for our Federal bench, certified and voted on so that these matters can be handled in a more timely fashion. But I am pleased to rise in support of S. 2271, to join my distinguished colleagues from Utah and Georgia. The reason I rise to support this bill is because this is about fairness. It is about access to justice for the rich and for the poor, for people who have a lot of property, for people who have little property. In fact, this is a bill for people who don't own any property yet, but one day hope or dream or have planned or have saved, or perhaps inherit some property, perhaps the first ever owned in generations in their family, from having their rights of ownership trampled on. It is what I think the Democratic Party is about. It is why I am a Democrat. It is about the fundamental principles that the Democratic Party of which I am so proud stands for, and which I have spent, as have many on our side, a great deal of our lives and our political careers--fighting for the principles of these cornerstones of fairness and justice. I know my distinguished colleague pointed out corporate America. I am not sure exactly this is the picture he had in mind, because this is a picture, here, of Ann and Richard Reahard from Lee County, FL. I don't--perhaps he does, but I don't--see a corporate headquarters here in this picture or cell phones or limousines or Christian Dior suits. I just see two people who look like they love each other and have worked hard. They inherited 40 acres of land in Florida. I will not go through all the heartache that is listed here, but the point is, this is not corporate America. These are two people from Florida who inherited some land, and because of the lack of clearness in this law, in this unconstitutional law, have literally lived a nightmare since 1984, even with the most reasonable suggestions made to this county about what to do to develop their property. But the point is, this is not about the rich. This is, in fact, about the poor and the rich, and about people who have property and people who one day hope to. This bill is not just important because it promotes these worthy goals. It is important because it provides practical relief for the small landowners of Louisiana and across the country. Opponents of this legislation assert that the bill will only help large developers and will put small localities at a disadvantage. To view S. 2271 that way is to actually put this situation on its head. Large land developers do not need our help to enforce their rights. They are the only plaintiffs that can actually afford to go all the way through the State court and then to Federal court, because under the current situation, you need to have plenty money, plenty time and plenty patience. Even so, large developers are not likely to be the people bringing these cases. If you are a development corporation with a half dozen projects in a certain area, what sense does it make for you to aggravate the local authorities by challenging their decision in Federal court? None, because it makes no sense. This bill is not about corporate America, large landowners, rich lawyers. Its much more likely scenario is a large developer will use its economic power and leverage to sail through the approval process, as complicated as it is, free from any trouble from local authorities, and they often do. The people who need this bill are private landowners, small business persons, small landowners who don't have a lot of money, who don't have economic clout, who can't hire a 100- person law firm to defend their rights in court and who don't have the resources that are at the disposal of some of our large developers. If your greatest asset is your home--and that is the greatest asset of the vast majority of people in our country who own nothing else; if they own something, they own their home and their land--they simply don't have the resources necessary to defend their constitutional rights against a local, State or Federal agency determined to delay and wait out your court claim. That is why I assert that this bill is about fairness. We change no substantive law under the fifth amendment. You have the same rights today as you will have when this bill passes. They will, however, be more clear. The change occurs with respect to the process by which you can enforce those rights. As it stands now, if I am a small property owner and I believe my land has been taken, I will be forced into a morass of administrative and legal procedures which studies show will take on the average of 9\1/2\ years. Let me repeat that: 9\1/2\ years to be resolved; not 3 months, not 6 months, not 2 years. There are not too many people who can afford an attorney for several months, let alone for 9 years. If you are a multimillion-dollar development corporation, you can afford to wait, but if you are a family building a business for the first time or building your first family home, you will be financially ruined in that amount of time. Which brings us to the second principle upheld by this legislation: access to justice. A 1997 study by Linowes and Blocher showed that even if you had spent the necessary time and money to go to local hearings and State court, in 81 percent of the cases brought to Federal court, the judges will still decline to hear the case on procedural grounds. In 81 percent of the cases they are being declined, not on the merits or the substance of their claim, but on procedural cases because the laws are so unclear in the jurisprudence, and that is what we are hoping to remedy today. Essentially, property owners have a constitutional right which they have no practical way of exercising. Everyone, Madam President, is entitled to their day in court. I strongly support access to the courts for environmental concerns. I support municipalities who use the courts to enforce their zoning ordinances. But it would be hypocritical of me, I say to my colleagues, to turn my back on the other side of the argument and allow property owners to go without any remedy for their legitimate complaints. Small property owners and large municipal governments, county governments and State governments--everyone--needs to have their day in court, and that is what this bill does, nothing more, nothing less. The central principle which underlies this bill is that we do not have a two-tiered system of constitutional rights. Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that the fifth amendment should not be the forgotten stepchild of the Bill of Rights. However, that is precisely the situation we confront. Under the fifth amendment, it states that private property shall not be taken for a public purpose without just compensation. To repeat: The fifth amendment says that private property shall not be taken for public use without a just compensation. Nevertheless, we have inadvertently, I believe, constructed a system which precludes the vast majority of people from ever seeing the inside of a Federal court to defend their rights and to give meaning to these words. They are actually useless without proper procedures to allow someone to state their claim. The free enjoyment of property is not only enshrined in the Constitution, it was one of the core motivations of our American Revolution. The difficulty is that while we have created a national right, the essence of land use and decisions are local, as they should be. For that reason, we have worked very hard to craft a bill which addresses the problems of property owners while maintaining the local decisionmaking structures. This bill does not affect--although the opponents have said it from day one--it does not affect local zoning. It grants no new rights. It preserves the authority of zoning boards and city councils. Specifically, I point to page 16, lines 1 through 4 that establish clearly in this bill that no one is entitled, when this bill passes, to challenge the authority of a local government to set local zoning ordinances as enabled by their State constitution or State laws or the laws of their territory. I want to be very clear, because the opponents have argued that this upsets local zoning laws, and it does not. In short, this is no overarching bill which will change land use laws. Rather, we will provide a chance for people who have real grievances to get their day in court in a timely manner. This bill, in fact, Madam President, reminds me a great deal of the IRS reform bill, which this body just passed 98 to 2. When you put all the cards in the hands of an administrative agency, you ensure abuse. That is what is occurring in these land use cases today. If you had read the horror stories that I have, you would feel the same outrage that compelled this Chamber to pass the IRS reform bill nearly unanimously. From my own State, let me just share one of these stories. Dean and Rita Beard of Lafitte broke ground 2 years ago. They began building their dream home. They put all their savings into it and picked out a spot that had been pastureland for more than 100 years. The Beards hoped to turn this property over to their children and their grandchildren. What ensued, however, was their worst nightmare, as the Army Corps of Engineers put their dream on hold by taking 10 acres of land for mitigation projects due to projects elsewhere. Now the nearly completed home of the Beards, which they were ready to enter, sits as a monument to the failure of our land use process. The Beards' attorney advises them it may be 10 years before this issue is resolved. They may have a case, they may have a claim, they may have been harmed, but it will take them 10 years because of the complications of when the administrative decision is final is not clear. In the meantime, they have invested their life savings into an unusable home and every extra penny has gone towards lawyers. I doubt after 9 years they will have, considering their situation, any money left. That, Madam President, is what this bill is trying to address. It is not going to say how the courts should rule, it is just to say that this family, who built their dream home in hopes of turning it over to their children and grandchildren, can get their day in court more quickly after exhausting their local remedies. This bill is important to the Beards, it is important to my State, it is important to the implementation of our Constitution. I hope my colleagues will take a close look--I know this vote is going to be very close today--I hope that they will take a close look at what is actually in this bill to see past the outlandish rhetoric thrown about by its opponents. Should this bill pass, it will not be a panacea to all the problems and regulations faced by landowners and the difficulties faced by municipalities in zoning. However, it will be a negotiating tool that property owners do not now have. And it will take a small step in the right direction. It is a modest step.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I would like 15 minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation on behalf of myself and Senator Breaux that is very important to the States of Texas and Louisiana, as well as to our neighboring country of Mexico. This bill will designate the El Camino Real de los Tejas Trail in Texas and Louisiana as a National Historic Trail. This legislation is the culmination of efforts by interested parties in Texas, Louisiana and Mexico, including legislators and members of academia, to study the feasibility and suitability of designating this exceptional complex of roads as part of the National Trails System. El Camino Real, comprised of economically important roads in Mexico and the United States, was used by Native Americans and the colonial powers of Spain, France and England during the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. These viceregal roads were used for exploration, conquest, mission supply, settlement, cultural exchange and military campaigns, connecting a series of Spanish missions and posts between Monclova, Mexico and Los Adaes, the first capital of the province of Texas, now located in the Red River Valley of Louisiana. In the late seventeenth century, French interests expanded westward from the Mississippi River Valley into Spanish Texas. The official Spanish response was retaliatory. As a result, routes were extended from Mexico north and east into Louisiana. The historic remnants of these efforts can be found today at the Spanish outpost of Los Adaes in northwest Louisiana and the French frontier post of Fort St. Jean the Baptiste near Natchitoches, Louisiana. El Camino Real de los Tejas, named for the Indian tribes living in what is now east Texas and northwest Louisiana, begins in Maverick County, Texas and extends into Sabine and Natchitoches Parishes in Louisiana. Historically, the trail was composed of several routes, including Camino Pita, Upper Presidio Road, Upper Road, Lower Road, Lower Presidio Road, Camino de en Medio, and the Laredo Road. These roads were established beginning in 1689. The Old San Antonio Road, sometimes called the Camino de Arriba, the nineteenth century route between San Antonio and Natchitoches, is a separate road system that in part followed El Camino Real and overlaps it in many segments. It was used by famous politicians and expansionists, such as Sam Houston and Davy Crockett. Altogether, the roads in the United States make up approximately 2,500 miles of changing routes in Texas and eighty miles in Louisiana. As an important observation, there may well be evidence procured in the future that will show that El Camino Real de los Tejas extended all the way to the Natchez Trace. In July, the National Park Service will complete its study of the El Camino Real de los Tejas with a positive determination of suitability and feasibility for establishment of a national historic trail. This comes after enthusiastic support from the Natchitoches community, including Northwestern State University and the Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism. Strong support and contribution to the research and potential of trail designation came from the Texas Department of Transportation, the Texas Historical Commission, consultants, and many others. Trail designation would make possible coordination of activities along the length of the trail. It also would mean increased opportunities for coordination with the Mexican government on respective resource preservation and research, as well as enhanced opportunities for cooperative educational programs and tourism related to El Camino Real de los Tejas. The study anticipates little, if any, federal acquisition of private land, and only on a willing seller basis. Instead, the management of the trail would depend on cooperative partnerships between the National Park Service and other administering agencies, interested property owners or land managers, and other entities. Mr. President, this bill represents truly successful efforts on behalf of the National Park Service and State and local governments and associations to commemorate the settlement of Texas and Louisiana. The El Camino Real de los Tejas will make a fine addition to the National Trails System, and I urge its speedy consideration and approval by this body. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation on behalf of myself and Senator Breaux that is very important to the States of Texas and Louisiana, as well as to our neighboring country of Mexico. This bill will designate the El Camino Real de los Tejas Trail in Texas and Louisiana as a National Historic Trail. This legislation is the culmination of efforts by interested parties in Texas, Louisiana and Mexico, including legislators and members of academia, to study the feasibility and suitability of designating this exceptional complex of roads as part of the National Trails System. El Camino Real, comprised of economically important roads in Mexico and the United States, was used by Native Americans and the colonial powers of Spain, France and England during the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. These viceregal roads were used for exploration, conquest, mission supply, settlement, cultural exchange and military campaigns, connecting a series of Spanish missions and posts between Monclova, Mexico and Los Adaes, the first capital of the province of Texas, now located in the Red River Valley of Louisiana. In the late seventeenth century, French interests expanded westward from the Mississippi River Valley into Spanish Texas. The official Spanish response was retaliatory. As a result, routes were extended from Mexico north and east into Louisiana. The historic remnants of these efforts can be found today at the Spanish outpost of Los Adaes in northwest Louisiana and the French frontier post of Fort St. Jean the Baptiste near Natchitoches, Louisiana. El Camino Real de los Tejas, named for the Indian tribes living in what is now east Texas and northwest Louisiana, begins in Maverick County, Texas and extends into Sabine and Natchitoches Parishes in Louisiana. Historically, the trail was composed of several routes, including Camino Pita, Upper Presidio Road, Upper Road, Lower Road, Lower Presidio Road, Camino de en Medio, and the Laredo Road. These roads were established beginning in 1689. The Old San Antonio Road, sometimes called the Camino de Arriba, the nineteenth century route between San Antonio and Natchitoches, is a separate road system that in part followed El Camino Real and overlaps it in many segments. It was used by famous politicians and expansionists, such as Sam Houston and Davy Crockett. Altogether, the roads in the United States make up approximately 2,500 miles of changing routes in Texas and eighty miles in Louisiana. As an important observation, there may well be evidence procured in the future that will show that El Camino Real de los Tejas extended all the way to the Natchez Trace. In July, the National Park Service will complete its study of the El Camino Real de los Tejas with a positive determination of suitability and feasibility for establishment of a national historic trail. This comes after enthusiastic support from the Natchitoches community, including Northwestern State University and the Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism. Strong support and contribution to the research and potential of trail designation came from the Texas Department of Transportation, the Texas Historical Commission, consultants, and many others. Trail designation would make possible coordination of activities along the length of the trail. It also would mean increased opportunities for coordination with the Mexican government on respective resource preservation and research, as well as enhanced opportunities for cooperative educational programs and tourism related to El Camino Real de los Tejas. The study anticipates little, if any, federal acquisition of private land, and only on a willing seller basis. Instead, the management of the trail would depend on cooperative partnerships between the National Park Service and other administering agencies, interested property owners or land managers, and other entities. Mr. President, this bill represents truly successful efforts on behalf of the National Park Service and State and local governments and associations to commemorate the settlement of Texas and Louisiana. The El Camino Real de los Tejas will make a fine addition to the National Trails System, and I urge its speedy consideration and approval by this body. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I introduce a measure to extend the authorization for appropriations for the National Historic Preservation Fund, as established in the Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1976. On September 30, 1997, the authorization for deposits into the Historic Preservation Fund from revenues due and payable to the United States under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act expired. I am introducing this legislation today with the purpose in mind of re-authorizing the deposits at the same level of $150,000,000 annually through the year 2004. The Historic Preservation Fund is based on the idea that a part of proceeds from depletion of a non-renewable resource, off shore gas and oil, should be invested in the enhancement of other non-renewable resources: historic properties. The Historic Preservation Fund account supports roughly half the cost of the Nation's historic preservation program as created by the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470). State governments contribute the other half of the cost. This is a true Federal-State partnership. States and certain local governments and Indian tribes carry out the Nation's historic preservation program under the Act for the Secretary of the Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The historic preservation program involves the identification of historic places, working with property owners in nominating significant places to the National Register, consulting with federal agencies on projects that may adversely impact historic places, advising investors on tax credits for the rehabilitation of historic buildings, and offering information and educational opportunities to the private and public sectors on historic preservation. The national historic preservation program, made possible by the Historic Preservation Fund (plus the State match), contributes significantly to community revitalization for the benefit of residents, to heritage tourism by identifying places people want to visit, and to economic development through the rehabilitation of commercial buildings and rental housing ($1.7 billion in construction costs in fiscal year 1997). I believe this is an extremely worthwhile program that works. We should re-authorize this fund so that important restoration and revitalization efforts may continue across the country, done with the assistance of State Historic Preservation Offices and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be entered into the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Dodd from Connecticut, and commend him, Senator Bond, and Senator Kerry for offering this very important amendment to this very important bill. I want to say a few words, if I could, as a supporter. The issue that has been most contentious about this tobacco legislation has been how do we really stop people--children, adults and young people--from smoking? We have debated that. Many of us feel like the best way, the surest way to stop people from smoking, from using a dangerous product that has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be dangerous, is to raise the price of a pack of cigarettes high enough to discourage as many young people as possible from even starting to smoke and, frankly, discourage adults, who most certainly have a choice, from continuing a habit. It is a purposeful levy. If we could stop people from smoking by not raising the price of a pack of cigarettes, perhaps we should consider that. But I am convinced, as many Members of this Chamber are, that this is the best and most effective way, along with counteradvertising, advertising restrictions, and other restrictions, which, in fact, will be effective. The question becomes, what do we do with the proceeds generated? Because it is going to fall regressively, in a sense, on poorer people, I think we should try to get the money back to those who are going to pay the tax. We can do that in a number of ways. One way is to target a general tax relief, which, as this bill moves through, I hope we can do. But another way that my colleagues have come up with is targeting some of this money back to hard-working American families--in most instances, with both parents working full time and, in some instances, there is only one parent--to help them with the great costs they are incurring and the great challenge that they have, which is how to be good workers and how to be good parents. It is incumbent upon us to try to get some of this money back to these families that are going to pay this tax and their children for one reason: Because children were targeted by the industry. There is no question about it. They were targeted by the industry. In my opinion, they should benefit from the proceeds generated in this tobacco settlement. To leave the children out and not specifically designate a portion for them, even though they are going to get some benefit from their research that is done, would be a shame. It still gives States discretion about how they would like to spend a part of the money coming in. But it says that we want you to use at least 50 percent of your restricted funds to support child initiatives, child care particularly, and to improve the quality of child care. Because children were targeted, they should benefit. Because families who are paying the tax--poor families primarily, lower-income families--this amendment targets this benefit to them and allows them to get accessible, affordable, and quality child care. Let me say one other thing that in some way angers me as a working mom myself. Some people would like to maybe make judgments about families that choose to work, or parents outside of the home, or inside of the home. I would like to say maybe ideally it would be great for every child in America to have two parents, and perhaps it would be ideal if one of those parents would stay home full time. But this is not an ideal world; this is a world where families have to make tough choices. Frankly, we have an economy now in America that depends on almost every able-bodied person over 18 to work. If people haven't noticed, there is a worker shortage in America for skilled work, for talented work. Our businesses can't survive unless there are workers working. So we have to do both. We have to work outside of the home. We have to be good parents to our children, and one way is to have the Government help parents who are doing everything that they can do. One way we can do that is to help them, be a partner with them, to find good-quality child care, because investing in our children is the best thing we can do to help our families, to help our country, to keep our economy strong, and do what is right with the proceeds of this tobacco bill. So I urge all of my colleagues. I think this has great bipartisan support. It would be a shame to pass this bill without this amendment on it and to fall down in our commitment to the children and working families of our country. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, let me ask my colleagues to join me in voting against the second-degree amendment to my underlying amendment on blue ribbon schools. This is a do-nothing amendment. The States actually can already do this with the money they receive. There is no reason for this amendment. The only thing that this amendment does, if by any chance it passes, is it limits our----

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from Michigan.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as this body knows, many on both sides of this aisle support blue ribbon schools because we believe that we should begin rewarding excellence, funding results, and we should stop funding failures. Blue ribbon schools are chosen by their States every year. Some of them are public--many of them. Some of them are private. Some of them are parochial. When they achieve against the odds and when their students succeed, we call them to Washington and they come, 250 of them every year. We give them a beautiful, shiny plaque and a big blue ribbon and we send them home with nothing else but the plaque and the blue ribbon. They are happy to get it, but what they really want and need are some resources to continue doing their good work. So I think this is a better way to spend the $1.5 billion. Instead of helping just a few people in America, we can help all of our schools and begin rewarding results. That is what this amendment does, the blue ribbon school amendment. I ask my colleagues to support it.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, could I have some order, please?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this amendment is a do-nothing amendment. In some ways it could be harmful to the current blue ribbon program that is so excellent now in our country, because if this amendment would pass, you would not be able to reward private and parochial schools who are doing an excellent job. A wonderful thing about our blue ribbon school program is that it recognizes excellence across the board and helps us. It will give them more than a blue ribbon and a plaque; it will give them some financial incentive to continue to do good work. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Kempthorne amendment and then to support our blue ribbon amendment, which is the underlying amendment. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Today, Mr. President, and colleagues, is a very special day in America. We are celebrating here in the Senate, and millions of people around our Nation are celebrating this special day. It is ``Take Our Daughters to Work Day.'' And mothers and fathers and aunts and uncles and friends are taking their special charges to work with them to see perhaps a side of life that some young girls do not get to see. It is the sixth year that our Nation has celebrated in this way. I wanted to just say for the record that we have made a lot of progress in our Nation in the past 30 years. In 1968, only 20 percent of 18- to 24-year-old women were enrolled in college. Today, thank goodness that number is climbing, and we are at 36 percent. The median earnings for women in 1968 was only $18,500. Today, women earn an average of $23,000. We are making progress, but not enough. I saw a statistic the other day that still 80 percent of all women who work out of the home earn less than $25,000, earning 74 cents on every dollar earned by their male counterparts. In 1968, women owned fewer than 5 percent of the Nation's businesses. That number has doubled, and I am proud to say that there are more people employed by women-owned businesses than all the Fortune 500 companies in the country. So we are making progress. Today is a day to honor the progress that is being made. But it is also a day to encourage our young girls, particularly in the ages of 9 to 15, to reach for their dreams, to expand their horizons, to consider all the great options that are available for them as they think about beginning to make choices about their careers. They can balance home life and work life and they can chose careers that were unheard of just a few years ago. I hope some of these young girls who are here today with us will think about the Senate, I say to our colleague from Michigan, to think about encouraging more young women to run here for the Senate. So I thank my colleagues for giving me this time to recognize this day. I want to welcome my niece with me today, Gracie Landrieu, who came up--my daughter is only 10 months old, so she is a little too young to appreciate today. But she is going to be with me for a few minutes later today. But my niece, who is 10, can most certainly appreciate the great challenges before her. And I wish her all the best, as we do all of our daughters across America. Thank you.