Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, I will.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, the Senator from Massachusetts understands this correctly and has articulated it very accurately. The reason that I am unable to support Senator Coverdell's proposal is because it is clear from the studies that the vast majority of the benefit would go to just a small portion of those in parochial or private schools. I believe that we need to be more balanced in our approach to help all of our schools and all of our families, as balanced as we can be, and not try to put one above the other. So, this amendment gives funding to parochial schools, to private schools, and to public schools, based on their efforts to be excellent. And, as the Senator knows, sometimes against great odds, in very poor districts, these schools--many parochial schools--are doing a great job. I believe they should be rewarded within the framework of the Constitution, which is clearly appropriate with this program. So it is my hope that the Senate and the Congress will strongly consider this approach, because this is exactly what we need to be doing, rewarding and encouraging success.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. LANDRIEU. That is the objective. If I could read into the Record the way the schools are chosen now, it is if they are student focused and have great student support, if their standards are challenging and their curricula challenging, if they are teaching active learning, if they have developed partnerships with their communities, and if they have strong leadership. Those are just some of the measures that are used. So, yes, the Senator is correct. As they receive their blue ribbons and their plaques, they are being honored now in our Nation and they are held up to high esteem. The problem is, they basically leave here emptyhanded, because we send them back with a plaque and a ribbon. I think we need send them home with some money and some real help, to put our money where our mouth is and say, ``Good job; here's some money to help you continue to do that good job. You make us proud. You have done it against the odds.'' We want to be a more reliable partner. That is what I think the greatness is with this amendment. There are other approaches we could use, but this is, I think, getting us on the right track. I thank the Senator, and I yield back whatever time I have remaining.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I will use the remainder of my time to thank my distinguished colleague from Tennessee for agreeing that this amendment is, in fact, on the right track and for saying that it is about time we begin rewarding success and innovation, it is about time we become a reliable partner with our local schools that are achieving, despite sometimes great difficulty, and to begin rewarding them. I thank him for his comments. I do not disagree with him as he laid out all of the problems associated currently with our public and general education system in the United States. No one in this Chamber disagrees with the sad statistics about lack of achievement, lack of discipline, et cetera, although I want to say for the Record that there are many, many, many good public schools, private and parochial schools in this Nation, of which we should be proud. The fact is that we need to have every one to be excellent, but we are falling from the mark. Let me, if I can, Madam President, in the 1 minute I have left, call to your attention one of the real failings of the Coverdell proposal. In order to save money, obviously, you have to save it for a long period of time for it to generate any benefit to the saver. One of the problems with setting aside $500 to begin using in kindergarten is that you don't have the money set aside long enough for there to be a benefit to a family. So what we are saying is a $30 benefit is not really that great a benefit. There are so many better ways we can spend this money to really improve education. If we want to have a savings plan, which I would support, and prepaid college tuition, which is certainly one I support, then let's do some real saving in this country. Let's really save $500 or $2,000, which is part of the Coverdell proposal that I do agree with. Let's set aside money, increase it--which is what Senator Glenn tried to do--from $500 to $2,000 a year to enable families, from when their child is 1, if they save until 17 at a 6 percent yield, to save $60,000. If they received a 12 percent return, they could save over $110,000 approximately. Then you are talking about real money, and you are talking about real benefit, and you are talking about real savings, and you are talking about a Tax Code that really might work and do something good. If we had adopted John Glenn's amendment, this is what people in America would be doing, and I would be proud to sign my name to it.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I offer this for the Record and thank you for letting me offer the blue ribbon school amendment and the long- term savings amendment. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes. I reserve the time in the event we need to respond, Madam President.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair. Madam President, if I can continue, my amendment is called the blue ribbon schools amendment. It is quite simple. It would take the money we would otherwise be setting aside for these very small savings accounts that would reach only a small group of beneficiaries and spread it over all 50 States, to many schools in those States that have been designated basically by their peers to be blue ribbon schools and schools of excellence. It is time that we in this country stop at the Federal level--and I hope we can encourage States and local governments to stop--funding failure and start rewarding results and success. That is what this amendment does. This amendment will take the money otherwise spent by the distinguished Senator from Georgia and give $100,000 grants to all of the schools designated, and there are 250 so designated each year, as the most excellent schools in America. They are public; they are parochial; they are private. There have been 3,000 schools that have achieved this designation since this program started 10 years ago. It is currently operating this way. The schools are rigorously evaluated and 250 are chosen. They are invited to come to Washington. They are given a plaque and a pat on the back and they are basically sent home. I think we need to do more than give them a pat on the back and a plaque to hang on their school wall, as proud as they are to display this plaque, and begin to reward success and say, congratulations, a job well done and here is $100,000 to help you continue that good job. Many of these schools are succeeding despite the odds because they have bitten the bullet; they have made tough choices; they are making good decisions at the local level. I think the most important thing we in the Federal Government can do is to begin acknowledging success and rewarding success. That is what this amendment does. It also provides a small amount of money to help the States administer this very cost-effective program because it is a locally based initiative. It is a panel of their peers who makes these choices. It would be a great way to spend this $1 billion to reward these schools. Madam President, that is simply what this amendment does. It is a blue ribbon school amendment. I think it will go a long way to encouraging schools that are beating the odds to continue to do so, and we will reward them with something significant. So they can take that $100,000 and apply it to technology, teacher training, and other opportunities for students. And this is available, I want to stress, for parochial and private schools, as well as public, within the constitutional framework so that we are better reaching across all of the Nation to many of the schools and doing it in a fair way. That is what my amendment does, and I offer it as a substitute. In closing, let me say this is only 1 of 10 or 15 ways on which I personally think it is better to spend this $1.5 billion, that will have a longer and a greater impact on improving education than establishing these savings accounts. I did not get to speak on Senator Glenn's amendment, but I will just say another way to spend this $1 billion would be to expand the IRA from $500 to $2,000, which he so eloquently talked about yesterday. It would be another good way to have a positive effect in encouraging people to save early for their children's college education, which is so expensive. So with all due respect to my colleague from Georgia for all of the good remarks he has made, there are just better ways to spend the money. This blue ribbon school amendment is only one, but I commend it and recommend it to this body to consider.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I send this amendment to the desk to offer an alternative to my distinguished colleague from Georgia, an alternative in the way we would spend this $1.6 billion that we have been debating and have been debating for some time now. Let me thank my colleague from Georgia for at least getting the Senate to begin a significant debate about the ways in which we can improve the status of education in our Nation. I, frankly, am one Senator who believes that there is nothing really more important that we can spend our time on now than talking about this important issue. I think the debate has been very lively. It has come with controversy. But I thank my colleague from Georgia for at least offering this idea, so that we can have a debate about the best way to spend our money when it comes to trying to improve our schools, which, in my opinion, is the number one priority of all Americans, regardless of whether they have children in school or not. We all know as a nation the value of our education system, both public as well as private. I was very open to this idea initially as it was presented. I have, I think, demonstrated in the year I have been here an ability to be open to new ideas about how to solve this problem. I don't think the old ways work. I don't believe the American public wants us to just throw more money at a problem. I think they are looking at innovation and creativity in improving our schools. I think the American people, particularly people in Louisiana, have witnessed many schools that are working, many pilot programs and initiatives, whether it is charter schools and more accountability, teacher training, teacher testing, or higher student achievement and things that are working. So I looked, with hope perhaps, at this bill, now called the Coverdell-Torricelli proposal, but after looking at the studies that have come in about who would really benefit from this initiative to spend $1.5 billion, it is clear to me from the GAO report and other economists reporting that the major benefit of this $1.5 billion to be spent over 5 years would go to a very small segment of parents and families who have their children in private or nonpublic schools. I want to be part of a team of Senators and leaders who support efforts that help all schools as fairly as they can. There are some in this body and in Congress who do not want to do very much at all to help parochial or private schools. I am not in that group. I believe our Government within the framework of our Constitution should try to help all of our schools and all of our students. But this is not the best way we can go about this, and that is why I am not going to be able to support the bill and would offer this amendment as a substitute, if you will.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to lend my strong support to the efforts of my colleague from Ohio, Senator Glenn. Our colleague from Georgia has introduced a bill which he claims will improve savings for education. Unfortunately, the evidence from economists seems to disagree with him. The average American family would save only $37 under Senator Coverdell's approach. The reason for this is simple to understand. In order to experience real economic benefit from a tax free savings plan, the principle and interest must stay untouched for significant periods of time in order to have a chance to grow. With H.R. 2646, parents would be allowed to deposit up to $2,000 into an educational IRA, which is a significant increase over the $500 they are currently allowed to contribute. However, Senator Coverdell would also allow these families to withdraw funds from the education accounts for the annual costs of elementary and secondary education. So in essence, you would have families depositing $2,000 into an educational savings account, accruing some limited tax savings, and withdrawing it the next year. Under this scenario, there are no long terms savings, no accumulated interest and none of the real benefits that we are attempting to create with these educational IRAs. That is why I am so pleased with the approach taken by my friend, John Glenn. Through Senate Amendment 2017, families would be able to contribute more to their tax free savings accounts, however, it would be reserved for higher education expenses. By increasing the contribution limit to $2,000, Americans can all reap the benefit of increased savings for education. They will see their principle grow with compound interest and Congress will preserve the true intention of this newly created IRA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this table be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. On the last vote, vote No. 64, the Allard motion to waive the Budget Act, I was unavoidably delayed and did not vote. But I want the Record to reflect that if I had voted I would have voted ``no.'' Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank my colleague from Connecticut for his great and tireless leadership on this important issue. Mr. President, it has been well stated, the need for child care in the United States. But the point I want to make is that the child care that is just barely there now in our system is not really affordable to working families. As much as there is not enough of it, and not enough spots, we have a real crisis, as my colleague from Connecticut and others realize, because even if it were available under the current system, it is not really affordable to working families. We have the majority, 65 percent of moms--and I am in that 65 percent; I am a working mom here in the Senate. I have a 6-year-old and an 8-month-old, so I can really speak to all those mothers and fathers who are working with children at home. Some of us work out of choice, but many of us work out of necessity. Many, many parents have to work; they don't have a choice to be at home. Because of some laws that we just recently passed--welfare-to-work and welfare reform, which I generally supported--we have now mandated it. It is not a choice that many poor women have now; we have actually mandated that they leave home and go to work. So we have made what was a problem 2 years ago even greater by forcing many women, who were home, out to work. It seems to me that in our efforts towards welfare reform--which, again, I support--some Members of this Congress might be somewhat hypocritical in mandating poor women to go to work, wanting to give tax breaks for middle class women to stay home, and then not providing child care to anybody that is affordable to anybody. Mr. President, that is really the situation we are in, which is a crying shame for the working families in our country. I know my colleague from Connecticut knows the average cost of out- of-home care is $6,000. For even two parents who are working at a minimum wage 40 hours a week, their income is $21,000. By the time they pay whatever taxes and other requirements for that paycheck, they don't even take home enough money to pay for the child care. So what are some of the options? Some of the options have been outlined, mostly on this side of the aisle. Tax credits for businesses--we have to do a better job as an employer, ourselves, in the Senate, in the Federal Government, to make our systems and our centers more affordable to all of our employees, from our highest paid to our lowest paid. We can do that. We can also provide some direct subsidies, some tax credits, and then some block grants, in addition, to States to expand the slots that they have. But my final point on this is to say to this Senate and to our colleagues that we can talk about family values, talk about how much we love our children, talk about how important families are, but, really, our checkbooks reflect our priorities. In this budget, it doesn't reflect that our priorities are our families or our children. Only Government, through some action--not by doing it all--can pull this system in our country together for child care and reward, if we will, the families who are working and have made the best choices they can for their families. I hope we can adopt the amendment of Senator Dodd and many other amendments that speak to this issue, because there is a crisis in this country and one that we should not ignore and one that our checkbook-- not our words but our checkbook--should reflect. I thank the Senator from Connecticut.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, by implementing such a program we will enhance our region's national economic competitiveness, especially in our natural resource sector which has been the backbone of our economy; contribute to the revitalization and growth of both suburban and central city business engaged in global trade; provide new opportunities for job creation throughout metropolitan and rural areas; and promote national efficiency. With hundreds of major navigable waterways, ports and rail systems throughout Louisiana, we are favored by many in the Midwest and Eastern United States as the gateway to the Southern Hemisphere. Louisiana is of vital importance to the United States as such a gateway and very supportive of additional federal funding to better connect their water, rail and transportation systems that are vital to enhancing international trading opportunities for our nation. While I understand that the managers of S. 1173 will not include additional funding amendments in this bill, such as the one Senator Breaux and I propose, I hope to work on this proposal with Senate leaders during conference with the House to promote intermodalism in those places where we can gain the greatest national benefit.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. Ms. LANDRIEU, at the rostrum, read the Farewell Address, as follows: To the people of the United States. Friends and Fellow Citizens: The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those, out of whom a choice is to be made. I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured, that this resolution has not been taken, without strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that, in withdrawing the tender of service which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest; no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness; but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both. The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in the office to which your suffrages have twice called me, have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea. I rejoice that the state of your concerns external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety; and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire. The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust, were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government, the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset, of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience, in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and, every day, the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more, that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it. In looking forward to the moment which is to terminate the career of my political life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country, for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging--in situations in which not unfrequently, want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism,--the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans, by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence--that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual--that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained--that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue--that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these states, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation, and so prudent a use of this blessing, as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it. Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion. Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment. The unity of government which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence; the support of your tranquility at home: your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But, as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed; it is of infinite movement, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can, in any event, be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts. For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth, or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have, in a common cause, fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess, are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings and successes. But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest.--Here, every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole. The north, in an unrestrained intercourse with the south, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter, great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise, and precious materials of manufacturing industry.--The south, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the same agency of the north, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the north, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The east, in a like intercourse with the west, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The west derives from the east supplies requisite to its growth and comfort--and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions, to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the west can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength; or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious. While then every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts, greater strength, greater resource proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union, an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same government; which their own rivalship alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues, would stimulate and embitter.--Hence likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is, that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other. These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who, in any quarter, may endeavor to weaken its hands. In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations,--northern and southern--Atlantic and western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourself too much against the jealousies and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations: they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head: they have seen, in the negotiation by the executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the senate of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at the event throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the general government and in the Atlantic states, unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi. They have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the union by which they were procured? will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such they are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens? To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances, in all times, have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government, better calculated than your former, for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.--But the constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power, and the right of the people to establish government, presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberations and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency.--They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force, to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils, and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men, will be enable to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reigns of government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. Towards the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular opposition to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretext. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system; and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions:--that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country:--that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion: and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of fraction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property. I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular references to the founding them on geographical discrimination. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind.--It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.--But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and, sooner or later, the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purpose of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it in the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; forments occasional riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchial cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent it bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming, it should consume. It is important likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department, to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominate in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions of the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern: some of them in our country and under our own eyes.--To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the constitution designates.--But let there be no change by usurpation; for through this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil, any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield. Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? and let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it should be enlightened. As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering, also, that timely disbursements, to prepare for danger, frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions, in time of peace, to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper object (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate. Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt but, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it; can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices? In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachment for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity, or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another, disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation's subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty of nations, has been the victim. So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducements or justifications. It leads also to concessions, to the favorite nation, or privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealously, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted or deluded citizens who devote themselves to the favorite nation, facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils!--Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealously, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike for another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith:--Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation, when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel. Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary, and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. Harmony, and a liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that is must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations, but if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated. How far, in the discharge of my official duties, I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have, at least, believed myself to be guided by them. In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the 22d of April, 1793, is the index to my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both houses of congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfuenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it. After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound, in duty and interest, to take a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it with moderation, perseverance and firmness. The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all. The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without any thing more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations. The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress, without interruption, to that degree of strength, and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes. Though in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service, with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest. Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations; I anticipate with pleasing expectation that in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government--the ever favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors and dangers.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Louisiana's own true American heroes, Major General Ansel M. Stroud, Jr., Adjutant General for the State of Louisiana. A native of Shreveport, Louisiana, General Stroud began his distinguished career in April of 1944, when he enlisted in the United States Army and was commissioned a second lieutenant following completion of Officer Candidate School in 1946. After serving active duty, he joined the Louisiana National Guard in June of 1947. During his service with the National Guard, he has served as a reconnaissance officer, company commander, regimental supply officer, aide to the commanding general of the 39th Infantry Division, and battalion commander. In 1968, he was assigned as Chief of Staff for the State Emergency Operations Center, and became commander of the 356th Support Center (RAO) in 1971. He was appointed to the position of Assistant Adjutant General on May 9, 1972, and in August 1978 accepted a dual assignment as the commander of the 256th Infantry Brigade (Mechanized). In October 1980, General Stroud accepted his current position of Adjutant General for Louisiana. When reminiscing about General Stroud's career, one could easily point to his many military decoration and awards: most notably included are the Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the Meritorious Service Medal with one Oak Leaf Cluster, the Army Commendation Medal, the World War II Victory Medal, the Louisiana Distinguished Service Medal, the Louisiana Cross of Merit and the Louisiana Emergency Service Medal with 19 Fleurs-de-lis just to name a few of the honors bestowed upon him. One can also see the direct impact his time in the Armed Services has made with such works as the ``Stroud Study.'' When General Stroud was selected to conduct a Department of Army study on full-time training and administration for the Guard and Reserve, his Study was accepted as a guideline for requirements of the National Guard and Army Reserve for full-time manning programs and was the basis for launching the AGR program. In addition to his duties as Adjutant General, there are many other areas of service in which he has fulfilled with great distinction: the Boy Scouts of America in which he earned the Silver Beaver Award and the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award; past-president of the Adjutants General Association of the United States; past-president of the National Guard Association of the United States; and service as a member of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Advisory Board representing the National Guard Association of the United States. Mr. President, I would, however, be remiss if I did not mention what I feel has been one of the most important aspects of the General's service to Louisiana: serving as the Director of the Louisiana Office of Emergency Preparedness (LOEP). Throughout the years, Louisianas have become all too familiar with life-threatening dangers presented by mother nature at her worst. General Stroud has certainly taken the motto ``be prepared'' to heart by ensuring that Louisiana is capable of handling the impact of natural disasters with order and efficiency. Under his supervision, operations at LOEP have undergone state-of-the art advances which have allowed personnel to provide immediate assistance to citizens affected by nature's fury. Mr. President, many individuals have a calling to serve the public in a variety of ways. They make sacrifices to contribute their talents to the safety, security and well-being of others. These are the individuals whose commitment to excellence and selfless dedication are evident through their leadership and the challenges they choose to accept. On November 8, 1997, General Ansel Stroud will relinquish his present position as Adjutant General, a position he has dutifully held for over seventeen years of his fifty-three years of service to our country. Although he is leaving the realm of public service, the contributions he has made to the greater good of the State of Louisiana will continue to have affect for years to come. It is my most sincere wish that General Stroud and Jane, his wife, will reap all the best which life has to offer, May God bless and God speed.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the attention of the Senate and, hopefully, to the Nation, a concern that is very important to my constituents in the State of Louisiana and to other coastal States. I rise to address this issue in order to begin what I hope will be an educational process for all of us. As you know, the Federal Government, through the Minerals Management Service and the Bureau of Land Management at the Department of the Interior shares with the States 50 percent of the mineral revenues from Federal lands inside the boundary of States, to offset the impacts of onshore mineral development. Unlike the States that support onshore development of Federal mineral resources, Louisiana, particularly, and Texas, Alaska, California, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida receive comparatively little of the revenues received by the Federal Government for offshore oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf. I intend very shortly to introduce legislation to realign the OCS revenues to reflect a more fair and more just allocation. This legislation will also address historical and anticipated impacts on infrastructure and environmental needs that have been identified over the course of time. I raise this issue as the Senate today, Mr. President, will be voting on the Interior and related agencies appropriations conference report this afternoon. That bill contains funding for land and water conservation and the National Historic Preservation Fund. All of those moneys, almost up to $1 billion authorized, comes from OCS revenues. So the Federal Treasury has been a great beneficiary, and many States, of course, have shared in these revenues. This year also marks the 50th anniversary of oil and gas exploration and production in the United States off the gulf coast. We have come a long way from the early days when a few intrepid souls dared to combine their resources to take a risk on a black pitch-like substance that was seeping out of the hills of Pennsylvania. They discovered that this substance would burn. From that substance kerosene was derived and then came gasoline and numerous other petroleum products that support the American economy and the American lifestyle today. Oil and gas development has long been the lifeblood of my State-- through good times and bad, through the early years of this century and the bust years of the 1980's. In Louisiana, as in other oil-patch States, there was an abundance of oil and gas. Many people dug wells, plugged them, and made and lost fortunes. In the 1970's, there was an oil boom that no one thought would end, but it did. During that time, businesses sprang up in Oklahoma and Texas and throughout the oil patch with businesses building headquarters in cities like Tulsa, Houston, and Dallas. In the Gulf of Mexico, oil and gas platforms appeared. People discovered a wealth of reserves in coastal waters and, later, in Federal waters, particularly off the coast of Louisiana. Mr. President, I want to share with you today, and many Members of the Senate, that all of the production in the gulf identified is by these squares that are blocked off. You can see that almost 90 percent, from approximately this line to all the way over is off Louisiana's coast. About 90 percent of the production is supported off Louisiana's coast, and that is the point I want to make today. It is not all the coastal States supporting it equally. Louisiana is contributing a huge amount to this development, which is contributing a huge amount of money to the Federal Treasury. The history of OCS development and State versus Federal ownership was defined in the time of President Truman. There was a great deal of discussion on this issue between interested parties, with no real solution as to how these proceeds should be fairly divided. The controversy continued briefly through the forties and fifties. Finally, legislation came in 1953. This act established a 3-mile State water boundary for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama and, for historical reasons, a 10-mile border for Texas and the gulf coast of Florida. The understanding was that States would own the resources up to 3 miles out from their coastal boundaries, and the Federal Government would own the resources beyond the 3-mile mark, and that lasted for years. In addition, in 1985, a new zone was created through an amendment to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the 8g zone. So between 3 and 6 miles, the States on the coast can now benefit in some additional ways, but rather minor, from the oil and gas derived from that 3- to 6-mile zone. The most recent Federal law to apply to the Outer Continental Shelf was passed in the last Congress, through the leadership of my predecessor, former Senator Bennett Johnston. This measure, the Outer Continental Shelf Deepwater Royalty Relief Act, provided a royalty incentive for companies that wished to explore in deep waters off the continental shelf but were constrained by the cost of deepwater drilling. Today, as a result of this act, you can see from the previous chart that there have been record sales and bids off the gulf coast, particularly in Louisiana. In March of this year, lease sale No. 166 was held in the central gulf, and 103 companies bid on over 5,000 blocks comprising 27 million acres offshore Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The companies made record bids. Fifty-one percent of these blocks were in 800 meters of water. The deepest block was in 9,000 feet of water. The mind-boggling total value of these bids was in excess of $800 million. Mr. President, five additional sales are planned beginning in March. All of this is due to the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act which has created thousands of good paying jobs in the energy industry, both onshore and offshore. The Federal Treasury has benefited substantially. The Federal Treasury received an amount of $2.8 billion from these leases in 1995. Louisiana contributed $2.1 billion. These figures do not include corporate taxes and taxes that were also collected for the Federal Treasury. I need to clarify the funding situation for those who are listening today. When there is onshore oil and gas production, States are entitled to 50 percent of the royalties. Alaska gets 90 percent onshore. For coastal States with offshore production in 8g, States receive only 27 percent, and beyond the 6-mile mark for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, States are not entitled to any percentage. That is the point of this discussion. In conclusion, let me say that we need to make this distribution more fair and more equitable. With the amounts of money that are being distributed based on 50 percent for onshore, based on 90 percent for Alaska, but now under the current law, outside of this 6 miles, the coastal States receive almost nothing. The amount of money being generated is greater and greater every year. Just last year, as I mentioned, it was up to $2.8 billion received by the Federal Treasury. And of that amount, Louisiana received less than $16 million from contributing over 90 percent of the production totaling almost $3 billion. We received only $15.9 million. For 50 years, Louisiana has borne the brunt of the impacts associated with oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico. While we acknowledge that hosting offshore production has provided some economic rewards in the State, Louisiana cannot tax the production on the OCS, nor do we receive a share of the governmental payments on the OCS. There has been damage to onshore staging areas, damage from activities by the Corps of Engineers, and deterioration of infrastructure such as roads and highways that are used to get equipment and workers to the offshore fields. The State of Louisiana has not received appropriate compensation for the use of its land and the environmental impacts of this production. Moreover, Mr. President, we have a very fragile environment in south Louisiana. I have visited Port Fouchon, in La Fourche Parish many times. La Fourche Parish is a rural, relatively isolated parish at the bottom of the ``L'' in Louisiana, if you picture the State in the form of the letter ``L.'' The people there are of modest means, and do their best to make a good living. Port Fouchon is Louisiana's only port on the Gulf of Mexico. Its proximity to the deepwater oil and gas discoveries makes it the port of choice for an increasing number of businesses. Over 6,000 people depend on the port as an avenue to and from offshore facilities. In just 3 years, Port Fouchon has tripled the amount of cargo it handles--from 10 million to over 30 million tons in 1996. Near Port Fouchon is the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port [LOOP]. LOOP is a state of the art offshore facility located 20 miles south of Port Fouchon. LOOP is connected through five pipelines to over 30 percent of the Nation's refining capacity. Recently, the deepwater platform Mars, by Shell Oil, was connected by pipeline to LOOP. Consequently, LOOP will be handling a significant portion of the Gulf of Mexico's domestic deepwater oil production. Couple this with the recently announced goal that the MMS would like to increase oil production in the gulf from 1.7 to 2 million barrels of oil a day. This is an extremely ambitious schedule. Such an increase would amount to an additional $600 million in royalties by the year 2000. Yet, there has been little attention to infrastructure in La Fourche Parish, and little attention to the environment. According to Bob Thompson, president of LOOP, ``Nearly all of LOOP's logistical support for offshore operations comes directly through Port Fouchon, and hence across substandard roadways. We must improve our highway infrastructure to accommodate this new business.'' Currently, over 80 deepwater prospects are identified off coastal Louisiana. An astounding 75 percent of these are in the Port Fouchon service area. Terrebonne and St. Mary Parishes, St. Bernard, and Jefferson which are adjacent to La Fourche, will also support industry activity. Many of the parishes need additional help as well as other coastal States. These new demands will put a great deal of stress on an already besieged environment. Mr. President, these areas and their fragile environments in Louisiana were sacrificed long ago for the benefit of industry investment and development. I intend to ensure that these areas will be ignored no longer. Since the early 1990's, the Minerals Management Service at the Department of the Interior and various heads of environment and natural resource departments from a number of States have been holding talks and negotiations over revenue sharing from the funds collected from activity in the gulf. This month, in fact, tomorrow, the OCS Policy Committee will be meeting in Galveston, TX, to vote on a revenue sharing initiative. I commend this method of consensus building that the Department, industry, and the States have undertaken to address revenue sharing and its implementation. But I want to go further than just recognizing their actions, Mr. President. In the next few weeks, I will be filing the bill to bring this issue to the attention of the U.S. Senate to ask for a greater distribution and a more fair distribution to those States impacted so that we can continue to support this industry, but in return this industry can and the Federal Treasury can invest back into Louisiana and other coastal States so we can continue this drilling in an environmentally sensitive way. Through advances in technology and favorable laws, we have come upon a great resource for this Nation, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. At the same time, we must take advantage of this economic boon to reinvest in our environment, to repair damage to our wetlands, and to take stock of our natural resources and their value as we benefit in the coming years from activity in the gulf. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank you for the time.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, in introducing the Property Owners Access to Justice Act of 1997. Mr. President, in my view, this bill is particularly aptly named. Justice and fairness are what this bill is all about. Unlike other countries, when this Nation was created, we did so with a contract between the people and the Government. It is not very long, but the freedoms it guarantees are quite profound. Among its provisions is a simple promise from the Government to the people. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. These very few words included in our Constitution provide one of the strongest defenses we have against arbitrary government. The certainty that our property cannot be expropriated by government without our being compensated, provides the essential infrastructure for America's great economic strength. We could never be the world's largest market without such an assurance. However, for often well-intentioned reasons, all levels of government have made claims on private property which conflict with the protections of the fifth amendment. Whether through zoning, environmental protections, or claims of eminent domain, people have found their property rights under increasing assault. Unfortunately, not only are their rights under assault, but then they have inadequate protection in our legal system. We should not be confused as to whom this bill helps. Large corporations and wealthy landowners and developers do not need our help in Congress. They can hire a legion of lawyers and lobbyists to take up their case at city hall, at the statehouse, or even here in Washington. Whether this bill passes or not, their interests will be protected. The people we help with this bill are the small landowners and family farmers who lack the means to expedite the administrative process. It will help first-time home buyers in my State, who are trying to build their first home but have to put their plans on hold because they run into administrative deadlocks. Our bill will help these people and countless others in two ways. First, it will clarify when a person has exhausted their administrative remedies. Right now, property owners spend countless hours and great expense in fruitless litigation over this subject. Legislation to end this unproductive debate should be welcomed by all parties. Second, the bill would allow property owners to choose between bringing their claim for relief before Federal or State courts. As it stands, we all possess a fifth amendment right which we have no practical way of enforcing. The Supreme Court has interpreted the fifth amendment as applying to the States under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. However, the Federal courts have left it to State courts to adjudicate fifth amendment claims in this area. Only if issues of State law are resolved in the case, may plaintiffs have their constitutional claim heard in Federal court. Working people simply cannot afford a process that would require them to go all the way through the State court system and then into the federal courts to enforce their constitutional rights. Mr. President, it is my hope that our colleagues will join this bipartisan effort and take a concrete step to provide real relief to middle class people. We will all benefit by a judicial process that is more equitable and transparent.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, before we vote, I want to make just a couple of additional remarks for the Record. Listening to my colleagues speak about the Constitution and the intricacies of whether this is appropriate or not, compels me to say that the most important thing about our Constitution in the United States is the essential component written in that document about justice and fairness. That is what our Constitution is about. That is all this issue is about. It is about fairness and justice to the taxpayers and to the families and to children in our country. To the children who come to me now and in the future, and perhaps look a little sad, telling me they come from families that may be poor, they don't have what they need, I remind them that they are not poor, that they live in a State and in a country with bountiful resources. They actually own gold and silver that belong to them. But for some reason that I am finding hard to understand, for over 100 years this Senate and the House of Representatives refuses to acknowledge that this is not something we own, the 100 of us sitting here; this is something that the public owns. It belongs not to us, not to a few companies, nor to many companies. It belongs to the children of America. This is their land. It is their gold. It is their silver. And it is our job to make sure they get a fair portion--not all of it-- but a fair portion of it. It is clear to me that they have not for 130 years gotten their fair portion of what is theirs, what was given to them--not by us, but by God, and others. So I want to make that point for the Record. I hope we will vote soon. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know we will probably soon be voting on this important amendment and on this important issue. I was sitting in my office and listening to my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, my friend and neighbor, and thought that I might come down and try to give him some help and support, not that he needs any more help in articulating the issue and speaking about it and outlining it, which he does so beautifully, but to let him know that as a new member of the Energy Committee, one that just arrived here and has not spent even a year here, and with him getting ready to retire and having announced his retirement, that I want to let him know I am going to pick up this ball wherever it may land today, I say to Senator Bumpers. I come from a State that has obviously some mining interests, but I come from a State that has had oil and gas development and exploration for many years. I am from a position of understanding that when it is done correctly how much of a benefit it can be in terms of jobs and economic development and helping people and enriching the corporations and businesses as well as the average working man and woman. But I can also see from knowing about our history in Louisiana that when the laws are not fair, when they are not written with the taxpayer in mind, that the taxpayers can be shortchanged. When taxpayers are shortchanged, families are shortchanged, and when families are shortchanged, children are shortchanged. When I think of the hundreds of millions and billions of dollars that could have been allocated differently perhaps in the history of our State as we took out oil and gas, that would have been more fair to everyone. I have to sympathize in a great way with what the Senator from Arkansas is speaking about regarding many of our Western States. To my great colleague and chairman of the Energy Committee, from a State very far from ours, I do not want him to think that I am meddling in other States' business. I have been in the legislature for many years in my own State. But it is an issue that should concern every taxpayer in America. As we look for dollars to send our children to the best of schools that we can provide, when we look and scrape for dollars to provide immunization shots for them so that they can live a healthy life, when we are looking for dollars every day to try to literally make decisions about life and death, to not have these laws and rules and regulations established in such a way to just give fairness to the taxpayer is why I am here. I am going to support this amendment. I am coauthoring this amendment. I am going to work diligently with Senator Bumpers and other Members on both sides of this aisle to learn more about the specifics, to be a strong advocate for reform and change, to make sure that this allocation is done fairly for the taxpayers, and for somebody in these rooms to start dealing the deal for the taxpayer for a change and not specifically for a particular company or a particular entity. I know that my colleagues from these other States will keep that in mind as we move along with this amendment and this bill. So I thank my colleague from Arkansas for his great work, for 8 years of his impassioned speeches, and hope that many Members of our Senate will become more knowledgeable about this issue because I can understand by looking at this amendment, not even having read all of the details of it, what is causing the consternation. We are not talking about $2.50 or $1 or $15. We are talking about $750 and $550 million. When you talk about serious dollars, people wake up and get exercised about it. But it is about time maybe some of this money got into the hands of our children and families that need it that could use it for other things that would be important, not to mention the environmental concerns which are also of great concern to everyone. So I am proud to support the amendment. I am happy for my name to be listed as a coauthor. Since I just got here, I plan to spend a lot of time working on the Energy Committee and look forward to working with members of the Energy Committee and others. Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise before you today to express my support for the NEA and to articulate the importance of preserving the arts in America. I would like to take this opportunity to briefly describe to my colleagues how the NEA, in it's unique capacity, has strengthened the values and cultural education of the people in my state. Specifically, it has played a critical role in enhancing the local talent and in funding community education activities for all Louisiana families and children. Mr. President, not only has the NEA provided access to the arts for the less advantaged in all of the 64 parishes, reaching a total audience of 7.5 million Louisianians by funding programs like philharmonics, ballets and training for young talented inner-city artists, but NEA has also played a vital role in supporting cultural tourism. The NEA-funded arts programs have remained a consistent source of economic revenue for Louisiana with our rich musical and cultural history. We have a brilliant history of talented local artists and renowned musicians that people from all over the world come to Louisiana to experience. Mr. President, as a nation that values the promotion of individual creative talent and these contributions to our cultural fabric, I encourage and respectfully ask my colleagues not to abandon our national responsibility and to support an equitable balance of grant distribution to the NEA. We have all seen the NEA adhere to the valid concerns of my colleagues, Senator Helms and Senator Sessions. I give Jane Alexander her due credit for putting in place a new organizational structure--including the elimination of all sub-grants and grants to individual artists. Yes, there are clear examples in the past where the NEA should have used better judgment, but I ask my colleagues to concur that this is by no means grounds to deny our children the right to access the arts--and not just on the state level in the form of block grants--but with a national commitment. Mr. President, I do not want to debate the past nor do I think I can define what is art and what is not art. However, there are clear examples across the nation where NEA funding has supported the very talented and worthy people we all represent. I support my colleagues' efforts to continue to fund the NEA and to establish a permanent endowment fund that, matched with private funds, would continue the successful private/public partnerships the NEA has created. I look forward to the opportunity to work with my colleagues to find an agreeable funding formula that will show the American people that this Congress values and supports American culture, our creative talent and the arts.