Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I offered this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Clinton, Senator DeWine, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Craig. It is an amendment we feel very strongly about and are proud to offer to the Senate this afternoon to clarify a very important principle as we give out billions of dollars in aid to other countries. That principal is very simple and straightforward: Families matter; families should be respected; children belong in families. As we give out billions of dollars that would hopefully reflect our values, as the Senator from Tennessee, the majority leader said, that would reflect and advance our values, this amendment becomes very clear and very important, and I hope it will receive an overwhelming vote. To clear up some misperceptions that are out there about this issue, again the Landrieu amendment is not a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. It is a directive. It is a directive to USAID to say that as you are giving out this money, keep in mind that children belong in families. Try to allocate money in a way that keeps them with the families to which they were born, their families of origin. But if they become orphaned, let's work as hard as possible to reconnect those children to other families, preferably to relatives through domestic adoption, long-term permanency, long-term care; not long-term foster care, but through the permanency of a real new family. If that family is not available in that country, then to look within the human family to place those children, keeping sibling groups together as much as possible. That is our policy in the United States. It is what our law is. It is a value that Americans hold dear. That is what this amendment does, and I offer it in a bipartisan spirit of cooperation. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today in sadness to pay tribute to a man who served the State of Louisiana well for over 22 years, our late Secretary of State Fox McKeithen, who passed away over the weekend at his home, lovingly surrounded by friends, family, and admirers. Walter Fox McKeithen was born on September 8, 1946. He was a young man when he died this weekend. He was the second of six children in a small northern town of Louisiana called Columbia. He was the son of a very well-respected governor whom we fondly called ``Big John'' McKeithen. He served in the 1960s and is accredited with leading our State of Louisiana at a very tough and tumultuous time in a very progressive and positive direction. Fox McKeithen, the oldest child, took after his father's political skills from an early age. He demonstrated those leadership skills as senior class president at Caldwell Parish High School, and after graduating from Louisiana Tech, he worked as a high school civics teacher and coach. With his desire to serve the people of Louisiana in a greater role, he was elected to the House of Representatives in 1983. I had the distinct pleasure of working with Fox as a State representative. He went on then to run statewide and was elected Secretary of State. I went on at that same time as State treasurer, and we continued our strong partnership and relationship. As Secretary of State, however, Fox took his very colorful personality and spirited dedication to make great improvements to an office that was in need of improvement. He modernized the way the State archived its records. He made it easier for businesses to register and get assistance from the Secretary of State's office. Most importantly, he was a friend to local clerks who work diligently in our State to process elections, make sure they are run fairly and openly. He had a very strong view, as Secretary of State and our chief election commission officer, that registered voters should have a chance to vote. Not a radical notion, but in this day and age not something that always happens. So he worked overtime to make sure the machines were there on time and people were well trained. If the clerks had problems, he himself would step in and give personal attention. So we all owe him a debt of gratitude for his dedication and commitment. In fact, once there was a problem--voting machines were arriving late. He jumped in his own pickup truck and went down to one of our parishes to bring them voting machines. Perhaps his greatest legacy was the renovation of our old State capitol, a building that sat on the banks of the Mississippi River in decay and abandonment for many years. But with his vision and his leadership, he restored that building to its former grandeur, and now it is a place that is used by many different organizations and appreciated and admired by all the people of our State. When he started this project, people said it could not be done, there was not enough money to do it. But because of his tenaciousness and his hard work and leadership ability, he led a group of leaders both in the public sector and in the private sector to restore our own State capitol and enhanced one of the great communities on the banks of the Mississippi River, right there in our capital city, reminding us of our rich and colorful past. It was truly an honor for me and many people in Louisiana to serve in public office with Fox McKeithen. He loved Louisiana and he loved serving all of her people. He shared his father's famous campaign slogan, ``Won't you h'ep me?'' as if it were a question that the people of Louisiana were asking of him. It didn't matter if you were a Democrat or a Republican, rich or poor, from north or south of I-10 or north or south of I-20, he was always there to help you if he could. A dedicated public servant who gave everything he had to serving our State, Fox McKeithen will be dearly missed. The people of our State owe a great debt of gratitude to Fox and the entire McKeithen family for a legacy of leadership, compassion, and vision for our State. His eldest daughter Marjorie follows in her father's and grandfather's footsteps through her practice of law and effective advocacy for many important programs and initiatives in our State. She is truly carrying on the great McKeithen legacy of service. So I come to the floor today saddened by the fact but gladdened by the life this man led and certain of his legacy that he left with the people of our State and the many contributions he made over a long and dedicated career. On behalf of the people of Louisiana, I say our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family at this time.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today in sadness to pay tribute to a man who served the State of Louisiana well for over 22 years, our late Secretary of State Fox McKeithen, who passed away over the weekend at his home, lovingly surrounded by friends, family, and admirers. Walter Fox McKeithen was born on September 8, 1946. He was a young man when he died this weekend. He was the second of six children in a small northern town of Louisiana called Columbia. He was the son of a very well-respected governor whom we fondly called ``Big John'' McKeithen. He served in the 1960s and is accredited with leading our State of Louisiana at a very tough and tumultuous time in a very progressive and positive direction. Fox McKeithen, the oldest child, took after his father's political skills from an early age. He demonstrated those leadership skills as senior class president at Caldwell Parish High School, and after graduating from Louisiana Tech, he worked as a high school civics teacher and coach. With his desire to serve the people of Louisiana in a greater role, he was elected to the House of Representatives in 1983. I had the distinct pleasure of working with Fox as a State representative. He went on then to run statewide and was elected Secretary of State. I went on at that same time as State treasurer, and we continued our strong partnership and relationship. As Secretary of State, however, Fox took his very colorful personality and spirited dedication to make great improvements to an office that was in need of improvement. He modernized the way the State archived its records. He made it easier for businesses to register and get assistance from the Secretary of State's office. Most importantly, he was a friend to local clerks who work diligently in our State to process elections, make sure they are run fairly and openly. He had a very strong view, as Secretary of State and our chief election commission officer, that registered voters should have a chance to vote. Not a radical notion, but in this day and age not something that always happens. So he worked overtime to make sure the machines were there on time and people were well trained. If the clerks had problems, he himself would step in and give personal attention. So we all owe him a debt of gratitude for his dedication and commitment. In fact, once there was a problem--voting machines were arriving late. He jumped in his own pickup truck and went down to one of our parishes to bring them voting machines. Perhaps his greatest legacy was the renovation of our old State capitol, a building that sat on the banks of the Mississippi River in decay and abandonment for many years. But with his vision and his leadership, he restored that building to its former grandeur, and now it is a place that is used by many different organizations and appreciated and admired by all the people of our State. When he started this project, people said it could not be done, there was not enough money to do it. But because of his tenaciousness and his hard work and leadership ability, he led a group of leaders both in the public sector and in the private sector to restore our own State capitol and enhanced one of the great communities on the banks of the Mississippi River, right there in our capital city, reminding us of our rich and colorful past. It was truly an honor for me and many people in Louisiana to serve in public office with Fox McKeithen. He loved Louisiana and he loved serving all of her people. He shared his father's famous campaign slogan, ``Won't you h'ep me?'' as if it were a question that the people of Louisiana were asking of him. It didn't matter if you were a Democrat or a Republican, rich or poor, from north or south of I-10 or north or south of I-20, he was always there to help you if he could. A dedicated public servant who gave everything he had to serving our State, Fox McKeithen will be dearly missed. The people of our State owe a great debt of gratitude to Fox and the entire McKeithen family for a legacy of leadership, compassion, and vision for our State. His eldest daughter Marjorie follows in her father's and grandfather's footsteps through her practice of law and effective advocacy for many important programs and initiatives in our State. She is truly carrying on the great McKeithen legacy of service. So I come to the floor today saddened by the fact but gladdened by the life this man led and certain of his legacy that he left with the people of our State and the many contributions he made over a long and dedicated career. On behalf of the people of Louisiana, I say our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family at this time.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I call up an amendment to the underlying bill, Foreign Operations.

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

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to read into the Record a statement about the passing of one of our most dedicated public officials.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I send this amendment to the desk and I ask my colleagues to consider this amendment. We can vote on the amendment at any time before, of course, the final passage of this bill. I send this amendment to the desk, and I will spend a few minutes this afternoon talking about the underlying bill as it relates to the U.S. work and position on orphans. We have done a lot of great work promoting the idea that children should be raised in families. We have in the United States made a lot of progress over the last 10 years. The former administration, the Clinton administration, and the current Bush administration have made child welfare a priority, have made families a priority. We believe very strongly in the Congress, both on the Republican side and the Democratic side, that children are best raised in families. We would like our budget to reflect that commonsense principle. I have been in a couple of hearings and a couple of meetings over the course of the last year or two that have given me, some question whether that is clear in this Foreign Operations bill. So my amendment attempts to make clear in the underlying bill what I think is the clear and overwhelming contention of the Senate--and I would imagine the House of Representatives--that we spend money promoting social policy around the world, and that we adhere to a very commonsense principle--it is not an American principle; it is a universal principle. But I can most certainly say in America people feel very strongly about the fact that children should not raise themselves and should not be raised in orphanages, unless absolutely necessary. They should not be raised in group homes and should not be left alone to raise themselves on the street. We should do everything we can to keep children in families. Let me spend a few minutes being a little more specific. A couple of years ago, under the great leadership of Senator Jesse Helms, we passed an international treaty that put into place this principle, which basically says that in our foreign policy it is the principle of the United States to say clearly that children should remain in the families to which they are born--that our policies should promote family stabilization, family reunification, reunifying children who might be separated because of war or disease. We should try our very best to keep children in the families to which they are born. Separation is occurring at an alarming rate in this world today for a number of reasons. AIDS is like a factory for orphans. There is an unprecedented number of children becoming orphaned because of this particular disease. The way this disease affects families, it takes both the father and the mother, leaving children truly orphaned. ``Double orphaned'' is the way the international community talks about a child who has lost both a mother and a father. So we have a growing number of orphans in the world because of the AIDS epidemic. But even if it weren't for the AIDS epidemic moving through, for instance, Africa and India at an alarming rate, we would still have a growing number of orphans in the world. The question is: What do we do as a human family to see that each of these children has a home, a place? That is simply what my amendment does. It recognizes it is the sense of the Congress and it recognizes the principle that children should grow up in the homes to which they were born. But if they are separated by disease, or war, or death, or for good reason--because some children are at risk in the home, perhaps from mental or physical abuse; sometimes children, unfortunately, have to be taken from parents, according to laws and customs of some countries. When that happens, those children should be raised by a relative, a caring, responsible relative, someone right there in the extended family. If a relative is not available or willing or able to take on the care of this orphan or sibling group, then those children should be raised right there in the community or within the country of origin. And if not, then we should find a way for these children to be adopted somewhere in the world. My amendment is not making this the law; this is the law now in the United States. These are the principles that are followed by our treaty, as passed by this Congress. My amendment simply restates, for the purpose of this bill, that the $1.6 billion the U.S. taxpayers are sending out all over the world to support children's health and survival through USAID, which is our primary agency that distributes these funds, shall be distributed mindful of this principle on which this Congress has already acted. I believe we will have a unanimous vote on this amendment. I do not think it is something that will generate opposition, but if there are Members who oppose it, I will be happy to talk with them about adjusting any language they find objectionable. One of the things we need to promote in this world, not only at home but abroad, is the strength and support of families because if families are strong, if children can be nurtured and cared for within the loving context of a family, then I believe communities are strong, and when communities are strong, then nations are strong. It does start with the family unit. Any idea that we could promote successful social policy around that principle or over it or underneath it instead of embracing it fully I think is a real mistake. That is all my amendment does. The language tracks from The Hague Treaty which has already been passed. It will leave no shadow of a doubt that the Members of this body think that as USAID gives this money to NGOs or to regular recipients, that this principle be included in the distribution of this $1.6 billion. I would be happy to answer any questions about the amendment. The amendment is rather short, a page and a half. It is rather clear. Again, I think it will go a long way in restating in this funding bill that we are, in fact, committed to the idea that children should be raised in families and that there is really so such thing as unwanted children, just unfound families. If we would spend a little extra time and be a little bit more committed on this issue, we could, despite the growing numbers, I believe, find a home for every child who needs one. I know that is a tall order, and I know people will say: Senator, that can never be done. I know the number of orphans is on the rise. But I also know from my personal experience and the thousands of parents who have adopted children that there is plenty of room in the homes and hearts of people all over the world. If governments would just make a little better effort to identify some of these families and to promote these concepts and continue to restate them in all of our work, that is not as farfetched as it may seem. We want to respect the family, recognize the extended family, recognize the right of relatives to raise children, but when relatives and extended family members cannot be found, we believe that children should be placed in another family, to be raised as their own, and sibling groups kept together, which is the new practice in child welfare, not only in the United States but around the world, and that governments have an obligation to reduce barriers to adoption, to cut down the costs, to eliminate the corruption, to encourage transparency, to cut down on the paperwork, and to do their best to make what is so natural and what happened before governments existed, I am certain of it. When a parent or parents died, the most responsible adult next to the child took that child under their wing and raised them as their own. It is the way it has been done since the beginning of time. I don't know why governments in this world find this very complicated. It really is not. It is quite simple. I want to make sure our primary aid giver USAID, understands clearly that the Members of this Senate are not trying to dictate, are not trying to earmark, are not trying to tell them the specifics of how to do their work. This amendment says that in giving money for social welfare and child survival and health, the principle that children should be raised in a family should be ever present in their decisionmaking. I believe this amendment would make this issue very clear, and there needs to be clarity on this subject. If there are no other questions, I submit the amendment for consideration by the body and will expect a vote sometime at the managers' discretion. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to read into the Record a statement about the passing of one of our most dedicated public officials.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I call up an amendment to the underlying bill, Foreign Operations.

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I send this amendment to the desk and I ask my colleagues to consider this amendment. We can vote on the amendment at any time before, of course, the final passage of this bill. I send this amendment to the desk, and I will spend a few minutes this afternoon talking about the underlying bill as it relates to the U.S. work and position on orphans. We have done a lot of great work promoting the idea that children should be raised in families. We have in the United States made a lot of progress over the last 10 years. The former administration, the Clinton administration, and the current Bush administration have made child welfare a priority, have made families a priority. We believe very strongly in the Congress, both on the Republican side and the Democratic side, that children are best raised in families. We would like our budget to reflect that commonsense principle. I have been in a couple of hearings and a couple of meetings over the course of the last year or two that have given me, some question whether that is clear in this Foreign Operations bill. So my amendment attempts to make clear in the underlying bill what I think is the clear and overwhelming contention of the Senate--and I would imagine the House of Representatives--that we spend money promoting social policy around the world, and that we adhere to a very commonsense principle--it is not an American principle; it is a universal principle. But I can most certainly say in America people feel very strongly about the fact that children should not raise themselves and should not be raised in orphanages, unless absolutely necessary. They should not be raised in group homes and should not be left alone to raise themselves on the street. We should do everything we can to keep children in families. Let me spend a few minutes being a little more specific. A couple of years ago, under the great leadership of Senator Jesse Helms, we passed an international treaty that put into place this principle, which basically says that in our foreign policy it is the principle of the United States to say clearly that children should remain in the families to which they are born--that our policies should promote family stabilization, family reunification, reunifying children who might be separated because of war or disease. We should try our very best to keep children in the families to which they are born. Separation is occurring at an alarming rate in this world today for a number of reasons. AIDS is like a factory for orphans. There is an unprecedented number of children becoming orphaned because of this particular disease. The way this disease affects families, it takes both the father and the mother, leaving children truly orphaned. ``Double orphaned'' is the way the international community talks about a child who has lost both a mother and a father. So we have a growing number of orphans in the world because of the AIDS epidemic. But even if it weren't for the AIDS epidemic moving through, for instance, Africa and India at an alarming rate, we would still have a growing number of orphans in the world. The question is: What do we do as a human family to see that each of these children has a home, a place? That is simply what my amendment does. It recognizes it is the sense of the Congress and it recognizes the principle that children should grow up in the homes to which they were born. But if they are separated by disease, or war, or death, or for good reason--because some children are at risk in the home, perhaps from mental or physical abuse; sometimes children, unfortunately, have to be taken from parents, according to laws and customs of some countries. When that happens, those children should be raised by a relative, a caring, responsible relative, someone right there in the extended family. If a relative is not available or willing or able to take on the care of this orphan or sibling group, then those children should be raised right there in the community or within the country of origin. And if not, then we should find a way for these children to be adopted somewhere in the world. My amendment is not making this the law; this is the law now in the United States. These are the principles that are followed by our treaty, as passed by this Congress. My amendment simply restates, for the purpose of this bill, that the $1.6 billion the U.S. taxpayers are sending out all over the world to support children's health and survival through USAID, which is our primary agency that distributes these funds, shall be distributed mindful of this principle on which this Congress has already acted. I believe we will have a unanimous vote on this amendment. I do not think it is something that will generate opposition, but if there are Members who oppose it, I will be happy to talk with them about adjusting any language they find objectionable. One of the things we need to promote in this world, not only at home but abroad, is the strength and support of families because if families are strong, if children can be nurtured and cared for within the loving context of a family, then I believe communities are strong, and when communities are strong, then nations are strong. It does start with the family unit. Any idea that we could promote successful social policy around that principle or over it or underneath it instead of embracing it fully I think is a real mistake. That is all my amendment does. The language tracks from The Hague Treaty which has already been passed. It will leave no shadow of a doubt that the Members of this body think that as USAID gives this money to NGOs or to regular recipients, that this principle be included in the distribution of this $1.6 billion. I would be happy to answer any questions about the amendment. The amendment is rather short, a page and a half. It is rather clear. Again, I think it will go a long way in restating in this funding bill that we are, in fact, committed to the idea that children should be raised in families and that there is really so such thing as unwanted children, just unfound families. If we would spend a little extra time and be a little bit more committed on this issue, we could, despite the growing numbers, I believe, find a home for every child who needs one. I know that is a tall order, and I know people will say: Senator, that can never be done. I know the number of orphans is on the rise. But I also know from my personal experience and the thousands of parents who have adopted children that there is plenty of room in the homes and hearts of people all over the world. If governments would just make a little better effort to identify some of these families and to promote these concepts and continue to restate them in all of our work, that is not as farfetched as it may seem. We want to respect the family, recognize the extended family, recognize the right of relatives to raise children, but when relatives and extended family members cannot be found, we believe that children should be placed in another family, to be raised as their own, and sibling groups kept together, which is the new practice in child welfare, not only in the United States but around the world, and that governments have an obligation to reduce barriers to adoption, to cut down the costs, to eliminate the corruption, to encourage transparency, to cut down on the paperwork, and to do their best to make what is so natural and what happened before governments existed, I am certain of it. When a parent or parents died, the most responsible adult next to the child took that child under their wing and raised them as their own. It is the way it has been done since the beginning of time. I don't know why governments in this world find this very complicated. It really is not. It is quite simple. I want to make sure our primary aid giver USAID, understands clearly that the Members of this Senate are not trying to dictate, are not trying to earmark, are not trying to tell them the specifics of how to do their work. This amendment says that in giving money for social welfare and child survival and health, the principle that children should be raised in a family should be ever present in their decisionmaking. I believe this amendment would make this issue very clear, and there needs to be clarity on this subject. If there are no other questions, I submit the amendment for consideration by the body and will expect a vote sometime at the managers' discretion. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to speak a moment about why I am strongly opposed to the Dominican Republic/Central American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Bill, or CAFTA it is often referred to. CAFTA threatens a proud heritage and a way of life in Louisiana that dates back more than 250 years. Our great-great-great grandfathers were raising cane long before our country was even born. Since 1751, Louisiana sugar cane farmers have been farming the fertile soil of our great State. Before the marble Walls of Congress were ever erected, Louisianans built an industry that would weather hurricanes, the Great Depression and even the Civil War. These farmers have good reason to be proud. American sugar producers are among the most efficient in the world. Two-thirds of the world's more than 100 sugar-producing countries produce at a higher cost than the U.S. And in my State of Louisiana, farmers produce about 20 percent of the sugar grown in the United States and currently rank fourth in the Nation in production of sugar, producing an average revenue of $750 million per year. But today, we are prepared to deal this proud industry a death blow. We are talking about undoing centuries of tradition and stripping away jobs from efficient Louisiana farmers. As passed, this trade agreement would have a serious and harmful effect on sugar producers in my State: CAFTA will equal job loss and financial despair for 27,000 Louisiana sugar workers and farmers. Along with additional bilateral trade agreements, CAFTA could cost my State $750 million in direct sugar sales, as well as $2 billion in industry-related revenue each year. In any trade negotiation, there are losses and there are wins. Oftentimes we are willing to accept the impacts these deals might have on our domestic producers because in the long run the good outweighs the bad. But that is not the case. CAFTA is a relatively small trade deal with a group of countries whose combined economies are smaller than that of New Haven, CT. Nearly half of all Central Americans earn less than $2 a day, and they simply cannot afford the meats or crops we have to sell. That is why the Louisiana Farm Bureau has joined other State farm bureaus, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, and numerous national farm groups in opposing CAFTA. Even our own Government's economic estimates say that CAFTA will mean little to agriculture or to our country as a whole; and these are known to be quite optimistic estimates. That is because as the administration points out time and time again--we already dominate the import market of this poor region. According to estimates by the U.S. International Trade Commission, CAFTA would actually increase our trade deficit with Central America while benefiting our economy by less than one-hundredth of 1 percent. That is worth repeating again. The administration's economists say that CAFTA will increase our trade deficit with the region while boosting our own economy by less than 0.01 percent. This same study concluded that for other farmers CAFTA would have ``a negligible impact on total U.S. production and employment.'' Why then are we talking about dismantling my State's sugar industry? U.S. farmers and ranchers get little in return for sending thousands to the ranks of the unemployed. So what we have here is another raw deal for Louisiana sugar. I urge my colleagues to take a long, hard look at our country's current agricultural trade agenda. This year, the USDA says America will import as much food as we export. The agricultural trade surplus that stood at $27 billion less than 10 years ago is now gone. The promises made to farmers during the NAFTA debates have come up flat. And the promises that will be made today about CAFTA are contradicted by the administration's own estimates. In closing, let me say I support free trade, so long as it is fair. Fair free trade requires that all players operate on as equal and level a playing field as possible, accountable to the same labor laws, environmental standards, and governmental intervention. To sacrifice even one job for a trade deal that will deepen our agricultural trade deficit is a travesty. And, having to tell thousands of hard-working farmers in Louisiana that they must look for work, because sugar was used as a bargaining chip, is unacceptable.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, from the day she became the first woman to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor has been an inspiration for millions of Americans, particularly for women and girls. I know this is true because she inspired me. I was a young woman in my twenties serving in the Louisiana State Legislature when Justice O'Connor was appointed to the Supreme Court, and I remember that day very clearly. I always knew I wanted to serve the people of my country, and on that day I realized that there was no limit to what one woman could do. And today, 24 years later, I am a woman standing on the floor of the U.S. Senate while the number of women in the Louisiana State Legislature has grown from 2 to 24. We all owe a great debt to pioneering women like Sandra Day O'Connor who broke the judicial glass ceiling and paved the way for me and for millions of other women. But O'Connor's legacy is not limited to the barriers she broke. Throughout her 24 years of service, Justice O'Connor has proven herself to be one of our Nation's leading legal scholars, consistently putting the rule of law ahead of politics. She has been a champion of the law, a champion for our rights, and a champion for our country. Finding an appropriate successor to such a dedicated jurist is a heavy task indeed. To protect the rights and liberties of all Americans, there is perhaps no more important decision a President makes than nominating a Justice to the Supreme Court. I strongly urge President Bush to rise above the partisan politics that have gripped recent judicial confirmations and to reach out to both Republican and Democratic Senators as he selects a nominee to succeed Justice O'Connor. It is the Senate's constitutional duty to provide advice and consent. To provide real advice and to grant real consent, every single Senator must weigh the nomination carefully and consciously. Senators from both sides of the aisle must come together to ensure that the next member of the Supreme Court will uphold the rights of the American people and base his or her decisions on the law and the Constitution--not on political ideology. I hope President Bush will join us in this partnership and allow us to provide real advice at this historic time. Working together, I am confident that we can find a suitable Justice who will follow the great precedent of Sandra Day O'Connor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment, along with the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, and many other Senators. We feel very strongly about this particular amendment. I first thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for the excellent work they have done to move this Energy bill forward to this point. It has been a very difficult, tedious, and time- consuming task that has required a lot of patience and a lot of compromises to get a bill of this nature in this climate to this point. We appreciate their patience and their skill. This is an amendment both leaders have been working on for many weeks. Amendment No. 891 would basically direct a portion of revenues to six States in the United States that have production off their shores, Louisiana being the prime State that produces so much of that energy resource for our Nation, but in addition, obviously Texas, Mississippi, to some degree Alabama, there is some production off the coast of California today--not much but some--and even the State of the Presiding officer, the State of Alaska, that contributes so much to the Nation's energy reserves, has some production off the coast. Because of this tremendous contribution we have made these many years, let me say willingly and very ably, so many small, medium, and large companies have worked to perfect the technology. They have invented the tools, established the procedures, and have been pioneers in this industry. Many of the tools and technology invented for the environmentally responsible extraction of these minerals--not just in the United States but around the world--have actually been invented and developed in Louisiana. We are extremely proud of the contribution we have made. In addition to this technological contribution we have made, we have contributed over $150 billion to the Federal Treasury since this began. I see my colleague from Louisiana on the floor ready to speak in a few moments, but I would like to make a couple of other comments. The wetlands in Louisiana are not Louisiana's wetlands, they are America's wetlands. They are host to some of the largest commercial shipping in the world. There are seven ports that comprise the ports of south Louisiana and, if combined, it is the largest port system in the world. We have leveed the Mississippi River for the benefit of the Nation, not just for Louisiana's benefit. Realize, there were people living in Louisiana before the United States was a country. So we have been doing this a very long time. Controlling and taming this river, while it has been a great benefit to the Nation, has come at great cost to the State that holds this mouth of the great Mississippi River. What do I mean by that? Because we channeled this river, again for the benefit of the Nation so we can ship grain out of Kansas and can ship goods throughout this world--north, south, east, and west--and serve as the vibrant global port that we are, the river has ceased to overflow its banks. So this great delta, the seventh largest in the world, is rapidly sinking. If we do not get some infusion of revenue through this mechanism and others that we are seeking, we will lose these wetlands. It will not be Louisiana's loss, it will be America's loss. In addition to the commerce we support for our Nation, we also serve as a great migratory flyway for all the many bird species in North America. If they do not have a place to land when they come up from South America and Mexico--that is the place they land, that is the place they nest, that is the first land that is available to them off the water, and that is the marshland we are losing. In addition, this delta, besides the commerce, besides the environmental benefits for birds and other wildlife, is the fisheries, the nursery for the Gulf of Mexico. More than 40 to 50 percent, estimated by scientists, of all the fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico have some part of their life cycle spent in this great expanse of wetlands. I have been so pleased to have Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman--both Senators from New Mexico--come down to Louisiana to fly over our marsh and see it. You cannot get there any other way. You cannot drive to our coast as you can to the coast in Florida or to the beaches in Mississippi where many of us spent many of our years growing up. There are actually only two beaches, and they are each only about 5 miles long. There are no highways. The only way you can get there is by pirogue, motor boat, skiff, helicopter, or air boat in the marsh. So not many people have seen these wetlands. I have pictures to show any colleague who would like to see them. It is a magnificent stretch of land. The Everglades can fit inside it. It is three times the size of the Everglades in Florida. It is a huge expanse we are losing. If we do not capture these revenues in some annual, reliable amount to help the State of Louisiana put the resources into saving this wetlands, it will be, indeed, a great loss to America. In addition to what this wetlands contributes to the United States, it is not only all the above I have described, but it also drains water from two-thirds of the United States. Without the ability to drain this water out, we would have flooding all the way up the Missouri. As you know, because of the geography of our Nation, that water has to leave those areas or businesses and communities will flood. We think we are making such--we don't think, we know we are making such a great contribution to this Nation in so many ways. We think this amendment is quite reasonable. There is money available for this purpose. It will be shared with these producing States. From Louisiana's perspective, this money would be used primarily and almost exclusively for the restoration of America's wetlands so that these wetlands will be there for our children and our grandchildren. It is with great pride I helped to lead this effort, along with my colleague from Louisiana and many cosponsors. That number continues to grow. We have substantial support because of the leadership of Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman. Again, Louisiana has contributed so much. We simply ask an investment back to preserve this wetlands, which is America's, and to recognize the contribution our State makes to the energy independence of this Nation and to the future economic viability of this Nation. I want to recognize my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes since we have no timeline.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I appreciate so much the support we have on this amendment from both sides of the aisle. A great deal of thought has gone into this amendment. My colleague from Louisiana answered every single one of the objections raised against this amendment by the Senator from New Hampshire. I add just a few words. First of all, the Senator has done a very good job as budget chairman. I have enjoyed working with the Senator on many issues, including the education reform issue and trying to move toward a balanced budget. I share his goals in so many ways. He, of course, is a great advocate for his State, although he is somewhat critical of an act that we fondly, and in a very appreciative way, refer to as the Breaux Act in Louisiana. We take that in Louisiana as a great compliment when a Representative, a Senator or a Congressman, can use their committees to do something that is so warranted and so worthy and so necessary for a State. Senator Breaux served so ably in this Senate for many years. We refer to that act as the Breaux Act. The Senator is correct, we get a relatively substantial amount of money, $50 million a year. It started out at $20 to $25 million and has gone up to $50 million. However, that is a drop in the bucket considering the money that Louisiana has generated for this Nation and for the Senator's general fund. There has been $155 billion generated since 1953. Last year alone, $5 billion came off the coast of Louisiana. That would not be possible without our State agreeing to lay the pipeline, drive the pipe, allow the trucks to come down our two- lane roads that go underwater even when it rains. Forget the storm and hurricanes. Five billion dollars last year. If any State has contributed to the Federal Treasury anywhere near that amount with their resources, please, I would like to know. No other State, except the State of Wyoming, contributes more to energy independence than the State of Louisiana. Wyoming gets prize 1 and we get prize 2. I am speaking about all sources--nuclear, hydro, geothermal, wood, wind, waste, solar, oil, natural gas, and coal. All of it. The States of Wyoming, Louisiana, West Virginia, Alaska, New Mexico, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Montana, North Dakota, Colorado, and Utah, generate more energy in their State than they consume, more energy than their industries need, and we export it out. And we are happy to do it because we actually believe in our State what we say in the Senate, that we want to be energy independent. These States are at the top of the chart for usage: California, New York, Ohio. There are others. People say every State contributes what it can. Some produce sweet potatoes, some produce Irish potatoes, some States have beaches, some States have mountains. I understand that argument. That is what makes our Nation great. We all contribute to this great whole. But Louisiana contributes more than its share and it has since 1940. Are we asking anybody else to do that? No. Are we trying to move moratoria? No. We are saying for the money we contribute--we understand the OCS does not belong to us; we do not claim it does--we are saying for the money we contribute, could we please have six-tenths of a percent. If it means an entitlement, let me say to the Senator, the people in Louisiana are entitled. They are entitled to the money we helped contribute to the general fund. I don't take that as an insult, I take it as a compliment to the people of my State. We are entitled to some small amount of money we are asking for. We are willing to share it with the States that did not produce nearly the amount we produce, but we are happy to do that. In fact, the Presiding Officer may remember we have had bills to try to share the money with everyone. No matter what we try, we can share with everyone, but it is never quite enough, never quite right. We have it right this time because we probably have over 60 supporters of this amendment to give Louisiana and these coastal States a small share of the money that, yes, they are most certainly entitled to. Second, in this bill, the use of this money will go to wetlands conservation and resources. There have been a lot of pictures shown of the coast. I will show one of my favorites because this is what our coast looks like. This is what we are trying to keep healthy, a place where wildlife can flourish. A lot of people live near marshes like this. When they open their kitchen windows, they do not see interstates or big highways, they see this marsh. If you live near the Atchafalaya and you open your back windows, you will see a beautiful cypress forest. Most are gone in North America, but we are fortunate to have some in Louisiana we are trying to preserve. If you go out near Lake Maurepas around Lake Pontchartrain, this is what you see when the sun sets in the evening. I am tired of people coming to the Senate and putting up pictures of pelicans with oil all over them. We are wise people. We are an industrious people. We are a people who care about our environment. We have cared about it for hundreds of years. And we continue to try to save it. The Senator from New Hampshire can most certainly appreciate how much we love our State because he loves his, and how smart the people in Louisiana are to use the resources appropriately, the Senator would understand that these are some of the extraordinarily beautiful places that we are trying to save. There is a delta that is growing in Louisiana. It is the Atchafalaya Delta. And because of its natural beauty and because the water continues to flow and because of the good technologies our great universities have contributed to understanding the ecology of a delta-- there is no delta in New Hampshire, I don't believe. The last time I checked there wasn't one, but there is a big one in Louisiana, the seventh largest delta in the world. It is a growing delta. If you looked on a map from the satellite, you could see there is land growing off the coast of Louisiana. We are proud that this Atchafalaya Delta is growing. We are preserving it. The State is spending millions of dollars to buy this land and preserve it. Any argument in the Senate that the people of Louisiana are sitting around twiddling their thumbs, not smart enough to figure this out, is an insult. I don't think that is what the Senator meant, but sometimes people in Louisiana hear words in the Senate that lead them to believe that might be the conclusion. I am certain that is not what he meant. We have every intention of using this money to preserve these wetlands, to make the place that we have lived for over 300, 400 years more beautiful, and most importantly to make it secure for the future. As this marsh goes away, it threatens not only the life and livelihood and investments of the 2 million people who happen to live there and the 1 million people who live on the coast of Mississippi--because this marsh land protects them, as well--it also puts at risk billions and billions of dollars of infrastructure that the oil and gas industry has invested for the benefit of every single solitary American, whether they live in New Hampshire, Maine, Illinois, California, or Florida. The Senator from Louisiana and I have made our points very well. We appreciate the work of the Senator from New Hampshire and his work on the budget. We understand he has a tough job. But we have a job to do, as well. That job is to get six-tenths of 1 percent of the money that we generate for this Nation without bellyaching about it, without complaining about it. We have patiently and consistently asked for some fair share. Yes, Senator Breaux was quite successful in managing a small amount of money, but the tab that we have, the Corps of Engineers has helped us to appreciate. The tab that we have to pick up right now in our 20/ 50 plan is estimated to be $14 billion. So am I to believe the Senator from New Hampshire expects the 4.5 million people in Louisiana to pick up the tab--$14 billion--to fix the wetlands that is not ours but belongs to everyone, that we did not destroy but the Mississippi River leveeing destroyed, and put taxes on us to do this? I do not think he would suggest that. This is a partnership we ask for. We will do our part. The Federal Government should do its part. We are going to continue to press this issue. I am pleased to be able to answer some of those questions and concerns. Finally, this is a picture of the wetlands itself from a satellite view. This is Louisiana's coast. It is very different from Florida, very different from California. As I said, most people have never quite seen it because there are only two places you can get to. One is Grand Isle, which is shown right here, that tiny, little place. It is a beautiful little island, but it keeps getting battered by the hurricanes that continue to come. And Holly Beach is somewhere right around here on the map. It is too small to see on the map. There are only two roads you can get to. No one can see our coast unless you are one of the thousands of fishermen who come fish and tie their boats up next to the rigs. They actually fish next to the oil and gas rigs. That is where the best fishing is in the Gulf of Mexico. So unless you are one of those fishermen, or one of the trappers who have trapped here--for hundreds of years families have trapped here--you would not know where this is or what it looks like. But we do because we represent this State. We are losing this land and must find a way to save it. This amendment is a beginning. My colleagues have been so patient. Our colleagues have been so helpful. Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman have seen this land. Again, as my partner from Louisiana said--and I am going to wrap up in a moment--this does not open moratoria. It is not an opt-out or opt- in amendment. It is simply a revenue-sharing amendment. We believe the people of Louisiana and Mississippi and Texas and California and Alaska and Alabama are entitled to some of the money, a small amount of money they are contributing to the general fund that helps us keep our taxes low and funding projects all over the Nation. Mr. President, 30 more seconds. The Senators have been so patient, but I want to say this one response.

Ms. LANDRIEU. When the Senator says no other States share the revenues, that is inaccurate. I know he is aware that interior States share 50 percent of their revenues from Federal land in their States. Louisiana does not have a lot of Federal lands. Texas has very little Federal land. Mississippi does not have much Federal land. Most of that is in the West. We are different. We are not the West. We are the South, although Texas could claim to be both. But Louisiana and Mississippi are Southern States. We do not have a lot of Federal land. What we do have is a lot of land right off of here, as shown on the chart, that belongs to the Federal Government. But the Federal Government could not get to it unless we allowed pipelines. There are 20,000 miles of pipelines put under this south Louisiana territory to go all over the country, to keep our lights on and our industries running. So again, there is revenuesharing. We would like our share. This is going to go for a good cause, for the preservation of an extraordinary marsh. It is time for us to make this decision today for Louisiana and the coastal States. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Ms. LANDRIEU. The Senator from Mississippi has made such excellent points, and we appreciate his comments and support. The Senator may want to express for a moment the terror that reigned south Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida last hurricane season with the unusual number of storms that came up through the Gulf of Mexico and how frightening it is to people on the coast when these wetlands continue to disappear. The intensity of those storms gets greater and greater, and the damage to property and the threat to life is fairly serious. As a Senator who lives on the Gulf of Mexico, maybe just a word to talk about what happened to our States last hurricane season.

Ms. LANDRIEU. If the Senator will yield, he has made so many excellent points, and I am not sure I heard them. Maybe if he would repeat--right now we are building a pipeline from Alabama to Florida? Could the Senator explain that, again? I am not sure people understand that you are building a pipeline from Alabama and sending the gas-- where?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator for that question. I would like to respond this way. I do think there is a lot of misunderstanding and fear associated with an industry that not everyone knows about. As the Senator knows, we do know a great deal about the industry. We understand that 40 years ago, 30 years ago, the industry was relatively new and mistakes were made and technology was being tried out. We just did not have all the environmental data that we have today. But as the Senator knows, in every industry there has been tremendous advancement made. Not too along ago I was watching a program on television that was showing the way hot water heaters were developed in the Nation. I think the chairman from New Mexico would appreciate this. The whole program was about how in the early days people really wanted to have water, clean water, but they needed it warm for many purposes--not just for convenience and health, but cleanliness. They couldn't figure it out. So they kept trying to figure out a way to get hot water to people's houses. But what would happen is these early hot water pumps, as you know, would blow up, they would blow the whole house up and people were actually killed; they lost their lives. But did we stop trying to bring hot water into the homes of Americans? I know this might seem to be a small matter to people who live in the United States, but turning on a faucet, in your home, for clean, drinkable cold and hot water is still a luxury in the world today. But Americans did not stop with that technology. So today we take it for granted. Everybody can go home and turn the hot water on and it comes out and nobody blows up. The Senator from Alabama is absolutely correct. There are people who just do not know. This technology is very safe. Plus, we have the Coast Guard, we have Federal agencies, we have the State court system, and the Federal court system, in answer to your question, that all enforce the laws, and agencies that are ``Johnny on the spot'' if something goes wrong. Are there accidents? Yes. Can things go wrong? Yes. But I think as we start telling people more and at least give people more good information--the Senator from Alabama is correct--then they can make better decisions for the country. Again, to be respectful, if some States have accepted this information and still make the choice not to go forward, that might be their prerogative. But the Senator is absolutely correct. For those States such as Alabama, such as Mississippi, such as Texas and Louisiana, that have decided this is in our State's interests and the Federal interest, then most certainly this small amount of money for coastal impact assistance--to help us with our wetlands, to help us with beach erosion, to help make those investments that are so necessary--is absolutely the right thing to do at this time.

Ms. LANDRIEU. The Senator is correct. There is some thought that perhaps Cuba may open drilling and Canada may open drilling. But again, this amendment that the Senator has cosponsored, along with my colleague from Louisiana, who is here on the floor as well, is not a drilling amendment. It is not touching the moratoria. It is not laying down any boundary changes whatsoever. It is a coastal impact assistance revenue sharing for only the current producing States. So while there has been an extended debate--because we are not able to go to a final vote because there are some things that are being worked out and there has been an extended debate in these last hours, as my good friend from Florida knows, who is here on the floor--this amendment is a coastal impact amendment. We have already debated the moratoria issue. We have debated the drilling issue. We could not come to a compromise on that so that issue is going to be saved to another day. I have said to my friends from New Jersey and my friends from Florida and to my friends from Virginia and to you, the Senator from Alabama, this debate is not going to go away. We are going to have to continue to debate it. But this is not the debate at this moment. This debate now, this amendment that has broad bipartisan support, is about coastal revenue sharing, coastal impact assistance for States that produce oil and gas. If I could, I wanted to make mention of something that would help the country understand, I think. This is from the Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency's Report of 2001. These numbers will have changed, obviously, since 2001, but probably not by too much, and I doubt the quarter will change too much. This is all energy produced--nuclear, hydro, geothermal, wood, wind, waste, solar, oil, natural gas, and coal. That is everything--nuclear, hydro, geothermal, wood, wind, waste, solar, oil, natural gas, coal. There are only 11 States in the Union that produce more energy than they consume. All of these States, starting from No. 1, California, all the way down to Vermont, use more energy than they produce. Again, I am aware that we are a Nation of 50 States. Some States grow sweet potatoes, some States grow Irish potatoes; some States make tractors, some States make automobiles. But the problem here is that some are saying we don't want to produce energy but we want the benefits. So I am saying to my friends on all sides, if you don't want to drill for oil and gas on your shore or off, then put up a nuclear powerplant. If you don't want to put up a nuclear powerplant, put up windmills. If you don't want to put up windmills, you have to try to do something to generate energy for this country. That is my only argument. That is not this amendment. This amendment is just recognizing that the States that have--let me just say this. I am trying to speak the truth here. Not only does Louisiana produce more than it uses, but please remember how much industry we have. Most of the chemical plants are in Louisiana, New Jersey, Illinois. Those are the areas where there are a lot of chemical plants. We are proud of the petrochemical industry. But we also supply all of those manufacturing facilities--huge manufacturing facilities--that produce products that are not just bought by Louisiana; these chemicals go into better products we create in America. We sell them overseas, we sell some to ourselves, and we make money. Not only are we producing all the gas and energy we need, we are fueling all of our plants and then exporting. When you add that on top of the numbers on my chart--and I want this corrected for the record. I am not sure this chart counts offshore; I think this may be just onshore. I don't think this counts offshore. If you add that, these numbers go up exponentially. Wyoming gets the first prize. Some States say, We do not have the resources. I understand that. Not everyone has oil and gas. Not everyone has coal. The point Senator Domenici has been trying to make is, that is fine, but everybody has an ability to do something. Either conserve more, do not let SUVs come to your State if that is what you want to do, or produce more. That is the point--not on this amendment-- one of the points of this bill.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield?