David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. The Senator is correct. In Louisiana, there has been a tremendous amount of controversy involving the licensing of offshore LNG terminals recently related mainly to a technology for reheating the gas called open rack vaporization. My amendment is designed to emphasize the Governor's current authority under the Deepwater Port Act. Under current law the Deepwater Port Act allows the Governor of a state to approve--or be presumed to approve--the issuance of a license for an offshore LNG facility.

Mr. VITTER. That is correct. So, no changes to existing law are necessary in order for the Governor to approve or disapprove issuance of a license for offshore LNG facilities.

Mr. VITTER. A Governor has never attempted to use this authority. In the case of Louisiana, we have two licensed offshore LNG facilities and the Governor of Louisiana approved both of these facilities. Louisiana has lost thousands of jobs due to the high costs of energy. The underlying bill does much to address this challenge and LNG will play an important role in addressing the increasing demand for natural gas. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for clarifying the Governor's authority to approve or disapprove an offshore LNG facility. blm policy on oil and gas development in potash reserve

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise in strong support of amendment No. 891 as well. I am proud to join my Louisiana colleague, Mary Landrieu, in doing so. I want to make five important points why this amendment is clearly the right thing to do. First, as Senator Landrieu said, this amendment has very broad, very deep, and very bipartisan support. I thank her for her leadership, as well as so many others who have come together and worked very hard to craft a responsible amendment to move this issue forward in a concrete way. Senator Domenici, the chairman of the committee, has led in an extraordinary way on this issue and is the primary author of this amendment. We thank him. Senator Bingaman, the ranking member of the committee, has led on this amendment as well and is a cosponsor and supportive of it. We thank him. Senator Landrieu and I, of course, as well as Senators Lott and Cochran, Sessions, and others are all coming together, very broad based, in a bipartisan way to support this effort. That is point No. 1. Point No. 2 is this is an utterly fair and just thing to do. In this overall debate about an energy bill, we are constantly looking for ways to secure our energy future, to increase our energy independence, to lessen our dependence on foreign sources, which is so troublesome, particularly in a post-9/11 world. While in that debate, it is important to remember that there are a few States that have been leading that effort and have been doing their part all along, particularly these five coastal producing States-- Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Alaska, and California to a much lesser extent. So in this energy debate, it is certainly important to remember that some of us have been pulling our weight and far more than our weight every step of the way. Yet up until this moment, we have gotten virtually nothing for it. While oil and gas and other mineral production on public lands onshore gives significant royalties to the host State--usually about 50 percent--that same sort of oil and gas production offshore gives virtually nothing to the host State, less than 1 percent. That is utterly unfair and this amendment is a small initial step to correct that. As Senator Landrieu said, these coastal areas have produced $150 billion or more of Federal revenue, virtually no State revenue. This amendment would correct that injustice in a very small way by capturing a truly tiny percentage of that overall production and royalty figure for the host States. Point No. 3 is that the host States, the coastal producing States, need this revenue to address problems directly related to this oil and gas production and our contribution to the Nation's energy security. In my home State of Louisiana, we have an absolute crisis going on. It is called coastal erosion. The easiest way I can summarize it is as follows: Close your eyes and try to picture a piece of land the size of a football field. That piece of land disappears from Louisiana, drifts out into the Gulf, lost forever, every 38 minutes. That is around the clock, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. The clock never stops. It goes on and on. That loss is directly related to this oil and gas activity. So we have been contributing to the Nation's energy security, but the only thing we have gotten directly for it is these monumental problems which this revenue will help address. Point No. 4 is that this amendment does not open any new areas to drilling. It does not provide incentives to open any new areas. Personally, I would like to do that. I think more of America needs to contribute to our energy security. I think we need to look in other areas. But clearly that is very politically controversial and this amendment does not attempt to do that in any way. So States that are not in the business, that do not want to be in the business, have nothing to fear from this amendment. Point No. 5 has to do with the budget. All of us, led by Senator Domenici, a former budget chairman, have worked extremely hard so that this does not bust the budget in any way. We have bent over backward to fashion this amendment so it is within all the budget numbers. A budget point of order may nevertheless be raised and I expect it to be raised. I want to explain what that is because it is not busting the numbers built into the budget. There is a reserve fund or a contingency fund within the budget that was part of the budget and part of the Budget Act specifically associated with the Energy bill. This amendment is well within the numbers of that fund and therefore does not go beyond the numbers of the budget. However, in the Budget Act, the chairman of the Budget Committee has the role of having to sign off on the use of that contingency fund. The chairman may not do that. He may therefore raise a budget point of order, and that is his right, and I respect his right and what he views as his obligation, but I want to make the point very clearly that is a technical point of order which is fundamentally different from an amendment which busts the budget numbers, which goes beyond the numbers built into the budget. We have worked extremely hard with the budget chairman's staff, I might add, hand in glove with them, to make sure this amendment falls within all of the numbers of the budget and is well below that contingency fund number specifically for the Energy bill. So if that budget point of order is raised, it is valid, but it is, in a sense, a technicality because our amendment does not go beyond the numbers built into the budget and the Budget Act.

Mr. VITTER. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. VITTER. No. The point which I just made was that this amendment is well within all of the numbers laid out in the Budget Act. That was the point I was trying to make.

Mr. VITTER. I will be happy to.

Mr. VITTER. That is not my----

Mr. VITTER. If I could clarify and respond to the question, that is not my position at all. My position, which I think I laid out pretty clearly, is this amendment is well within all of the numbers within the budget. It does not bust those numbers. It does not go beyond those budget numbers. That is what I said, that is what I meant, and I believe to the extent the Senator did not argue the point, it is confirmed.

Mr. VITTER. I will be happy to.

Mr. VITTER. Reclaiming my time, I think I have laid out my position very clearly. This is a broad-based, bipartisan amendment. This is a fair amendment, particularly considering everything that these coastal producing States have given the country in terms of our energy security. Unfortunately, we are a very small number of States that have contributed in that way. This is designed to address a very real crisis in Louisiana and other coastal States. By the way, that is not some parochial problem. That is a national problem, as my colleague, the senior Senator from Louisiana, has outlined. It threatens national oil and gas infrastructure. It threatens national maritime commerce and ports. It threatens nationally significant fisheries. Fourth, we are not opening new areas with this amendment. We are not providing incentives to open new areas with this amendment. Fifth and finally, we are within all the numbers within the budget. I thank the chairman of the committee. I thank Senator Bingaman and others. I thank my colleague, Senator Landrieu, for her leadership on this issue. I yield back my time.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable sections of the Budget Act with respect to this amendment.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I follow up on some of the previous comments regarding this coastal amendment and quickly underscore two very important points. As my colleague from Louisiana has explained, this is merely treating those coastal producing States that have produced so much of the Nation's energy needs, taken care of so much of those needs, simply treating those coastal producing States fairly. If only more States were like us in producing far more energy than we consume, of course, this energy crisis we are facing would be less and less onerous, but that is not the case. In particular, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee was in the Senate and said his State produced more energy than it consumed. I would love to hear the distinguished chairman's sources for that. I checked with the U.S. Department of Energy and they flatly disagreed. The most recent figures I could obtain, September 5, 2003, certainly include the nuclear energy plant the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire was referring to. That produces far less than the State of New Hampshire consumes. In fact, the total energy production from New Hampshire comes from that nuclear facility, .036 quadrillion Btus. The total energy consumption of New Hampshire is .329 quadrillion Btus. So, according to my source from the U.S. Department of Energy, the best information I have, dated September 5, 2003, New Hampshire consumes about nine times what it produces from that nuclear plant or any other source. I use that as an example because, unfortunately, the coastal producing States we are talking about are in the distinct minority. We do produce the Nation's energy needs. We do produce far more energy than we consume. That is great for the Nation. I wish that load were spread around more, but it is not. That is a very important element of this debate. The second point that directly flows into is a question of fairness. The Senator from New Hampshire talked about some boondoggle to coastal States. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are simply asking for a small, modest modicum of fairness. This amendment covers 4 years, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 4 years, and then it goes away. During those 4 years, the royalties into the Federal Treasury from this offshore production are expected to be $26 billion. Under this amendment, during those 4 years, our share is $1 billion. That is less than 4 percent. Meanwhile, onshore oil and gas and mineral production is shared in terms of royalties on public lands 50 percent to the States and 50 percent to the Feds. The Senator from New Hampshire, when he was here, cited the example of West Virginia coal production. That royalty share on public lands is 50/50. We will take 50 percent. If the Senator from New Hampshire wants to offer that amendment, we will accept that. We are only asking for 4 percent for 4 years and then it goes away. This is fair. It is a fair way to treat those few States that help produce the energy the Nation needs. Those are very important points. I hope all Senators remember those points as they vote, particularly on an amendment that is squarely within the budget, that does not bust any of the numbers within the budget. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I wanted to briefly respond to each of the major points that the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee has made because I believe, quite honestly and sincerely, he is misinformed about each of these points. No. 1, the idea that there is no causal linkage between the problem, at least in Louisiana we are trying to address, and offshore oil and gas production: Nothing could be further from the truth. I am glad the distinguished Senator has read ``Rising Tide.'' But I suggest he needs to read a lot more and maybe come to Louisiana. There are, of course, several causes that have all worked to create this coastal erosion problem, but one of the biggest has been all of the oil and gas service activity which comes off the swampy coast of Louisiana. All of that 50 years of activity has created channelization of our marshes. That has directly led to the intrusion of saltwater into the marshland, the loss of vegetation, which is the glue that holds it together, and this coastal erosion. There is an absolute identifiable, scientifically proven, causal connection between offshore oil and gas activity and this coastal erosion problem. It is not speculative. It has been scientifically proven. Are there other contributing factors? Of course. Is levying of the Mississippi a significant factor? Of course. But there is a direct causal connection. Point No. 2, the chairman has suggested there is no relation between this money and energy production. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. The amendment specifically states these States share in this fund in direct proportion to their Outer Continental Shelf energy production. The way to calculate how much each State gets is according to what activity, in meeting the Nation's energy needs, goes on off our coast. There is a direct connection between the calculation of the money and this activity. Again, a direct connection in terms of what money the States get directly dependent on what OCS oil and gas activity exists. Point No. 3 causes me the most angst being from Louisiana, the notion that there is no justice to this amendment, or that this is somehow a rip-off to the advantage of Louisiana and other coastal States. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have worked 50 years to produce energy in this country. We are one of the only States in this country to have done this. The other States are also represented in this amendment. Yet we have gotten hardly anything for it and truly hardly anything for it in terms of direct revenue to the State. States that have onshore mineral production or onshore oil and gas production on public land get a 50-percent royalty share. A State such as Louisiana that has this production offshore in the OCS gets less than 1 percent. Yes, there is a justice issue, but the justice issue is weighted in our favor. I note two things, in particular, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire mentioned. He talked about other conservation needs. What about the conservation needs brought about by coal activity in West Virginia? The chairman should note West Virginia gets a 50-percent royalty share that directly relates to that activity. Put us on par with West Virginia. We will take that; we will take 50 percent. The fact is this is a pittance compared to that. Is there a justice problem? You bet there is. West Virginia produces coal, and that is great for the country, and they get a 50 percent royalty share. We produce oil and gas, and that is great for the country, and we get less than 1 percent. This is a justice issue, and all the justice arguments are in our favor. The Senator also mentioned that Louisiana has a windfall because 3 miles off our coast is State waters. That is true. But the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire should note that for Texas, that seaward boundary is 9 miles. For Florida, that seaward boundary is 9 miles. Yet because of historical accidents and idiosyncracies, it is only 3 miles for Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama. Everywhere else it is 9 miles or more. For Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, it is a third of that, about 3 miles. You bet there is a justice issue. But, again, the injustice for 50 years and more has been against us. We are trying to correct that in a truly modest way with this amendment. Fourth and finally is the budget point. I reiterate and am very specific and very clear: This amendment is wholly within the numbers built into that budget. As the chairman knows, built into the budget is a fund specifically dedicated to the Energy bill. This amendment is well within those numbers. There are lots of things in the Energy bill that are mandatory spending. There are lots of tax provisions. There are lots of other provisions that basically can amount to mandatory spending. This is the same as that. There are lots of other things that are not subject to future decisions or future appropriation or other decisions. This is tantamount to that, and it is within the numbers built into the budget for the Energy bill. We have bent over backwards, worked very hard, to make sure that was the case. I yield time to the senior Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman about one amendment in particular, amendment No. 802. It is based on an underlying bill I introduced, the Alternative Energy Enhancement Act, which would provide some regulatory structure and some royalty sharing for new alternative energy that is developed offshore, particularly on the Outer Continental Shelf. These are new forms of energy which are not in production now, things such as solar energy, thermal energy, wave energy, methane hydrates. First, I compliment the chairman for his work on the bill because the underlying bill includes most, if not all, of the regulatory provisions of my bill. What it does not include is royalty sharing. I would like to ask the chairman if he could continue to work with me as this energy bill goes to conference to create a fair system of royalty sharing for these new forms of energy, noting that it is absolutely no loss to the Federal Treasury because those revenues are not coming in yet.

Mr. VITTER. Yes, this first amendment is No. 802. My second amendment we can deal with much later on. We don't to have deal with it immediately.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I withdraw amendment No. 802.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize John L. Alexander, Jefferson Parish Public Schools Social Studies consultant and Close Up Director of Louisiana. Devoting his life to education, Mr. Alexander will retire from service on June 30, 2005. Today, I want to take a moment to offer Mr. Alexander my deep appreciation for his dedication to the families of Jefferson Parish and the entire State of Louisiana. Mr. Alexander began his teaching career in 1967 in the Orleans Parish school system. In 1968, he acted as assistant principal and teacher at St. Philip Neri School in Metairie, LA. And in 1975, he began a 30-year career as a social studies consultant for the Jefferson Parish Public School system. Acting as the Louisiana Director of the Close Up Foundation, Mr. Alexander has led Louisiana's involvement in the Nation's largest nonprofit citizenship education organization. In honor of Mr. Alexander's excellent example of citizenship and service, I come to the Senate floor today to express my gratitude to John Alexander for his many years of service to Louisiana.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize George Dement, mayor of Bossier City, LA. Mayor Dement will retire from office on June 30, 2005, after 16 years of service to northwest Louisiana. Mayor Dement is retiring from public service on the same date he was inaugurated 16 years earlier. Today, I take a moment to offer warm thanks for his years of service to Bossier City and best wishes for his coming commendation ceremonies. A native of Princeton, LA, Mayor Dement served in the U.S. Submarine Service in both the Atlantic and Pacific Theaters during WorId War II and was present when the Japanese surrendered at Tokyo Bay. After 5 years of military service, he attended Centenary College and Louisiana State University Shreveport. Upon completing his studies, Mayor Dement began a 22-year tenure with Holiday Inn and was named Innkeeper of the Year in 1976. In 1989, he was elected mayor of Bossier City where he has been reelected three times--all with large margins of victory. As mayor, Mr. Dement will be remembered for his leadership and accessibility. During his tenure, Mayor Dement led the way on four different phases of the Arthur Ray Teague Parkway and also poured large amounts of energy into revitalizing key areas of Bossier City. Fondly referred to as ``the people's mayor,'' Mr. Dement is known for his honesty and commonsense approach to governing. I come to the Senate floor today to join the residents of Bossier City in personally commending, honoring, and thanking him for his 16 years of service to northwest Louisiana.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, in recent weeks, the American people, including the citizens of Louisiana, have heard a lot about Senate rules, about historical precedent, about something very confusing called the filibuster, about the Senate's constitutional duty, and advice and consent. I think for the average American, for the average Louisianan, this seems pretty esoteric. This seems pretty out of touch with their everyday lives, this issue of how the Senate governs itself. But there are issues at the heart of this which are important to those citizens, including my constituents in Louisiana. And those issues are: Is the Senate going to do its job? Are we as Senators going to do our job and do the people's business, address important issues of the day to build up our country and make it better? Also, there is the fundamental issue of fairness. Are we going to be fair in this process to all concerned? Those are themes, those are issues to which Americans all across the country, certainly my citizens in Louisiana relate and care about. Are we going to do the people's business? Are we going to act in a way that is fair to all? Those are issues directly at the heart of this debate-- doing the people's business. Last year, I ran for the Senate for the first time. In doing so, of course, I traveled all around Louisiana and talked to citizens of all walks of life in every corner of the State. One theme I heard over and over from all sorts of folks of both parties was: Please go up there and do what is right and do the people's business. Get beyond all of this bitter partisanship, this obstructionism, the filibuster. Do the people's business in terms of important issues of the day. That is what folks in Louisiana told me over and over again. They care about putting good people on the bench and having our courts run properly and filling these vacancies. They also care about other important business--passing a highway bill, building infrastructure so we can create good jobs in this country and Louisiana, passing a national energy policy to get us on track in terms of energy independence. That is important for our national security, and that is important for our economic security. Again, wherever I went, with whomever I talked--Black, White, Democrat, Republican, and everyone in between--folks said over and over: Look, we are sending you there to do our business, to face issues, to vote, to move forward as a country, not to obstruct, not to play political games, not to get mired in bitter partisanship, but to take care of us and to address our concerns. And that is important. The other issue that is at the heart of this debate that ordinary citizens around the country and Louisiana care about is fairness. Are you going to act in a way that is fundamentally fair to everybody concerned? And, of course, that is at issue here as well. We have judicial nominees who have been nominated not weeks ago or months ago but, in many cases, years ago; in some cases, over 4 years ago. Their lives have been disrupted. They have been attacked by interest groups around the country, as well as Members of Congress. Many charges have been leveled against them that are patently untrue and patently unfair. And after all of that turmoil, after all of those trials and tribulations, they do not even get an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. There is no resolution to the trial, the jury never comes back. We do not get to vote and say this person should be on the court or this person should not be on the court. That is not fair. That is not fair in the minds of any ordinary American. It is not fair in the minds of the citizens of Louisiana. We need to bring some fundamental fairness to this process. Sure, we need to have an important debate. Sure, we need to vet all the information. We can have differences of opinion. But then at the end of the day, we need to have resolution, we need to have an up-or-down vote. It is time to do that with all of these judicial nominees. We have a historic opportunity in the Senate right now to address both of those concerns: to do the people's business, to do our job, to vote, and to move on to other key issues, such as the highway bill, building jobs, building energy independence--and we have the opportunity to act honorably and with fundamental fairness by treating all concerned in a fundamentally fair way in giving these nominees an up-or-down vote. I stand on the Senate floor today to ask that we all come together to do that because that is the right thing to do, not for party leaders, not for the President, or for interest groups on the left or the right. It is the right thing to do for the American people. It is the right thing to do for the citizens of each of our respective States. I make a plea in particular to my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, to do that. She is in a unique position to reach out and achieve fundamental fairness and do the people's business in a constructive way. Many folks, including me, quite frankly, were disappointed that a few years ago Senator Landrieu filibustered and supported that filibuster of Miguel Estrada, another highly qualified judicial nominee, after she had expressed strong support of that very nomination in her reelection campaign. This is an opportunity to set that record aside and do the right thing and give all of these judicial nominees a fair up-or-down vote. That is what the folks of Louisiana want: to do the people's business, to do our job, to vote and to address other important issues and to act honorably and bring fundamental fairness, proper American values, Louisiana values to this process. We are beginning with a very important nomination to the people of Louisiana, Priscilla Owen of Texas. It is particularly important to my citizens of Louisiana because the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, to which Judge Owen is nominated, serves Louisiana, covers all of Louisiana. There has been a vacancy in that position for years and years. Judge Owen has been nominated for over 4 years. Her nomination has been thoroughly vetted, thoroughly debated and, yet we have never had that closure. We have never had that fair up-or-down vote. In fact, the vacancy which she would fill has been declared a judicial emergency in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, impacting directly Louisiana because it has been open for so long. So this is the perfect place to start for me, for Senator Landrieu, for those who are concerned about justice in the Fifth Circuit, taking care of that judicial emergency, and then we should move on and give all of these nominees a fair up-or-down vote. Justice Owen has been maligned unfairly. All sorts of charges have been leveled against her, and I want to address some of those directly. She has been called fringe and out of the mainstream, way out of the mainstream of American opinion and everyday life. Yet if you take any serious look at the facts, that charge simply does not hold up. Justice Owen has been on the Texas Supreme Court since 1994, but more significantly, when she was reelected to that position, she was reelected with 84 percent of the vote in Texas, with the endorsement of every major newspaper of the State and with bipartisan support. Now, is every newspaper in the State fringe, out of the mainstream? Are 84 percent of Texas voters fringe and out of the mainstream? Obviously not. In addition, in her nomination to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Owen gained the highest rating possible from the American Bar Association. She was nominated on May 9, 2001, nearly 4 years ago, and renominated January 7, 2003, and February 14, 2005. Her qualifications have been vetted and debated exhaustively. Owen has significant bipartisan support, including three former Democrat judges on the Texas Supreme Court and a bipartisan group of 15 past presidents of the State Bar of Texas. Owen has been a justice on the Texas Supreme Court since 1994 and was endorsed for reelection by every major Texas newspaper. Owen previously practiced commercial litigation for 17 years. She also has a substantial record of pro bono and community activity. Owen received her undergraduate degree from Baylor University and graduated third in her class from Baylor Law School in 1977. She was a member of the law review and has been honored as Baylor Young Lawyer of the Year and as a Baylor University Outstanding Young Alumna. After graduating from law school, Justice Owen received the highest score in the State on the Texas bar exam in December 1977. The American Bar Association unanimously rated Justice Owen ``well qualified,'' its highest possible rating. Some weeks ago, I also spoke on this floor in support of Justice Brown, whose nomination recently cleared the Judiciary Committee for the second time. The President nominated her to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court nearly 2 years ago. One-fourth of the DC Circuit is currently vacant; and Justice Brown's nomination has strong support. As I noted before, during Justice Brown's 9-year-tenure on the California Supreme Court, she has acquired a reputation as a fair and intelligent justice who is committed to the rule of law. Justice Brown has served on the California Supreme Court since May 1996. Her appointment to that court was historic: Justice Brown is the first African-American woman ever to have served as an associate justice on the California Supreme Court. Even more impressive, Justice Brown was recently returned to that court with the approval of 76 percent of California voters. In her retention election, Justice Brown had the highest vote percentage of all justices on the ballot. Another sign of Brown's credibility is that, in 2002, she wrote more majority opinions than any of her colleagues on the California Supreme Court. As stated by a bipartisan group of Justice Brown's former judicial colleagues: ``she has quickly become one of the most prolific authors of majority opinions on the California Supreme Court.'' At least 12 judges have signed letters in support of her confirmation. Such numbers are indicators of the high esteem in which she is held by both the voting public in California and by her judicial colleagues. I have heard arguments from some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that Justice Brown should not be confirmed by this Chamber. One argument is that she supposedly abhors Government. Another argument is that she is supposedly hostile to civil rights. Such arguments are entirely without merit, and I would like to respond to this attack on Justice Brown. While her critics charge that Justice Brown abhors Government, this nominee is hardly an extremist when it comes to Government. Indeed, as a longtime public servant, Justice Brown has been part of our Government for 25 years. She thinks there are many things Government does well, many things only Government can do; and she has criticized the unintended consequences of some of the things that Government does. In her judicial decisions, Justice Brown strives to apply the law as it exists and she defers to the legislature's judgment on how to solve many social or economic issues. This nominee's judicial opinions suggest that she fully appreciates the importance of having Government play an active role in certain areas, including efforts to protect the public's health and safety. That is why she voted to uphold State health standards for labeling milk products. That is why she agreed that faucets, which might contain lead, should be considered a source of drinking water, under the Government's Safe Drinking Water Program. And that is why she agreed that her State's regulations regarding overtime pay should be liberally interpreted to provide California workers with more protection than they would have had under Federal law. Her opponents also have insinuated that Justice Brown is hostile to civil rights. But Justice Brown has stated in her judicial opinions that ``discrimination on the basis of race is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, inherently wrong, and destructive of democratic society.'' In writing for a unanimous court, Justice Brown struck down a certain minority aid program because it violated Proposition 209, a provision of the California constitution that bars discrimination against, or preferential treatment to, any individual group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. Every judge in California who reviewed this program found it unconstitutional. I find the argument that she is hostile to civil rights to be simply incredible, when you consider Justice Brown's personal history as an African-American who came of age in the South in the midst of Jim Crow laws. As someone who attended segregated schools, Justice Brown, better than anyone, can appreciate the importance of fighting discrimination. She grew up in Alabama, the daughter of sharecroppers, listening to her grandmother's stories about NAACP lawyer Fred Gray, who defended Dr. Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. Her rise to the California Supreme Court from humble beginnings in the segregated South is absolutely inspiring. That may be why she has been sensitive to claims of racial profiling in cases where the facts strongly supported such an inference. We all know that Justice Brown has risen to a prominent position on the California Supreme Court. But not everyone is aware of Justice Brown's record of activities on behalf of minorities, children, and the underprivileged. Let me take this opportunity to highlight a few such activities: Justice Brown served as a member of the California Commission on the Status of African-American Males. The Commission made recommendations on how to address inequities in the treatment of African-American males in employment, business development, and the criminal justice and health care systems. She served on the Governor's Child Support Task Force, which reviewed and made recommendations on how to improve California's child enforcement system. While serving as a member of the Community Learning Advisory Board of the Rio Americano High School, Justice Brown developed a program to provide Government service internships to high school students in Sacramento, CA. I close by citing a statement in support of Justice Brown by an executive director of Minorities in Law Enforcement: ``We recommend the confirmation of Justice Brown based on her broad range of experience, personal integrity, good standing in the community and dedication to public service. . . Justice Brown is a fair and just person with impeccable honesty, which is the standard by which justice is carried out.'' In closing, I urge my colleagues to allow both Justice Brown and Justice Owen to have a vote on the Senate floor. Let Justice Brown's judicial qualifications, rather than her political philosophy, be our focus in her confirmation process.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the opening of the Northshore Harbor Center in Slidell, LA on May 20, 2005. This new convention center will greatly benefit St. Tammany Parish. I join the East St. Tammany Events Center Commission and all the people of St. Tammany Parish in voicing my excitement about the opening of the center and its potential for economic development. The Northshore Harbor Center is the product of many years of hard work and intense planning. Though numerous individuals were involved in the project, I would like to take this moment to personally recognize those responsible for its completion. First, I would like to commend the dedicated citizens of the East St. Tammany Events Center Commission. Also, I would like to recognize the parish officials who appointed and oversaw the Commission. Finally, I would like to thank the citizens of Wards 8 and 9 who contributed hard earned tax dollars to fund the construction of this state-of-the-art complex. I look forward to the wide array of events and conventions that will begin pouring into the Northshore Harbor Center. And I look forward to the many new visitors it will attract to another wonderful parish in Louisiana.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, now that time has run out, I am excited to be here to talk about the highway bill, important work of the American people that we must get done this week. I am here to stand in strong support of H.R. 3, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005. Last year, I traveled Louisiana extensively, campaigning all around the State. I heard concerns expressed in every part of the State about the importance of making sure that we in Louisiana get our fair share of Federal highway funding. In the past, Louisiana was a donor State, which means our State's taxpayers contributed more in gas tax revenue than they got back from the Treasury in highway moneys. As one of the newest members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I worked hard this year to ensure that we try to change this unfair state of affairs. So Louisiana's rate of return will substantially increase under the bill before us from about 90.5 cents for every dollar that we send in Louisiana taxpayer money to the Federal Government to 95 cents on the dollar. That is a huge jump. It is still not a dollar--we need to go further--but it is a dramatic improvement. This increase will provide my State with $2.9 billion over the next 5 years, funding that is critical to ensure that work continues on one of my State's major corridors, I-49, as well as many other Louisiana highway projects. Providing additional funding for I-49 has been a goal of mine since my days in the House of Representatives. Upon assuming my seat in the Senate this January, I have continued to fight for those additional I- 49 dollars. That is why I initiated a letter in February to Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords calling for them to support a significant level of funding for the corridor improvement program in the highway reauthorization bill. That letter was cosigned by five colleagues. As a member of the committee that produced that bill, I am also pleased that we were able to agree on language that would redress a serious transportation and safety issue for my State. You see, Louisiana is the 22nd most populous State, yet it ranks third in the Nation in the number of collisions at highway-railroad crossings and fifth in the Nation in the number of railroad fatalities. Along the 3,000 miles of tracks in Louisiana are over 6,000 rail crossings, more than any other State except Illinois. So the bill we crafted would provide $178 million for the elimination of hazards and the installation of protective devices at railroad highway crossings. I wanted to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues, in particular those on the Environment and Public Works Committee, for agreeing to the inclusion in the highway bill of three significant amendments that I offered. I thank Chairman Inhofe for his work on behalf of these amendments. One of the amendments would ensure that emergency evacuation routes are emphasized as a program priority under the Multistate Corridor Program. The second amendment I authored would channel additional dollars to hurricane evacuation routes under the Federal Infrastructure Performance and Maintenance Program. And the third will help local officials complete much faster, and at much lower cost locally, a highway project connecting the parishes of Houma and Thibodaux, LA. The inclusion of these amendments in the managers' amendment will greatly benefit Louisiana and other coastal States across the country that experience frequent hurricanes. As noted in the Times Picayune and other Louisiana newspapers, the 2004 evacuation of Louisiana due to Hurricane Ivan was disturbingly slow and marked by traffic gridlock. Traffic was backed up for 26 hours in Baton Rouge and 14 hours in New Orleans, while nearly 4,500 cars per hour were crossing the Mississippi River on I-10 at the peak of evacuation. Two of my amendments will provide additional funding for evacuation routes such as I-49, La. 1, and La. 3127 during hurricanes or other emergencies. Providing Federal resources to upgrade and maintain evacuation routes throughout the State will certainly help avoid the astounding gridlock and danger that occurred during the evacuation of Hurricane Ivan. The third amendment I offered will expand the scope of an existing Federal highway project without increasing the cost-share burden on the local community and State. Without my amendment, the areas of Houma and Thibodaux, LA, would have had to come up with as much as $5 million more money. This transportation project will establish a new north- south evacuation route that is vitally important to residents of Houma and Thibodaux and all of those areas in southeast Louisiana. I thank, again, the full EPW Committee, the chairman, Mr. Inhofe, the ranking member, Mr. Jeffords, the subcommittee chairman and the subcommittee ranking member and all of the staff who have assisted on this bill, particularly Andrew Wheeler and Ruth Van Mark. I call on my colleagues to support the chairman and ranking member in their efforts to shepherd this bill through the Senate and through important conference committee negotiations. Congress has been extending funding for Federal aid to highway programs six times. The current extension is set to expire on May 31 this year, a little over 2 weeks away. We need to pass this bill. Then we need to quickly go to conference with the House and resolve our differences with the other Chamber before that important May 31 deadline. That is when the current extension expires and funding for Federal aid to highway programs will run out. I know that is a tall order, but all of our States' transportation needs, our Nation's transportation needs cannot wait any longer. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. VITTER. OK, but I say to the Senator, I understood you had been given the floor until someone came to the floor to speak on the highway bill. About how much longer?

Mr. VITTER. OK, that will be fine.