Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Frank M. ``Mark'' Newton, assessor of Grant Parish. Mr. Newton retired on October 31, 2005, after 45 years of service to Grant Parish. Today, I want to take a moment to offer warm thanks for his years of service to the State of Louisiana and Grant Parish and thank him for all of his endeavors.

A life long resident of Grant Parish, LA, he was the youngest child of Will and Laura Newton and graduated from Dry Prong High School in 1953. After proudly serving in the U.S. Marine Corps for 3 years, he immediately enrolled at Northwestern State University in Natchitoches, LA. Upon graduation in 1960, he became an involved and dedicated teacher in the Grant Parish school system. Soon becoming the business manager for the Grant Parish school system, Mr. Newton served proudly in this position until 1977 when he became the chief deputy tax assessor of Grant Parish. He proudly retained this position until his retirement at the end of October.

Known as someone who would always lend a helping hand, Mr. Newton developed and maintained numerous relationships that have lasted a lifetime. During his tenure as a public servant, not only did Mr. Newton create a wonderful working relationship with all of his employees, but he also became known as a dependable and well respected leader of Grant Parish.

Mr. Newton was recently quoted saying ``during my work years, I have tried to follow this motto--follow the law, use common sense, and have compassion for people. Suffice it to say, it's been a good trip.'' All of the citizens of Grant Parish have come to know that he has honorably and courageously stuck by these words. I now come to the Senate floor today to join the residents of Grant Parish in personally commending, honoring, and thanking him for his 45 years service to central Louisiana.

Mr. President, with Senator Landrieu's consent, I request the Landrieu amendment be withdrawn, and we call up the Stevens-Vitter- Landrieu-Domenici amendment.

Mr. President, I present this on behalf of Mr. Stevens, the main author, as well as myself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Lott, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Craig, and others. This will not change our budget numbers or our goal of deficit reduction in any way. In fact, it could enhance it.

This amendment says if and when--and only if and when--the spectrum auction produces more than is forecast, the first $1 billion over that amount would go to deficit reduction, the next $500 million would go to interoperability, the next $1.2 billion, in that order, goes to a coastal program under Commerce jurisdiction, and the remainder, if at all, would go to deficit reduction. This could, in fact, enhance deficit reduction.

Of course, it is very important to coastal States, including Louisiana, to beef up the coastline and to protect us in the future from major storms like Hurricane Katrina.

I yield the remaining time to Senator Landrieu.

Mr. President, the last 24 hours has been a frustrating and disappointing time for me, quite frankly--frustrating because as we face an unprecedented crisis along the gulf coast, some elements of the Senate have acted as they often do by giving speeches and filibustering.

When I ran for the Senate last year, that is what I heard the most from real people in real life in real towns and cities across Louisiana. They did not get that disconnect. There were real issues on the ground they had dealt with every day in their lives, and yet so often the response of some in the Senate was to give speeches, to obstruct, and to filibuster. So I have to say particularly in these circumstances, when my State and the gulf coast face unprecedented obstacles and hurdles, it has been frustrating to get that response from the other side in the Senate. But we have moved through that, and I am glad.

Just a few minutes ago, we sent over to the House a significant measure to try to get some immediate relief to local governmental entities so that they can sustain essential services, police and fire and hospitals and the like. That is vitally important.

When others have been filibustering, making speeches, and delaying, particularly in the last 24 hours, I tried to do something constructive. What I did is what I have done for the last 10 days-- working on this vital issue, trying to get something meaningful, important, and positive done. When others gave speeches about what the perfect language would be, I actually talked to other folks who were clearly going to be involved in the process at the White House, at OMB, and in the House of Representatives to understand what the best language would be that we could hopefully pass this week. I continued that work last night, again as others were giving speeches and holding up action. I continued that work talking to dozens of people to try to get something important and significant done. Across the board, that included Members here, members of the administration, and Members of the House.

Senator Levin, the distinguished Senator from Michigan, mentioned one conversation with the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. I followed up with the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. I talked to him after that conversation, and it was crystal clear to me from my conversation with him that significant elements of the House of Representatives needed to see that at least at the front end, this was a loan program. We can talk later about what we will do at the back end, how things proceed, what the financial picture looks like in the future, but at least in the front end, it is very clear that they want to frame it as a loan program. That is the only reason I accepted that language, because I actually want to do something. I actually want to get needed help today, not in 2 weeks when it will be too late for so many of those communities and local jurisdictions of government that need to preserve their police, fire, and hospital services. That is the only reason I have focused on this particular version of the bill and that particular language.

Several speakers on the other side called it discriminatory. Let me explain a few other ways in which it is discriminatory because it is discriminatory in at least three other ways, and I am pretty darn proud of being able to negotiate those three other discriminatory provisions. No. 1, for the first time ever that I am aware of, ever in history, we are moving emergency Stafford Act funds that have already been appropriated by the Congress into this community disaster loan program under homeland security so it can be used for ongoing expenses, ongoing salaries, and other expenses of local government. That has never happened before. That is discriminatory, and I am proud of that discriminatory provision.

Secondly, we are lifting the cap on this program that ordinarily limits these funds to $5 million per entity of local government. We are blowing well past that, and there are significant numbers of local government entities, such as the city of New Orleans, that will be able to get loans way in excess of that, perhaps 10, 11, 12 times in excess of that in the case of the city of New Orleans. That is discriminatory because it has never happened before. It is discriminatory in our favor because we needed it.

So there are many provisions in this version of the bill that were discriminatory in our favor because these are unusual circumstances and call for absolutely dramatic action. So I am proud of being able to negotiate those. I accept this other provision because, again, what is important to real people in the real world in the real devastated area is that we get real help to them today--not give a speech, not filibuster, but get real help to them today and not simply pass it off for 2 weeks or a month. I am hopeful that is what this bill which we have just passed through the Senate will do.

It has not yet cleared the House, and immediately from this floor, I will go to the House and continue my discussions which were begun over a week ago with House leaders, House Members, to try to ensure that this type of strong, effective action actually happens today.

I thank the Chair for his indulgence. It certainly was not my plan or my actions which caused this 24 hours of obstruction, filibuster, and frustration. I share that frustration, and I thank everyone who has worked constructively on trying to get something done, everyone here, everyone in the U.S. House, everyone in the administration, and OMB, whose help put that together.

I yield back my time.

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

Mr. President, I ask the Senate focus on a matter of real urgency and real importance for the people I represent in Louisiana and, indeed, for all of the victims of Hurricane Katrina along the gulf coast. We are dealing with so many new and enormously challenging situations because of the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. One of them is the fact that in Louisiana and in certain counties in Mississippi, in the truly devastated areas, we have areas that have been knocked off the map economically. There is truly no viable economic activity going on in those about six parishes in Louisiana and about three counties in Mississippi for the time being.

We will come back. Businesses will come back. Things will get back to normal over time, but it will take some time. So one of the primary challenges we have is absolutely no economic activity for now.

What does that mean? It means absolutely no local tax revenue for now to support local governmental entities, including crucial services such as fire and police and hospitals. This is an enormous and growing challenge in southeast Louisiana as we speak. Literally, we have crucial governmental entities that are trying to provide those very basic services--not a full-blown local government, not their normal budget as it was 3 months ago but those basic services, fire and police and hospitals, in order to form the basis of recovery. Because, indeed, if you do not have those essentials, you have nothing and no one will return; jobs and businesses cannot grow.

To help southeast Louisiana through this very torturous time, I have worked with the entire Louisiana congressional delegation to try to fashion some very focused relief to get funds through a loan program, which I will describe in a minute, to these local governmental entities so they can meet their core ongoing needs, their crucial emergency services, crucial necessary services such as fire and police and hospitals over the next few months until we can stabilize.

I have been working for over a week on this, getting into the details, if you will, with the Senate leadership. Let me compliment the Senate leadership and the majority leader in particular for being so focused on this issue, and working so hard on it, devoting significant staff to it.

I have also worked very hard on this issue with the White House and the administration, including the Office of Management and Budget. We have worked through the numbers and worked through various calculations of what that specific need for local government and essential services may be. I thank them and compliment them for that work.

I have also had significant discussions with the leadership of the House, and certainly House Members of the Louisiana delegation have done the same. We have thought through, worked through, talked through all of these issues.

The product of all of that work is a proposed piece of legislation which I have circulated to all Members of the Senate. Under that proposed piece of legislation, we would offer some immediate help, which we need to do now, before we recess for next week, to allow these local governmental units to survive and provide the basic police, fire, hospital, and related services they need to continue to provide if there will be any platform on which to build a full recovery.

I have circulated this proposed bill. It is a $750 million bill that would work through an established loan program in the Department of Homeland Security. It is called the Community Disaster Loan Program. It has gotten great support through the Senate. In fact, there has been no objection on the majority side.

There is some objection on the minority side, but as yet, at least in terms of my knowledge, that objection has not been clearly identified or described to me or to anyone who can work out the problem and work out the objection.

Because of this enormously pressing need, because these units of local government are literally on the brink and can teeter either way with their mandate to provide essential services--fire protection, police protection, hospital access--I ask all Members of the Senate to give me their indulgence and focus on this proposal, and if they have a question or an objection, simply to see me or other knowledgeable Members about it as soon as possible. I will be here all night, as long as it takes. In fact, I will be presiding, starting in 7 minutes, for 2 hours. I will be happy to have conversations on the side with any Member who wants to pose questions or set forth any objections they may have to the proposal. But I ask the focus and the indulgence of all Members of the Senate to do just that, so we can come together in a bipartisan way and actually get something important and concrete done for the true victims of Hurricane Katrina and begin to move on.

Again, this is a very time-sensitive matter so I urge Members who have questions or objections to do this tonight so we can solve these problems, pass the bill through the Senate, and make sure we pass this enormously vital and crucial legislation before the Congress leaves Washington, DC for the October recess.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I am happy to.

Under the proposed legislation I am talking about, there is new language that would tighten up, if you will, the repayment possibilities of these specific loans. It would not change all of the Stafford Act, in terms of this loan program in general. That new language would simply apply to these specific loans.

That language is included in the proposed legislation for a very simple reason, and that reason is that, based on literally dozens of discussions with various folks, including in the House, it is very clear to me, in fact it is crystal clear to me, this will not pass tonight or tomorrow through the process without this language in the legislation.

Having said that, I have also gotten assurances from several people in the administration that they are very understanding of the extraordinary situation these local governments are in, in terms of their financial condition and their ability to pay, and they will be extremely open to working out that situation as it pertains to these liens over the period of the loans.

Personally--and I am only speaking for myself--I feel very comfortable with those assurances. Personally--and again, I am only speaking for myself--I am completely confident that without the language you are alluding to, this legislation will not pass the House either tonight or tomorrow. So that is the sole reason, that focused language

which applies only to these loans and does not change the Stafford Act on this issue otherwise, in terms of other situations--that is the only reason that language was included.

I will offer two further points of explanation. First, I have been working to address these issues specifically with Members of this body, including Senator Jeffords of Vermont, who had this specific concern about any permanent and global change to the Stafford Act. We have worked through that issue very constructively. I thank him for bringing that concern to me so we could work it out. I am asking all Members who have a concern to do just that, to identify themselves, to bring their concern to me.

Second, I am very comfortable with all the assurances I have received from the administration.

If there is any different language that would apply to these loans, perhaps it is partly explained by the fact that the size of these loans is well beyond anything that has ever occurred in this loan program before. So we are truly breaking new ground in terms of the size and the capacity that we are asking to be allowed to have access to because of the enormous need for this on the ground in the six devastated parishes in southeast Louisiana.

My final point is, it is very clear to me we either do this or we do nothing. One thing I am not in favor of is doing nothing. One thing I am not in favor of is giving speeches but going home with absolutely no concrete help for these desperate units of local government which have done heroes' work in terms of providing police and fire protection, health services, and hospital access. They need the help now. They cannot wait until 10 days or 2 weeks from now.

So given this is our situation, I believe this compromise is not only fair and just but absolutely essential that we strike today and tomorrow.

Senator, I----

Yes, I am completely confident of that.

If the Senator will yield?

A couple points: I think this is a very useful exchange because I take it from the Senator's comments that the senior Senator is, in fact, one of the folks who has expressed an objection to this moving forward tonight.

If I could ask----

Reclaiming my time, I would wonder if the Senator objects to the fact that under this proposal we

would also expand in terms of amount and number and capability the ability to get these loans? We are getting more of these loans than anyone in any other situation would have gotten before. I wonder if the Senator would object to that change?

No.

Again, reclaiming my time, I would simply ask directly if the Senator could either object or not object--let me know--and also help us identify any specific objections that may exist on the minority side.

But in closing, Mr. President, I would just say, again, it is very clear to me, having spent a week working on this, that we either do this today and tomorrow or we do nothing and go home for 10 days and give no relief to these communities and these parishes which so desperately need the help. I vote for doing something. I vote for leading. I vote for helping in a meaningful and concrete way the people of southeast Louisiana and urge all my colleagues to please join me in that effort.

I yield back my time.

I thank the Chair.

I thank the Chair.

I, too, rise in strong support of the nomination of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I do that for two reasons, two equally important reasons. One is the strong qualification and background of Judge Roberts. But the second and perhaps just as important or even more important is the fact that this nomination and this confirmation process I believe has gotten us back as a Senate, as a country to the process that the Founders intended and the sort of values and the sort of qualifications, the sort of judgment by the Senate that the Founders intended.

We are finally remembering that it is the President's prerogative to nominate qualified persons to fill judicial vacancies, and in the past the Senate

has accorded great deference to the President's selection. Justice Ginsburg was overwhelmingly confirmed 42 days after her nomination. Justice O'Connor was overwhelmingly confirmed 33 days after her nomination. So we are returning to that determination of the President's prerogative.

The White House is to be commended for engaging in unprecedented consultation with respect to this nominee. So we are also returning to a very robust and full and healthy consultation process. I understand that the Bush administration consulted with more than 70 Senators on the Roberts nomination, countless conversations and phone calls and meetings and now is a strong part of our tradition which we are certainly returning to.

Moreover, few would disagree that President Bush could not have nominated a more qualified person for this position. John Roberts has an impressive academic background, a distinguished career in Government service, private practice, and as a Federal judge.

So we are also returning to that fine tradition that actual qualifications matter. It is not all about ideology and political positions but qualifications, judicial temperament, those sorts of important considerations matter, first and foremost.

Certainly, Judge Roberts has those. He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard college, my alma mater. He also graduated from Harvard Law school, magna cum laude. I guess he couldn't get into Tulane Law School, as I did, but I congratulate him on his accomplishments at Harvard. After graduation, he law clerked for Judge Henry Friendly on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and then for William Rehnquist on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Roberts enjoyed a distinguished career as a public servant in many different positions during the Reagan administration and became a partner at a major and highly respected law firm in Washington, DC, where he acquired the reputation as one of the finest Supreme Court advocates in the country. In fact, he argued an impressive 39 cases before the Supreme Court. Of course, as we all know, Judge Roberts was appointed in 2002 by President Bush for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit--those sort of mainstream qualifications.

Academic, practice, smarts, judicial temperament--all are certainly very important. But I think the single most important factor which qualifies Judge Roberts for this esteemed position is his appropriate view of what it means to be a judge, his appropriate view of the limited role of the judiciary and what that means in our system of government.

He has said, frankly and refreshingly, in a straightforward way, that judges should not place ideology above thoughtful legal reasoning. He is not the sort who will legislate from the bench. His judicial philosophy is based on the rule of law and on respect for the Constitution.

Let's think about what he said in his own words. This is what he said on September 12 at his confirmation hearing:

[A] certain humility should characterize the judicial role.

Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other

way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the

rules, they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is

critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules but it

is a limited role. Nobody ever went to the ball game to see

the umpire.''

He also said on the same occasion:

. . . I come before the committee with no agenda, I have

no platform. Judges are not politicians who can promise to do

certain things in exchange for votes. I have no agenda. But I

do have a commitment. If I am confirmed, I will confront

every case with an open mind. I will fully and fairly analyze

the legal arguments that are presented. I will be open to the

considered views of my colleagues on the bench, and I will

decide every case based on the record, according to the rule

of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability, and

I will remember it is my job to call balls and strikes, and

not to pitch or bat.

That, first and foremost, is the tradition we are getting back to with this confirmation. I sincerely hope that it is a tradition in which we remain grounded. Let's remember again the lessons of this nomination and this confirmation. Let's remember that it is the President's prerogative to nominate qualified persons to the bench. Let's remember that the Senate does have an important consultative role and let's all encourage the President to perform that consultation in a full and robust fashion, as he did with Judge Roberts. Let's remember that qualifications--smarts, academic credentials, practice history-- are very important when you are talking about a judicial nominee. And let's all remember, first and foremost, that judges are umpires, they are not the players in the baseball game. That is the crucial distinction that I think we have lost over the past several decades and that we are finally trying to pull back to.

It is very important for us as a body to remember that lesson of this nomination of this confirmation as we move on. As we move on, I do think that is the most important open question. As the previous speaker mentioned, already certain Democrats in this body are threatening a filibuster without having the foggiest notion who the next nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court may be. Already they are threatening a filibuster of circuit court nominees who have basically been agreed to in terms of no filibuster in the Senate.

That would move us dramatically in the opposite direction from the one I have spoken about. That would turn the clock back. That would move us 180 degrees and point us again in that wrong direction.

I will be proud to join with other Members of this body tomorrow for this historic confirmation vote. I will be proud to vote yes for Judge John Roberts to be the next Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Just as proudly, just as fervently, I will argue and fight to make sure that where we are today is where we remain in terms of future nominations and future confirmations; that we all remember that we are talking about an umpire to enforce the rules of the game, not a player--not a batter we like or a fielder we prefer but the umpire to enforce the rules as written.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, especially the senior Senator from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, and the distinguished Senators from Mississippi and Alabama for all of their leadership during this Hurricane Katrina crisis. I thank all of my colleagues who have offered their heartfelt thoughts and prayers and very concrete help over these past 2 very difficult weeks.

I arrived back yesterday from the battlefields of the other gulf war. I stand before you to offer my firsthand report. I don't mean to be overly dramatic in my use of the analogy to war. I mean to be accurate. I mean to effectively convey the magnitude of the destruction, the enormity and complexity of the ongoing human impacts, and, perhaps most important, the level of national resolve and commitment that we need to win the recovery effort.

We have all seen very powerful and destructive storms come ashore. We have seen them cause enormous damage, create short-term flooding, even take lives. And then the next day we respond and the residents of the stricken area walk through their community and try to begin picking up the pieces.

This is different. It is not just fiercer or bigger, it is wholly different.

Yes, Katrina was one of the most powerful hurricanes ever. When it hit Louisiana's coast, it did so with sustained winds of 140 miles per hour. Its low pressure reading of 920 at landfall made it one of the three most ferocious storms ever to hit the United States, along with Camille in 1969 and the Labor Day Storm of 1935. But it was much more than that. Yes, Katrina was also one of the largest hurricanes ever geographically. Those ferocious winds extended 100 miles from the eye of the storm, which means they pounded the stricken area for hour upon hour upon hour, a devastated area roughly the size of Great Britain; roughly 2\1/2\ times larger than the area hit by Hurricane Andrew in 1992.

But it was even more than that. You see, Katrina was a ferocious, huge hurricane that hit a treasured coastline, an entire region, including a major American metropolitan area, and that population center is one of the poorest in the country, and it is the only one that sits largely under sea level, protected by levees until some of the levees broke.

What does that mean? Storm surges of up to 25 feet; large portions of southeast Louisiana with long-term flooding of up to 20 feet; tens of thousands of people who had not evacuated, most in one-story wooden houses, driven to their attics and roofs, many to be trapped there.

The crisis did not stop or stabilize there. In the ensuing days, it meant the breakdown of basic institutions: the failure of all communication systems; lawlessness, which began spiraling out of control; thousands of evacuees collecting in safe havens such as the Louisiana Superdome and the New Orleans Convention Center, which quickly became some of the most unsafe hellholes imaginable.

What does it all mean now? It means a major American metropolitan area evacuated. This is the first time this has happened since the Civil War. There is that war theme again. But the difference is, American cities have grown quite a bit since then. This metro area is home to 1.3 million people. It means hundreds of thousands of evacuees from southeast Louisiana. These are numbers comparable to some of the historic dislocations during World War II, but the difference is it is right here in America.

During all of this I was in southeast Louisiana. My wife Wendy and I packed up our minivan and our four kids and drove to Memphis the Saturday before the storm. After leaving them safely with family, I returned to Baton Rouge that Sunday, where I slept in a true safe haven, the State Police compound, and began traveling into all of the devastated areas beginning that Tuesday morning.

Much like in war, what I saw covered the whole spectrum of human activity. Indeed, it tended to concentrate on the two ends of the spectrum: great acts of personal heroism followed by a truly awesome military operation beginning on day five on one end of the spectrum; looting and worse and bureaucratic incompetence on the other end.

Let me be very clear and precise about this because some reports of my critique of the early relief effort have caused some consternation. I was quoted after the first few days as saying that the early government relief effort was a failure. I was quoted correctly and this was clearly, unequivocally, indisputably true. In that initial relief effort, FEMA failed us miserably and Louisiana's hurricane preparation and emergency bureaucracy failed us miserably, too.

Don't take my word for it. Talk to the mother with her young daughter whom I left at the Lafayette shelter. They were still in shock, not from the storm but from the hell on Earth that they had been placed into at the Louisiana Superdome. Or talk to nurse Jody Lopez, who was holed up in Lindsey Boggs Memorial Hospital, or Dr. Tom Kiernan, trapped at Tulane Hospital, who struggled to keep critical care patients alive for days with no sign of help in sight.

Thank God that while the bureaucrats failed, others succeeded. The first group of heroes who held on and overcame amazing challenges in those first few days were local leaders and citizens on the ground. This was true in every community I visited--New Orleans, St. Bernard, Slidell, Bogalusa, Amite, Kenner, to name a few. Sheriff's deputies in St. Bernard were living on a small riverboat so they could continue their vital work. Eight days after the storm most had not seen their homes or talked to their families, but they were committed to keeping St. Bernard safe and putting their duty above their families and property.

There were hundreds of private citizens such as David Fakaouri of Baton Rouge, who pulled his boat down to New Orleans and spent days combing the city for survivors, saving more than 60 people personally. These private citizen rescuers slept in their boats and trucks, using their own fuel, and witnessed suffering at a level we cannot imagine.

Local leaders such as State Senator Ben Nevers of Washington Parish worked tirelessly to secure police reinforcements, water, food, gasoline, even chain saws to cut out of isolated areas.

There was the lunch crew at Belle Chasse High School in Plaquemines Parish who, operating on emergency power only, fed hundreds of relief workers every day. When I left them, they were working to feed the Army Rangers who had arrived to provide support and security.

These local leaders and private citizens were also aided by counterparts from around Louisiana and around the country. These counterparts collected food, water, ice, generators, fuel and other necessities, and with no plan and with no budget they got it to devastated areas, in many cases over a week ahead of the bureaucrats.

Local police units from communities in Kentucky and Illinois were among the first to show up and offer assistance to our local police forces. Similar dispatches from communities in California and Ohio sent security reinforcements to their comrades in Gretna.

Wal-Mart voluntarily offered its Kenner store as the food supply and distribution center for the entire city of Kenner the day after the storm and then, after the Kenner store was depleted, Wal-Mart National continued to send two truckloads of relief per day to keep that effort going.

Members of the Young President's Organization raised millions in essential supplies to turn over to their fellow YPO member, State Senator Walter Boasso. Walter used his company barges and worked with other leaders to set up their own dock operation and get supplies to St. Bernard. Acadian Ambulance is a private Lafayette-based ambulance service whose people not only inundated the area with ambulances to evacuate hospitals and nursing homes, but who actually created and implemented an ad hoc but effective evacuation plan while the State Department of Health and Hospitals dithered.

These local leaders and private citizens, heroes both from throughout the devastated area and around the country, got us through those first crucial days. And then another group of heroes helicoptered in, the men and women of our military. In fact, we turned a corner in our relief efforts the Friday after the storm, day five, because it became a full- scale military operation. And with that came a completely different mindset, a completely different culture than the bureaucratic one we had been fighting for 5 days. ``We can't do that,'' and ``That's not our job exactly,'' was replaced with, not ``Yes,'' but ``Yes, sir.'' Members of the Coast Guard who were out saving lives Monday afternoon, before the storm's winds even died down, rescued more than 33,000 people.

U.S. Army LTG Russell Honore from Pointe Coupee Parish, LA, assumed command of the Active-Duty military effort in our State and personally took charge to establish that can-do attitude.

The 82nd Airborne, which took charge of New Orleans Airport that Saturday, organized the operation overnight and evacuated thousands. This same organization that landed in Normandy, where the Higgins boats made in New Orleans were key to victory on D-Day, also helped in the rescue efforts by dropping in food, water, and supplies to thousands in need.

Coast Guard VADM Thad Allen is now in charge of relief efforts and now finally pushing that same can-do attitude onto the bureaucracies of FEMA and the State bureaucracies that floundered in the early response.

These groups of heroes--local leaders partnered with private citizens and the military--have stabilized efforts in the devastated areas, but enormous challenges remain. In the areas hardest hit by Katrina, these challenges include reinstituting the necessities of a modern, civil society, such as a full-fledged New Orleans police force and criminal justice system, replacing countless miles of electricity and phone lines, establishing huge communities of temporary housing, bulldozing and rebuilding entire neighborhoods and parts of the metropolitan area, and bringing businesses and jobs back.

Beyond the devastated area, the radius of our challenges has expanded to wherever there are large numbers of evacuees--Houston, San Antonio, Charlotte, Salt Like City, Milwaukee--and

every town and city across the rest of Louisiana. You see, so many of the evacuees lived their lives paycheck to paycheck. So many others depended on Social Security or other programs. They need immediate help in all of those areas--well beyond Louisiana. Unfortunately, the bureaucrats are still in charge of this.

As we tackle these challenges, let us remember what worked in the initial relief effort and what didn't work. As we investigate--and we must--let us focus on that central question: what worked and what didn't work.

I have heard many Washington talking heads say that heads must roll. I am all for that, and I have my own personal list. But that alone isn't enough. We need to look at the big picture--not just which people failed but which institutes and models failed, and, just as importantly, which others worked against all odds. A new head bureaucrat is not the solution to a failed bureaucracy. We need to look at the successful can-do military culture and the startling success of people-power and private initiative. Government outlays alone will not rebuild a great American metropolitan area and repopulate it with jobs. We need mega-enterprise zones to harness private sector investment power and to recreate jobs. Returning to the same routine of begging and scraping for flood and hurricane protection will ensure that this happens again.

We need energy royalty sharing as a stable source of revenue for Corps of Engineers hurricane protection projects, and we need the same to use and to invest in coastal restoration to protect Louisiana and our Nation's oil and gas supply.

Second, the tens of billions of dollars in government relief money through FEMA and the State OEP--the very same agencies which failed us--will lead to more failure. We need a Katrina reconstruction commission headed by a no-nonsense, nonpolitical businessman manager so that we will all have something lasting to show for this enormous spending.

I am working with my colleagues in the Louisiana delegation, Senator Landrieu, and all of our House Members, to introduce a comprehensive legislative package for implementing these ideas, and we will be outlining our specific proposals in the very near future.

In closing, let me make one final plea; that is, as we do all of this, let us do it together in a sincere spirit of bipartisanship.

I saw horrific scenes in the days after the storm. I smelled sweltering stench. But what I sometimes heard coming out of Washington was more sickening--ridiculous arguments tying the suffering to the war in Iraq and the Reagan deficit, talk of boycotting bipartisan hearings and stonewalling independent commissions. Nobody in the stricken area is talking that nonsense. They are rebuilding lives.

So perhaps the best thing we can do as leaders is to follow--follow the basic goodness and common sense of Louisianians and Americans. If we don't, if we allow this matter to become just another partisan political football, then we will have done one thing; that is, to victimize the victims of Hurricane Katrina all over again.

Two of Louisiana's beloved football teams--the New Orleans Saints and the LSU Tigers--lifted our spirit with victories this past weekend. The Saints beat the odds, and the Tigers won in the game's last second with a pass verging on a Hail Mary. It reinforced for us what we already knew: that even in dark times, hope springs eternal, prayers are answered, and a can-do attitude pays dividends. I have no doubt that Louisiana's resolve and spirit will be demonstrated in the coming months as our families rebuild their lives and their communities. America is joining us in that same spirit. Let us all follow their example.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, due to the circumstances surrounding the Katrina disaster, I was in my home State of Louisiana yesterday and unable to vote for final passage of H.R. 3673, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of H.R. 3673.

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the Fort Miro Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution in Monroe, LA. Beginning September 17 and ending September 23, this great organization will observe its annual Constitution Week. Today, I would like to spend a few moments highlighting the importance of their efforts.

The Daughters of the American Revolution petitioned Congress in 1955 to set aside a week to celebrate the Constitution. Thanks to their petition, Congress, through a joint resolution on August 2, 1956, requested that the President proclaim that September 17 through 23 serve as Constitution Week.

This week sets out to emphasize citizens' responsibilities for protecting and defending the Constitution, inform people that the Constitution is the basis for America's great heritage, and encourage the study of the historical events surrounding its framing in September 1787.

I applaud the Daughters of the American Revolution for their continued dedication to celebrating the importance of the Constitution through education and activism. Moreover, I commend the Fort Miro Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution in Monroe, LA, for doing this fine work on behalf of the State of Louisiana.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would withhold United States contributions to the United Nations if the U.N. interferes with the second amendment rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

The U.N. has no business interfering with the second amendment rights guaranteed by our Constitution. That is why I am introducing legislation to safeguard our citizens against any potential infringement of their second amendment rights.

In July, 2001, the U.N. convened a conference, known as the ``Conference on the Illicit Trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects in July 2001.'' One outcome of the conference was a resolution entitled, ``The United Nations Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.'' This resolution calls for actions that could abridge the second amendment rights of individuals in the United States, including: (1) national registries and tracking lists of legal firearms; (2) the establishment of an international tracking certificate, which could be used to ensure U.N. monitoring of the export, import, transit, stocking, and storage of legal small arms and light weapons; and (3) worldwide record keeping for an indefinite amount of time on the manufacture, holding, and transfer of small arms and light weapons.

The U.N. also wishes to establish a system for tracking small arms and light weapons. How would they do this? It would be done by forcing legal, licensed gun manufacturer's to create identifiable marks for each nation. The gun manufacturer's lists would then be provided to international authorities on behalf of the U.N.

Who would maintain these intrusive lists? Would it be the World Customs Organization, which the U.N. has suggested as a possible vehicle? That organization counts Iran, Syria, China, and Cuba among its membership. Would all World Customs Organization members have access to such lists? In the event that those with access to such information abuse or misuse it, what would be the remedy? How would we prevent unauthorized persons, perhaps criminals and terrorists, from acquiring such information from rogue nations who have declared the United States an enemy?

Some at the U.N. have suggested that tracing certain financial transactions of a legal and law abiding gun industry could be a useful tool in tracking firearms. What would such tracing entail? Does the U.N. expect to receive private U.S. banking records of a legal and law abiding industry?

Furthermore, the U.N. has encouraged member States to integrate measures to control ammunition with regard to small arms, and some members have expressed a desire to tax international arms sales. The U.N. has no legal right or authority to collect a tax from American citizens to further any agenda, especially gun control measures.

The U.S. Constitution has guaranteed our citizens the right to keep and bear arms. I intend to help protect that right with this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the Second Amendment Protection Act of 2005.

Mr. President, today I commemorate the life of Louisiana's late secretary of state Fox McKeithen. Fox passed away Saturday at only 58 years of age.

Born Walter Fox McKeithen in 1946, Fox was destined for a life in public office. His father, John McKeithen, served as the Governor of Louisiana from 1964 to 1972. And Fox demonstrated his natural leadership ability at a young age, serving as senior class president and becoming a three-sport

Letterman at Caldwell Parish High School.

He received a bachelor's degree in history/social studies from Louisiana Tech University and then became a civics teacher and coach at Caldwell Parish High School. In addition to teaching and his career in state office, Fox established three successful businesses in Caldwell Parish.

In 1983, Fox began his long career as a public servant when he was elected to the Louisiana House of Representatives. He was elected secretary of state in 1987, and he served in this capacity for five consecutive terms, being elected to his fifth term in November 2003.

As secretary of state for nearly two decades, Fox showed great dedication and devotion to the State of Louisiana. One of his biggest accomplishments was successfully merging the department of voter registration and the department which stored the voting machines, consolidating them into one. This had not been done in Louisiana since 1960.

Fox simplified the functions of the secretary of state's office. He adapted to the changing technologies that took place over his five terms and modernized the office through computerized voting terminals and archiving.

He was also responsible for the renovation of the State capitol building in Baton Rouge. Fox took the lead in helping bring a building that once was in shambles and abandoned back to its former stateliness and glory. Because of Fox's efforts, the capitol building gives all who visit and work there a taste of Louisiana's political history.

Fox had a very colorful personality, a trait often described by so many. His vivaciousness and energy for life drew people to him. Once, he even broke out into song at a press conference.

Those who served with Fox knew his commitment to the office of secretary of state. This was especially apparent in a 2004 election, when he delivered voting machines to New Orleans precincts himself, ensuring that everyone was able to vote and averting a potential crisis.

Fox was a friend to all, and the State of Louisiana will miss him dearly. He leaves behind a loving wife, Yvonne, and their four children, Marjorie Ann, Marianne May, Rebecca Ann, and John Jesse.

Fox and his family are in our prayers and thoughts.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Hospital Emergency Reimbursement Act of 2005. This bill will help ensure the safety of many patients, elderly residents, and those who require critical care during the event of a hurricane or other disaster.

Each year, natural disasters place millions of Americans in harm's way. Hurricanes, floods, and other hazards pose a particular danger to people with special needs. Many patients depend on technology to keep them alive. For them, electricity is a necessity that makes lengthy evacuations a life-threatening race against the clock. These patients must be sheltered in medical facilities with reliable power generators that will perform during a severe storm and during the immediate recovery period after the storm.

Providing for their safety is precisely why I am introducing the Hospital Emergency Reimbursement Act. This bill will enable the Federal Emergency Management Agency, under certain circumstances, to reimburse private for-profit hospitals that shelter special needs patients during federally declared disasters.

Currently, FEMA only has the authority to reimburse a hospital for sheltering if it is a public or nonprofit institution. However, the number of these facilities is shrinking in many communities. The guidelines for providing assistance must acknowledge this reality. Last year in Louisiana, two people with critical needs died in transit from New Orleans to a temporary public facility in Baton Rouge in the evacuation for Hurricane Ivan. With every storm or evacuation order, tens of thousands of families with relatives in critical condition scramble to make arrangements to protect their loved ones.

By allowing reimbursement to additional private facilities, the Hospital Emergency Reimbursement Act of 2005 would promote the safety of Americans around the Nation by allowing greater flexibility during an emergency. The amount of reimbursement provided by FEMA under this bill would be limited to the same amount available to public and nonprofit facilities. Furthermore, funds would be available to for- profit hospitals when public and nonprofit facilities within a 30-mile radius have met or exceeded their capacity. Under this measure, public and non-profits still are used first for emergency needs, with private for-profit hospitals available as backup to ensure that everyone in a medically critical condition is covered.

I urge my colleagues to support the Hospital Emergency Assistance Act of 2005.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to S. 1307, the bill to implement the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement. I do it for one very clear and specific reason. CAFTA will greatly harm Louisiana's sugarcane industry. It is, quite frankly, a raw deal for Louisiana sugar.

Because of the great disruption in our domestic sugar market that this agreement would cause, I have been actively opposing this agreement since it was signed. This agreement would allow an additional 122,000 tons of imported sugar into the United States in its first year alone, with annual increases following. These steady increases in imports threaten to flood the U.S. market and truly devastate the Louisiana sugarcane industry, as domestic sugar is displaced by highly subsidized foreign imports.

Our current sugar program is designed to limit imports to help counter unfair trade actions, and these limits help mitigate the ill effects of dumping by other nations. Unlike programs for many other foreign commodities, it should be noted that this U.S. sugar program provides no cash payments and operates at no cost to the U.S. taxpayers through cash payments as mandated by the farm bill.

Even with that existing program in import controls, the U.S. still stands as the fourth largest net sugar importer in the world, importing 15 percent of our sugar consumption every year. Allowing more imports from select CAFTA trading partners truly brings a potential flood to the market, displacing even more domestic sugar. CAFTA really could set the stage for future bilateral agreements focused on the largest sugar- producing nations, and these impacts are compounded with other pending changes, such as the NAFTA-mandated change that will allow Mexican sugar complete unfettered access to U.S. markets after 2008.

When the Jesuit priests introduced sugarcane to Louisiana in the 1750s, I guess they could not have imagined that sugar would essentially be a $2 billion industry and, much more importantly, even a vital part of Louisiana's history and way of life for over 250 years. It is this economic and even cultural impact and the thousands of families who rely on sugarcane for their livelihood and their way of life which lies behind my decision to oppose CAFTA.

The Louisiana Farm Bureau estimates CAFTA would have caused an $8.5 million reduction in Louisiana's agricultural sector, and sugarcane constitutes one of the foundations of this important sector of Louisiana's overall economy.

Louisiana is home to 27,000 sugar industry jobs, 15 sugar mills, 2 sugar refineries, and more than 580,000 acres of sugarcane throughout 24 parishes. All told, Louisiana alone produces 20 percent of all of our domestic sugar.

As I said, this represents an enormous economic impact. But even more importantly, it truly represents a culture and a valued way of life.

The administration made a last-ditch, three-part proposal to the sugar industry to mitigate CAFTA's impact, but I truly believe that it is untenable.

First, they committed to hold harmless the sugar program but only through the reauthorization of the 2002 farm bill. This is something modest, something I could and will support, but it is my understanding that it is already the responsibility of the Secretary of Agriculture, under this farm bill, to operate the program at no net cost and its import trigger.

I know that sugarcane farmers in my State appreciate the Secretary's commitment to provide this short-term relief from a flood of sugar import commitments, but this temporary protection will not help them avoid the flood in the medium and long term. We, in Louisiana, know a lot about hurricanes and floods, and I fear that in the past 2 years, our sugar industries have drowned in this flood of foreign imports.

The second component of the proposed deal from the administration is perhaps the most problematic. If imports threaten to exceed the 1.523- million-ton trigger in the farm bill, the Agriculture Department would commit to compensating foreign producers for not selling their sugar within our market. U.S. tax dollars are going to compensate foreign producers. USDA would also establish a pilot program to divert imported sugar into ethanol use up to the amount coming in under CAFTA.

The prospect of paying foreign producers is very troublesome, perhaps politically untenable. Regardless of the Secretary's statement that he has the authority to implement such a program, there are so many unanswered questions on how it would work and if it would be politically supportable. Do we really want to make cash payments to foreign governments or private foreign corporations in exchange for a commitment not to export sugar to our market? I don't think so. This proposal is expected to cost $200 million a year.

Sending our tax dollars to our foreign competition I think is an untenable position for a variety of budgetary, policy, and political reasons, making this long-term proposed solution untenable.

The ethanol diversion program has its own uncertainties on how it will work, and it seems to signal a desire to purchase foreign sugar for possible ethanol use instead of assisting the domestic industry in developing new markets for our own production and likely spend significant more of the taxpayers' dollars on those foreign sources in the process.

Third, there has been a proposal for a feasibility study on converting sugar into ethanol to be submitted to Congress no later than July 1, 2006. We already know sugar can be turned into ethanol because they are doing just that in other countries.

Worldwide, more ethanol is produced from sucrose than from corn, and we now need to jump start our own efforts and truly implement a program to provide sugar access to the national renewable fuels program.

The Energy bill we passed this week provides for 8 billion gallons per year of renewable fuels, most of which will be ethanol. The new renewable fuels program would amount to more than quadruple the ethanol currently being consumed in the U.S. So there is plenty of room to accommodate diverse sources of ethanol, including a modest room for sugar.

Access to ethanol was the crux of the sugar industry's proposal to deal with CAFTA--not a study, but real access to that established program moving forward in the Energy bill. They asked for a short-term increase in the tax credit during the developmental phase of this program, something that I understand was done for the beginning of the program for corn.

With so much uncertainty facing the industry because of NAFTA, CAFTA,

and other trade negotiations already in progress, I think this was a fair ask from the industry, from an efficient domestic industry that has been a robust engine for jobs in our economy for over 2 centuries. I wish the administration could have accepted that full and robust proposal in terms of ethanol.

Our sugar farmers and processors work hard and deserve a level playing field. What I have been asking, what others have been asking is not simply protectionism for our domestic industry as far as the eye can see, but a level playing field dealing with this sugar issue on a global WTO basis so it can be dealt with fairly so our domestic sugar industry has at least a chance. That is exactly what I will continue to fight for. That is precisely why I will continue to fight against CAFTA and urge its defeat in this body and in the House.

In closing, I wish to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Chambliss and Senator Coleman for their efforts to find a solution to the sugar issue within CAFTA. They have been leading a bicameral effort, working diligently. It did not yield the results I hoped, but I salute them for their efforts.

Unfortunately, as I said, those efforts did not prevail. That is why I strongly oppose CAFTA and why I ask my colleagues to do so, and specifically my colleagues in the House as this measure most probably moves there.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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.

I would be happy to yield.

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.

I will be happy to.

That is not my----

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.

I will be happy to.

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.

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

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. 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.

I thank the chairman.

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. President, I withdraw amendment No. 802.

Mr. President, I would like to discuss a Governor's authority to approve the issuance of a license for an offshore LNG facility.

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.

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.

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. 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.