Floor Statements

Madam President, I do object. General Walsh today, before any promotion, is one of nine leading officers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He is part of that leadership. I am happy my two colleagues are satisfied with his leadership and the corps' leadership and how that agency is being run. I can tell them, as a Senator from Louisiana, I am absolutely not satisfied with their leadership and how that agency is being run at all.

Since Hurricane Katrina, there were 14 major report deadlines put on the Corps of Engineers, required of the corps. The corps missed all 14 of those major deadlines. Today, as we speak, the corps is still actively missing and has failed to respond to 13 of the 14, having accomplished 1 many months late.

I have brought nine significant issues before the Corps of Engineers in conversations with them, not minor projects, major issues with regard to hurricane recovery and hurricane and flood protection. I have outlined the authority they have to do constructive things under each of those categories. They have not responded in a positive or timely way on eight of those nine issues.

One of those issues is a particularly good example. That is the Morganza to the gulf hurricane protection project. That is a vital hurricane protection project that would protect significant portions of south Louisiana that was originally proposed in 1992. The Senators want to talk about authority from Congress. That project has been authorized by Congress three different times in three different water resources bills. Yet the corps continues to drag its feet and is still not moving forward toward full implementation of that project, after three specific authorizations by Congress, 18 years later.

I am sorry the corps leadership is frustrated with an 18-day delay or an 18-week delay. But I suggest they try 18 years on for size. That is how long the people of Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes, many folks throughout Louisiana, have been waiting on the Corps of Engineers.

I yield the floor.

Yes, Madam President, for the reasons I have clearly laid out, I again object.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor Stewart Enterprises, headquartered in Jefferson, LA. They will be celebrating their centennial anniversary on April 26, 2010.

Stewart has been caring for Louisiana families since 1910 and is highly regarded for its ability to help families in times of critical need. It is also, with more than 5,000 employees, one of the largest publicly traded companies in Louisiana.

Based on their purpose of ``caring for people, making a difference'' they have always done an outstanding job in helping people celebrate the lives of their lost loved ones and making sure they are memorialized as the families wish. In a family's time of need, Stewart Enterprises treats the family with dignity and respect while providing them with funeral operations, cemetery operations, and prearrangements. They are dedicated to making difficult times a little easier.

Thus, today, I stand in recognition of Stewart Enterprises' centennial anniversary and thank them for their service and contributions not only to the State of Louisiana but also to families across our Nation.

Mr. President, I stand in strong support of the comments of my distinguished colleague from Alabama. Of course I agree with virtually every single Member of the Senate that these programs need to be extended. But I also agree with many Members here, and the huge majority of the American people, that we need to pay for it. We cannot keep running up the deficit as though it had no consequence to us and our economy and our children and grandchildren. The American people get it. Certainly my constituents in Louisiana get it. They say of course you need to extend necessary programs and of course you cannot run up the deficit to do it every 2 months.

Mr. President, $18 billion--the distinguished Senator from Alabama has used the figure over and over, and he is right, $18 billion, but it is $18 billion for 2 months of extension. So we are supposed to come back every 2 months and put another $18 billion on our kids' and grandkids' tab? It is $108 billion over a year of increasing deficit and debt that is already at historic levels. That is crazy.

We can do better. We can meet both of those commonsense objectives of the American people. We can extend necessary programs and we can do it in a way that does not add to deficit and debt. We have several ways to do that. We have a menu of proposals. We will have votes a little later on about doing that. In fact, before the recess we had discussions on the floor of the Senate and we had come to agreement here in the Senate about an extension without increasing the deficit and debt. Unfortunately it was rejected by the Speaker of the House. So it is not as though this goal of achieving both of those important objectives is impossible. It is absolutely possible and many different Members have laid out how to get there.

Let's follow the common sense of the American people. Let's follow the common sense of folks all across Louisiana who say of course you need to extend necessary programs and of course you cannot add to the deficit and debt every month, every 2 months that you need to do this, $18 billion a pop, $108 billion. That is a good part of $1 trillion over 1 year.

I want to focus on a particular part of this package that is particularly galling, quite frankly, for someone such as me from Louisiana. A tiny part of this overall bill is extending the National Flood Insurance Program. Again, I hope everyone agrees we need to extend the National Flood Insurance Program. I certainly agree with that. I have certainly fought for that. It is about 1 percent of this bill.

Do you know what percent it is of the debt increase, the deficit increase? It is zero percent of that because that extension does not even increase the deficit or debt in any way. So it should not be held up by this debate in any way, shape, or form--a necessary program, 1 percent of the bill in terms of dollar figures, zero deficit and debt increase, zero impact on that central issue. Why can't we at least come together and extend that necessary program immediately and not have that held up at all? It never should have been held up before the recess. It should not be held up now. There is a simple way to fix that and the simple way is to take that portion of the bill out; to extend it immediately. I do not think there is any opposition to the underlying extension of the program. It has zero impact on the deficit and debt

so there is no reason for it to be caught up in this other debate.

With that in mind, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3203. That is a bill I have introduced that extends the National Flood Insurance Program for the same amount of time as this underlying bill but does it separately. I ask that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) Is there objection?

I will be happy to do that in a version that is paid for, incorporating the very sensible, commonsense objections that have been offered to pay for all of this extension. So I would be happy to amend my request in that manner if the Senator would agree to it.

Not if it increases the deficit and debt $108 billion a year. No, sir, I am not. And the American people are not. And the American people are getting fed up with it.

Reclaiming my time, the suggestion was pretty simple. There is the one element of this bill which is a necessary program for all of the United States, particularly for flood-prone areas. It is 1 percent of the overall bill, but it is zero percent of the deficit and debt increase. It has no impact on deficit and debt. So the suggestion was pretty simple: Why don't we take that out? Why have that stalled because of this broader debate? Let's take that out and pass it. There should be no objection to that. Everybody is for the program. It does not increase the deficit and debt. Unfortunately, there is objection from the Democratic chairman.

I hope we have given the chairman and other Members of the majority the detailed proposal. It is, as the chairman said, taking section 7 out and passing it separately because it has no deficit and debt impact. I would urge the chairman and others to look at that and to hopefully agree to that because--I heard the objection. I don't understand the basis for the objection, and I would be happy to hear the basis for the objection because I just don't understand it.

Sort of like the ``Louisiana purchase'' with health care reform. Let's put one sweetener in the bill to pass something really bad--a $108 billion debt increase over a year. Let's take one hostage, including folks who are held hostage who need this insurance, to pass a debt increase that big because otherwise that is a stinker.

I get it. I have seen that deal played out over and over, including with the ``Louisiana purchase'' for health care reform. I am not taking that offer, no offense. I hope the Senator will reconsider my very reasonable proposal.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3665 be called up and immediately considered.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the whole be waived.

Madam President, I was very happy to hear the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee absolutely promise that the ObamaCare bill will reduce the deficit, and the CBO projects that. The problem is, I think the American people have a very different view based on their gut common sense. There was a recent national scientific poll that showed significantly more Americans think there is life on Mars than think that the bill will reduce the deficit.

My amendment is a simple, straightforward way to settle the question. It says for any fiscal year when those CBO costs or deficit reduction projections are busted, the entire ObamaCare bill is suspended. So, in fact, if this is ballooning spending and ballooning the deficit, we will stop it in its tracks. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Madam President, my amendment only kills the bill----

If the bill busts the budget.

Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 4(g)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, at this point I ask unanimous consent to set aside any pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3553.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment is very simple, and it goes to the heart of all of these arguments. This amendment would repeal this new ObamaCare plan.

All of us on this side urge this action and urge us to focus instead on a focused step-by-step approach to solve

specific, real problems with specific solutions. This gargantuan plan which this amendment would repeal does not do that. This gargantuan plan has fundamental problems at its core that my colleagues have been talking about; truly offensive, fundamental problems such as over a $\1/2\ trillion cut to Medicare. The American people do not want to pay for anything through that. Over $\1/2\ trillion of increased taxes and costs. The American people do not want an approach that does that, increasing health ObamaCare costs, when the American people know our big challenge is to do the opposite.

Nonpartisan sources such as the Congressional Budget Office confirm that the ObamaCare plan does not decrease health ObamaCare costs, it increases health ObamaCare costs from their rising rate already. It pushes that cost curve up and growing the bureaucracy, including thousands of new IRS workers, and putting them and the Federal Government between you and your doctor.

These are not minor parts of the ObamaCare plan. This is the core of that plan. That is why we absolutely need to repeal it and take a fundamentally different approach, an approach that is focused like a laser beam on real problems and that deals with those real problems with real and targeted and step-by-step solutions.

I urge support of amendment No. 3553.

Mr. President, this amendment is very straightforward. It would repeal the ObamaCare bill. That bill is fatally flawed in terms of its core, and we do need to repeal and replace it with a very different, more targeted, focused, step-by-step approach. What is that core? It is more than $\1/2\ trillion in Medicare cuts on our seniors, which is wrong; over $\1/2\ trillion of tax increases, including on middle-class families, which is wrong; increasing health care costs rather than doing the opposite, decreasing them. That is what the CBO says, nonpartisan. That will result in increased individual health care premiums, 10 to 13 percent, and government getting even more involved in our lives, including over 16,000 new IRS agents.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3668 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, a short time ago the distinguished majority leader urged there to be amendments to improve the bill, not to do any harm to the broader ObamaCare bill. This is exactly such an amendment.

This amendment would pass my Mobile Mammography Act, S. 2051. This amendment would allow mobile mammography units to purchase fuel without the Federal excise tax. This is exactly similar to an existing exemption for blood centers. These units are very important to give access to women for breast cancer screening. And this only scores $1 million, so there is no significant budget impact. This does improve the bill. This does nothing to the underlying ObamaCare bill.

This reconciliation bill is already going back to the House, so I urge a bipartisan vote in support of this good idea.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two letters relating to my amendment.

I stand to talk about health care on this significant day, the day after the House passed the ObamaCare bill and the day before the reconciliation bill comes here to the Senate.

Needless to say, I am deeply disappointed by the House's action for all of the reasons I and so many others have raised, the concerns we have raised previously on the Senate floor.

Yes, I will yield.

I have no objection.

I am afraid I cannot for exactly the same reason. I am late for a meeting in my office. But I certainly would have no objection to placing his comments in the Record and regaining the floor at a future time.

Mr. President, again like so many Americans, I was deeply disappointed by last night's House vote. At its core, that health care reform legislation will put the government between us and our doctors. It will raise health care costs significantly. That is not me saying that, that is nonpartisan sources such as the Congressional Budget Office.

It will try to be ``paid for'' through a $\1/2\ trillion raid on Medicare, another $\1/2\ trillion set of tax increases. And, of course, that is the cause of pushing up health care costs. Then, to add insult to injury for so many Americans, including so many Louisianans, it will provide taxpayer funding of abortion.

It was truly a sad day for our country, in my opinion. But I take the floor today not so much to focus on that but to focus on the continuing fight and to focus on the future. My message is very simple. Speaking for one Senator, for myself, this fight is not over by a long shot. I will be on the floor regularly all this week fighting the separate reconciliation bill. Certainly, if any House Democrats thought all aspects of that bill would pass into law, to ``fix'' certain portions of the underlying Senate ObamaCare bill, I think this week they will be sadly disappointed.

There are many aspects of that bill that are subject to serious challenges that will require 60 votes, and will not get them here on the Senate floor. We will have a number of important debates and amendments.

I will also continue the fight to try to repeal this very counterproductive legislation. Today at 2 o'clock, as soon, as absolutely soon, as it was in order, I filed a bill to repeal ObamaCare, to repeal what has passed already through the process. I am joined with so many other Members, so many other Americans across the country to fight to that end, however long it takes. It may not be this Congress, but I believe that day will come, because the great majority of Americans, certainly including the great majority of Louisianans, want that to happen. They want us to act instead in a focused, positive way, attacking real problems with real solutions, not a 3,000-plus-page bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Hutchison and Landrieu be added as cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. President, in 2005 we passed the CF program, which is revenue sharing for States, for coastal conservation and other purposes. Unfortunately, that money has been very slow to get to States. Only 15 percent that was supposed to have been distributed by now has been. This amendment helps fix that. It does not spend new money, it does not increase the deficit.

I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Landrieu.

Mr. President, with regard to this technical point of order, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section 4(G)(3) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize S. Mark McCurry, who has served as parish administrator of Calcasieu Parish for more than 20 years. He will retire on April 3, 2010, and I would like to take some time to make a few remarks on his accomplishments and contributions to the Louisiana community.

Mr. McCurry started his career with Calcasieu parish as assistant administrator in 1976. In 1983 he was named Outstanding Young Man of Lake Charles, thus beginning a notable career as a public servant. Furthering his career with Calcasieu parish, in 1988 he became parish administrator, and he continued making great strides for the State of Louisiana. In 1999, Mr. McCurry was named Appointed Public Official of the Year by the Calcasieu Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers and in 2003 he was the recipient of the statewide Public Service Award given by the Louisiana Public Health Association.

In addition to his time as parish administrator, Mr. McCurry served Louisiana in many other arenas. He sat on the board of directors of First Federal Bank of Louisiana and was chair of the Board of Trustees of the United Methodist Foundation of Louisiana. He also presided as president of the Organization of Parish Administrative Officials of the Louisiana Police Jury Association.

Mr. McCurry has been credited with ``raising the level of professionalism in police jury affairs,'' as well as, ``making local governments work together more effectively.'' He has been a great asset for the State of Louisiana.

Thus, today, I am proud to honor a fellow Louisianan, Mr. S. Mark McCurry, for his distinguished service to Calcasieu Parish and to the State of Louisiana.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise to speak about Vitter amendment No. 3458. I hope, by the time I wrap up, the Members leading the discussion on this bill will be prepared to make the bill pending so I may also make my amendment pending.

This amendment is real simple. It is about the Coastal Impact Assistance Program, CIAP, which was established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This program is very important for energy-producing States. It takes some revenue from that energy production and leaves it in those States to deal with the impacts of energy production. The problem is, that funding was supposed to be distributed to these States from 2007 to 2010. The entirety of it was supposed to be distributed by and through this year. But that has not been happening at all because MMS has added an additional bureaucratic layer to getting funding out beyond that which was talked about and established in the statute.

My amendment is simple. It would get rid of that bureaucratic layer. It would still retain oversight. It would still retain all the protections of the statute, but it would streamline the process so this funding actually gets out to the States as intended. It is way behind. Rather than 100 percent being distributed to the States by this year, they have only distributed 15 percent. Obviously, we are way behind the 8 ball. We would accelerate that. Because this funding has already been allocated, this amendment does not cost anything, does not score. This is the same money that was allocated through the CIAP in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

This streamlines the process. This helps us get back on track in terms of distributing that vital money to coastal States. It doesn't cost anything because all that money was supposed to be distributed by this year anyway. This is important.

One of the crucial areas the Coastal Impact Assistance Program can help with in my State is related to hurricanes, all sorts of uses-- mitigation, emergency preparedness, hurricane evacuation routes related to hurricanes.

Yesterday, hurricane forecasters predicted, unfortunately, that 2010 is going to be a very severe hurricane season. We are preparing for that in any way we can. The fact that this CIAP funding has been blocked, has not gone to the coastal States, is a real problem in that regard. We need to do better. This amendment streamlines the process so we can do better.

This amendment also retains the oversight mechanism in the underlying bill. As the plain language of CIAP in the bill says, if the Secretary determines that any expenditure made by a producing State is not consistent with the underlying plan, then the State may not be disbursed any further funds until repayment of the unauthorized use of already obligated funds. Clearly, there is that mechanism for complete accountability.

In addition, a State CIAP plan has to be approved to begin with by MMS, and that has already occurred. This gets back to the intent of the statute. It gets back to the timeline of the statute. It streamlines that process so we can get on with it. One hundred percent of these funds were supposed to be

distributed by 2010 and, instead, we are at the 15 percent mark. That is simply not good enough when important use of this money is planned on by vulnerable States such as Louisiana.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside any pending business and to call up Vitter amendment No. 3458.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I have already discussed my amendment.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 3454 to Amendment No. 3452

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about what I believe should be our top priority, almost our exclusive focus in terms of immediate work, and that is the issue of jobs and the economy. Doing so, I applaud the fact that finally as a body we are somewhat focused on that. We are debating a bill having to do with job creation, economic growth. But at the same time, I find it unfortunate, really sad, that as we take up that top agenda item for the American people we do so by taking up a bill of the majority leader, which is fine, but in a way under which he completely shuts out any opportunity for amendment on the floor of the Senate.

Again, I find that process really unfair and unfortunate. The fact that every Republican idea, every Republican amendment is just being shut out is really frustrating, even angering to me as a Republican. But the issue isn't Republican and Democrat. The issue is what is good and right for the American people. The fact is that ideas and amendments on the Senate floor, which is supposed to be a place of unlimited debate, virtually unlimited ability to offer good ideas, to offer amendments, that is being completely subverted, and all amendments are being shut out.

Because of that, I am going to ask unanimous consent that we break out of that logjam, that we break out of that bitter partisanship and consider, with an open mind, one amendment I am bringing forward. But let me spend a few minutes outlining that amendment.

As we look on the job picture and the economy over the last year, as I talk about that job picture over the last year with folks in my State, I hear two dominant concerns. No. 1, we are still in a heck of a recession. The job creation that was promised a year ago with the stimulus just hasn't panned out. The promise of staying below 8 percent unemployment, minimizing that job loss, clearly, tragically, unfortunately never panned out. The President promised his stimulus would keep us below 8 percent. Unfortunately, as we all know, unemployment nationally went above 10 percent. Right now it still hovers near 10 percent, just a shade below that. And, again, unfortunately, the Federal Reserve has issued a report recently warning that sort of high level of unemployment would be with us for several years to come.

What I hear from Louisianans all around the State--and I would certainly trust what Members from every State of the Union hear in their home States--is that we need a better model to create jobs, to jump-start this economy, to get us out of this serious recession.

The other big theme and concern I hear all around Louisiana is: What are you all doing about this unsustainable level of spending and debt? I share that fear. I share that concern. Even as we struggle to get out of this recession--and we are not near there yet--I am fearful that the next economic crisis is coming based on spending and debt, unsustainable levels of spending and debt. We are near debt levels today comparable to where this Nation was at the end of World War II compared to GDP.

I don't like the idea of going into heavy debt for anything, but if we are going to do it as a nation, surely the reason we had with World War II, the need to build a modern Army overnight, unlike any military we had ever had before that, to defeat Hitler, to preserve freedom and democracy, literally our way of life, surely that reason is a pretty darn good one. That is why we as a nation went into debt, got up to 120 percent of GDP at the end of World War II.

The ``greatest generation'' that did that, that sacrificed and fought and won that war, turned around after the war and wiped away that debt, sent it down with great prosperity and fiscal restraint in the 1950s. But today we are nearing those same historic high levels of debt, with our overall debt now at about 100 percent of GDP, but, obviously, without the historical circumstances such as we had in World War II.

The other thing we don't have is that plan to get rid of it, that determination to reverse course and get our fiscal house in order because we don't have that plan either. In fact, we are in a huge fiscal debt hole, and we have not even stopped digging. In fact, the only thing this administration and this liberal Congress have done in the last year is to put down the shovel digging and used a backhoe instead, specifically to pass a budget that takes that historically high level of debt and doubles it in 5 years and triples it in 10 years.

In the face of those two enormous challenges, we need to create jobs much more effectively than we have in the last year, and we need to get spending and debt under control.

I proposed last March legislation that I and my cosponsors called the no-cost stimulus act. The no-cost stimulus act is about just that, creating great American jobs, stimulating the economy, helping us get out of this recession, using a fundamentally different model than the last year, at no cost to the taxpayer, not continuing to drop hard- earned taxpayer dollars out of helicopters--a fundamentally different approach at no cost to the taxpayer.

In fact, it will produce new Federal revenue and lower our level of deficit and debt.

How do we do that? We do it by focusing on our domestic energy sector, by opening access to domestic energy we have in great quantities in this country, by decreasing our reliance on foreign sources and creating great American jobs in the process. Again, we do this by opening access to our tremendous energy reserves we have.

We are the only country on Earth that has major, significant energy resources but that puts 95 percent of them off limits under Federal law and says: No, no, no, no, you cannot touch that. You cannot touch 95 percent of our domestic energy resources.

We need to change that both to improve our energy situation and to create good American jobs because the answer on the energy front is not either/or. It is not either drill for traditional sources, such as oil and gas, or develop new technology, new research and development. The American people know it is not either/or; it is all of the above, and we need to do all of the above aggressively.

This bill fits right into that commonsense, all-of-the-above mentality of the American people. We open access to domestic energy reserves. We produce

more energy here at home. In doing so, we grow great American jobs--2 million long-term, sustainable, well-paying jobs. In doing that, we increase GDP by as much as $10 trillion over the next 30 years.

But we accomplish even more. We lessen our dependence on foreign sources. We do not spend additional taxpayer dollars and go deeper into debt. By creating these jobs and domestic energy, we actually increase Federal revenue. Because what happens when we open our energy resources for production? That production comes online, royalty goes to the Federal Government--new Federal revenue--and we decrease deficit and debt. It truly is a win-win-win.

Part of that is also focusing on the nuclear side, developing what many folks, including the President, have talked about but which we have not accomplished yet: a true nuclear renaissance, a true streamlining of nuclear programs so we can dramatically increase that capacity, particularly producing electricity.

Finally, let me mention the other part of the win-win-win which is in this legislation. We devote some significant portion of the new, additional Federal revenue created to alternative energy research and development. So, again, it is not either/or; it is all of the above.

This proposal has significant support. I am very proud to say we now have 18 Senators who are coauthors of the proposal. There is a companion bill in the House with 50 coauthors there. So it is a significant proposal with significant support. It represents a win-win- win for the American people and the American economy in this time of serious recession.

So why shouldn't this be actively considered and debated and voted on, on the floor of the Senate? We are supposed to be considering a jobs bill. That is progress. At least, finally, we are focused on jobs. But why is every alternative, every amendment being shut out by the majority leader, including this valid alternative?

So in that vein, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer amendment No. 3318, which is filed at the desk.

Well, again, I came to the Senate hearing this was the body of full and open debate, full and open consideration of amendments. The problem is my experience here in 5 years has been anything but that, including yet again this week on this legislation, as we are trying to address the top issue of the American people: jobs and the economy.

Why can't we have a full debate? Why can't we have open consideration of amendments, including this alternative model to continuing to spend taxpayer dollars, increasing deficit and debt at an alarming rate. Again, I find it unfortunate that is the partisan procedural position we are in. But I will continue with my Senate coauthors, with the 50 House coauthors of this no-cost stimulus proposal to advance this idea as part of a reasonable solution to grow good jobs without having to spend another trillion dollars of hard-earned taxpayer dollars and increased deficit and debt.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the underwater operations industry, especially the Marine Technology Society and the Association of Diving Contractors International.

The Marine Technology Society was founded in 1963. Throughout its 40- plus years of existence, it has stayed true to its guiding purpose: ``to promote awareness, understanding, advancement and application of marine technology.'' Founded in 1968 the Association of Diving Contractors played an essential role in creating the first safety standards for commercial divers. The association today has member companies hailing from 41 different nations all pledging to abide by the ADCI Consensus Standards for Commercial Diving Operations.

The commercial underwater industry encompasses the support of deep sea divers, ROV operators, technical support, retail dealers, the shipping industry, the energy industry, universities, research facilities, equipment manufacturers, families, and a support system that extends to all avenues of the labor market. This diverse community and unique segment of industry work tirelessly toward maintaining and supporting safe underwater operations throughout the world. The commercial underwater industry affects the development of dams, bridges, oil platforms, pipelines, underwater, geological research, outer space, and even the entertainment industry.

The industry is especially vital to Louisiana. From our seafood industry to one of the Nation's largest provider of offshore energy, our waterways and shorelines are of great importance to our economy. Underwater operations allow these industries to run smoothly.

Underwater operations conducted from the deepest seas to inland waterways throughout the world are a vital component in ongoing industrial development globally. It is important that Federal and State government and citizens worldwide recognize the value of the underwater operations industry to the continued progress of humanity.

Thus, today, I am proud to applaud such an important industry, and thank them for their contributions to the State of Louisiana, our Nation, and the rest of the world.